Cupertino City Council
June 3, 2025

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference Tuesday, June 3, 2025
6:45 PM
Televised Regular City Council Meeting (6:45)

IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall
2) E-mail comments by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be received by each City Councilmember, the City Manager, and the City Clerk’s Office. Comments on non-agenda items sent to any other email address will be included upon the sender's request.

Emailed comments received following the agenda publication, prior to or during the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Meeting as follows:

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

Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda item.

1 CC 06-03-2025
1 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves.

Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments.
3) Teleconferencing Instructions
To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:

Online
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vun2Qk36TTKIIAR-15YyUA Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 817 4634 0043 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.

Join from an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 817 4634 0043
SIP: [email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please read the following instructions carefully:

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

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

2 CC 06-03-2025
2 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025

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

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

5. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting. These documents will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Proclamation recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month
A - Proclamation

PRESENTATIONS

2. Subject: Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (SCCFSC) presentation on SCCFSC's history, programs, technologies, and Firewise USA
Recommended Action: Receive the presentation from Santa Clara County FireSafe Council

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda for discussion. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A councilmember may, however, briefly

3 CC 06-03-2025
3 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A councilmember may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3-5)
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine City business and may be approved by one motion. Typical items may include meeting minutes, awards of contracts, the ratification of accounts payable, and second readings of ordinances. Any member of the Council may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar based on the rules set forth in the City Council Procedures Manual. Members of the public may provide input on one or more consent calendar items when the Mayor asks for public comments on the Consent Calendar.

3. Subject: Approval of May 15, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 15, 2025 City Council meeting minutes A - Draft Minutes

4. Subject: Approval of May 20, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 20, 2025 City Council meeting minutes A - Draft Minutes

5. Subject: Second reading of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading."
A - Draft Ordinance

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Government Code Section 65103.5 limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under Govt. Code Section 65103.5 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.

6. Subject: Approval of renewal of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee (with no increase) and renewal of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38% increase.

4 CC 06-03-2025
4 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Recommended Action: Adopt:

1. Resolution No. 25-036 (Attachment B) approving the renewal and collection of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38% increase in rates for FY 2025-

26. 2. Resolution No. 25-037 (Attachment A) approving the renewal and collection of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee with no increase in rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.

Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution 1992 Fee
B - Draft Resolution 2019 Fee
C - Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Ordinance with Fee Report D- Calendar Year 2022 AUP
E- Calendar Year 2023 AUP
F - Calendar Year 2024 AUP

7. Subject: Amend Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt CAL FIRE's recommendations for Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 of the Municipal Code to update a reference to the updated map.

Recommended Action: Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-2272“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter

16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 to update a reference to the updated map”.

Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B – Letter from CAL FIRE
D – Existing Chapter 16.74
C – CAL FIRE recommended LRA map for Cupertino
E – Summary of Public Comments
F – CAL FIRE Frequently Asked Questions Memo

8. Subject: Consideration of Recommended Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, Adoption of the Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for FY 2025-26, Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions; Direction on past and current City Work Program and FY 2024-25 Special Projects

5 CC 06-03-2025
5 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-038 establishing an Operating Budget of $131,838,401 for FY 2025-26, which includes the following changes to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2025:
a. Approve the operating budget of $131,772,435, outlined in the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget.
b. Approve a reduction in revenues of $1,500,000 for transfers in to Fund 580 ($500,000) and Fund 610 ($1,000,000) from the General Fund. c. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($63,733) due to the elimination of the proposed part-time Economic Development Analyst.
d. Approve additional appropriations of $146,710 for a proposed Administrative Assistant position in the City Clerk’s division to assist with all current and future hybrid Commissions and Committees meetings.
e. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($17,011) due to the elimination of the proposed Assistant Director of Administrative Services
f. Approve any other recommended changes as directed by City Council

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-039 establishing a Capital Improvement Program Budget of $4,225,000 for FY 2025-26.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 25-040 amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program
a. Senior Business Systems Analyst Position Description; and b. Code Enforcement Supervisor Position Description

4. Adopt Resolution No. 25-041 amending the Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA) Memorandum of Understanding
a. Assistant Housing Coordinator Position Description

5. Adopt Resolution No. 25-042 establishing an Appropriation Limit of $141,134,546 for FY 2025-26

6. Provide direction on any remaining past and current City Work Program currently budget and FY 2024-25 Special Projects

7. Approve Resolution 25-043 and Budget modification number 2425-393 to reduce expenditures by $326,266, in the General Fund to defund three special projects and two City Work Programs

6 CC 06-03-2025
6 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Staff Report
A – Draft Resolution – Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 B – Draft Resolution – Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 C – Draft Resolution – Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2025-26 D - Budget Adjustments Summary and Detail
E – Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2025-26
F – Appropriation Limit Price and Population Factors for Fiscal Year 2025-26 G – Proposed Budget Study Session Supplemental Report
H – Planning Commission Adopted Resolution
I - Adopted FY 2025-27 City Work Program Budget Details J – Code Enforcement Supervisor Position Description
K - Senior Business Systems Analyst Position Description L – Assistant Housing Coordinator Position Description
M – Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program (Redline) N – Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program (Clean) O - UNREP Salary Schedule (Redline)
P - UNREP Salary Schedule (Clean)
Q – UNREP Salary Effective 7.01.2023
R – Draft Resolution Amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program S – CEA Local 21 Employees’ Compensation Program (Redline) T – CEA Local 21 Employees’ Compensation Program (Clean) U – CEA Local 21 Salary Effective 7.01.2023
V – Draft Resolution Amending the CEA Local 21 Employees’ Memorandum of Understanding W - All Other Department Requests
X - City Council Special Project Policy
Y - All Special Projects from FY25 Q3
Z – CWP Status Updates from FY25 Q3
AA - Current CWP Status Updates for FY 23-25
AB – Ongoing Special Projects from FY25 Q3
AC– Maintenance and Equipment Purchase Special Projects from FY25 Q3 AD – Development Special Projects from FY25 Q3
AE – Special Projects as Defined in City Council Special Projects Policy AF – Draft Resolution to Defund Special Projects

ACTION CALENDAR

9. Subject: Consider the potential purchase of and appoint a negotiator for 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School
Recommended Action: Appoint the Interim City Attorney and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the Superintendent of the Cupertino Unified School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number 375-40-067, from Cupertino Unified School District on terms established by the City Council

7 CC 06-03-2025
7 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Staff Report
A - Preliminary Environmental Assessment (September 2015) B - Supplemental Site Investigation (November 2015)
C - School Cleanup Agreement with DTSC (June 2017)
D - Removal Action Workplan (January 2018)
E - Hazardous Materials Management Report (June 2018)

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY MANAGER REPORT

10. Subject: City Manager Report
A - City Manager Report

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

11. Subject: Councilmember Reports
A - Councilmember Report, Fruen
B - Councilmember Report, Mohan
C - Councilmember Report, Wang

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
The Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report is a tentative council meeting agenda calendar that lists upcoming City Council meeting dates and tentative agenda items, all of which are subject to change.

12. Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
A - Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report

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

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

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

8 CC 06-03-2025
8 of 1012
City Council Agenda June 3, 2025
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

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

9 CC 06-03-2025
9 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13638 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Proclamation recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month Present proclamation recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 10
CC 06-03-2025
10 of 1012

Proclamation
WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino, which is committed to being welcoming and inclusive of all people regardless of their sexual orientation, wishes to celebrate and proclaim June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) Pride Month in Cupertino; and WHEREAS, June has been recognized as LGBTQ Pride Month since 1970, however, the LGBTQ+ community has been fighting for basic civil and human rights since the 1960s; and
WHEREAS, While considerable progress has been made, unacceptable systemic discrimination and violence continue to threaten LGBTQ+ community members, disproportionately impacting marginalized racial and gender minorities; and
WHEREAS, Courageous LGBTQI+ Americans continue to enrich every aspect of American life—as civil servants, peace officers, first responders, service members, and veterans; as educators, scholars, and scientists; as doctors and diplomats; and as artists, actors, entertainers, athletes, entrepreneurs, and so much more; and WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino stands alongside the LGBTQ+ community and demands equal rights for all, promoting a world in which everyone can live free from discrimination and violence; and WHEREAS, The City Council dedicates the month of June to our LGBTQ+ family, friends, and neighbors, and recognize that Cupertino is blessed and enriched by the diversity of our community.

THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby Proclaim the month of June 2025 as
LGBTQ+ Pride Month
and encourage the community to support all people with equity and inclusion, and to treat others with mutual respect and understanding in the City of Cupertino and in our country.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, June Third, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five. ____________________________
The Honorable Liang Chao
Mayor, City of Cupertino
11 CC 06-03-2025
11 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14023 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (SCCFSC) presentation on SCCFSC's history, programs, technologies, and Firewise USA
Receive the presentation from Santa Clara County FireSafe Council CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 12
CC 06-03-2025
12 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13993 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Approval of May 15, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Approve the May 15, 2025 City Council meeting minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 13
CC 06-03-2025
13 of 1012

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, May 15, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(b)(2) Sheraton Stockholm, Tegelbacken 6, 101 23, 101 23 Stockholm, Sweden, Hotel Lobby.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan, and R “Ray” Wang (participated remotely). Absent: None.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY - None

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Wang moved and Moore seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Wang. Noes: Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

1. Subject: Accept City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding the 2025 July 4th fireworks
Recommended Action: Accept the City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding the 2025 July 4th fireworks
Written communications for this item included emails to Council.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
14 CC 06-03-2025
14 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 15, 2025

2. Subject: Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts. (Continued from May 6, 2025)
Recommended Action: Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.

Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro and Human Resources Manager Vanessa Guerra gave a presentation.

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

Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Planning Commissioner Seema Lindskog (representing self) Mayor Chao closed the public hearing.

Moore requested an informational memorandum detailing when the vacancy recruitments were posted, including those from 2022 and 2023.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Moore moved and Wang seconded to receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes:

Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

ACTION CALENDAR

3. Subject: Per the Council's direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list. (Continued from May 6, 2025) Recommended Action: City Council shall consider:

A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to the Council.

Public Works Director Chad Mosley and CIP Project Manager Susan Michael gave a 15 CC 06-03-2025
15 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 15, 2025

presentation.

At 6:38 p.m. Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 6:44 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

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

Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Herve Marcy (representing self) Jean Bedord
Jennifer Griffin
Evan Lojewski
Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Betsy Megas
Planning Commissioner Seema Lindskog (representing self) Jennifer Shearin
Louise Saadati
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Seema Swamy (representing self) Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

Councilmember Fruen stated that, based on prior advice from the City Attorney and due to his financial interest in property at 6445–6447 Bollinger Road, which would be impacted in value by the Bollinger Road Corridor Study, he would recuse from the discussion.

At 7:21 p.m., Councilmember Fruen left the meeting.

Council deliberated on the Bollinger Road Corridor Study (Fruen recused).

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Wang moved and Moore seconded to defund the Bollinger Road Corridor Study. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang.

Noes: Mohan. Recuse: Fruen. Absent: None.

At 7:41 p.m. Councilmember Fruen rejoined the meeting.

Council deliberated on the other projects on the CIP list (excluding Bollinger Road Corridor Study).

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
16 CC 06-03-2025
16 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 15, 2025

MOTION: Moore moved and Wang seconded to defund the Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking, subject to identifying alternative locations. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain:

None. Absent: None.

MOTION: Wang moved to defund the Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway Phase 2A and Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway Phase 2B. There was no second and the motion was not considered.

At 8:12 p.m. Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:18 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

STUDY SESSION

4. Subject: Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Proposed Budget and FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs
Recommended Action: Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Proposed Budget and FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and desk item report with staff answers to councilmember questions.

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

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Seema Swamy, speaking on behalf of the Commission, provided an update on the community grant funding process.

Council conducted the Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Proposed Budget and FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs.

Council provided the following direction:
• Unanimously supported including a staff proposal in the budget for funding a position to assist with hybrid commission meetings.

Councilmembers requested staff follow-up on the following items:
 Chao and Moore: Supported exploring a citywide traffic study; requested an 17 CC 06-03-2025
17 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 15, 2025

informational memorandum evaluating process to collect data such as traffic counts, flow, and speed surveys, along with proposed scope and cost.  Moore: Requested historical data on the City's vacancy rates.  Chao: Requested information about staffing trends, historical vs. current staffing levels.
 Moore: Look into discontinuing the remaining $100,000 in funding for Rise engagement project work program item.
 Moore: Requested clearer accounting on Sister City Program, facility use, and free use of City facilities; requested review of agreements governing use of City property.
• Chao: Requested consideration of adding a "nonprofit support" section in the budget to show the actual costs associated with each supported nonprofit.  Wang: Requested clearer distinctions between resident and non-resident benefits in the fee schedule; requested a report/informational memo on the fee schedule’s history and structure, with comparisons.
 Chao: Requested information on Blackberry Farm Pool summer staffing for potential reopening for July 4 and impacts of decreased part-time staffing; and whether the staffing shortage is due to reduced summer programs.  Moore: Requested information on the $1.5 million budget transfers-in for accounts -610 and -580 and report back.
 Wang and Chao: Requested an update on Active Transportation Plan (ATP) progress and expenditures; provide spending data and return to Council for direction before the consultant prepares the full analysis.  Moore and Chao: Requested information on how to discontinue outdated work program items; review policies, including carryover policy, to evaluate ongoing project funding.

ADJOURNMENT
At 10:08 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

Minutes prepared by:
___________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
18 CC 06-03-2025
18 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13591 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 4.

Subject: Approval of May 20, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Approve the May 20, 2025 City Council meeting minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 19
CC 06-03-2025
19 of 1012

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 20, 2025

REGULAR MEETING
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Regular City Council Meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan, and R “Ray” Wang. Absent: None.

In open session prior to closed session, Mayor Chao opened the public comment period regarding any items on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak and Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954(c) and 54956.9(e)(1): (1 case)
Council met with legal counsel regarding the anticipated litigation (1 case).

At 6:57 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting.

OPEN SESSION
At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Chao reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting in open session and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen, Sheila 20 CC 06-03-2025
20 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

Mohan, and R “Ray” Wang. Absent: None.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Floy Andrews reported on the closed session held at 6:00 p.m. There was no reportable action.

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

2. Subject: Recognition of Public Works Week from May 18-24, 2025 Recommended Action: Recognize Public Works Week from May 18-24, 2025 Mayor Chao recognized Public Works Week from May 18-24, 2025.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY
MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to reorder the agenda to move Item 21 Study Session before Item 20 Third Quarter Financial Report. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications for this item included emails to the Council.

The following members of the public spoke:

Jean Bedord discussed the process for posting written communications for City Council meetings.

Planning Commissioner San Rao (representing self) discussed defunding Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects.

Rhoda Fry discussed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3-17)
Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke.

Jean Bedord (Item 9)
21 CC 06-03-2025
21 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Wang moved and Moore seconded to approve Items 3-16 on the Consent Calendar.

The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang.

Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and
MOTION: Wang moved and Chao seconded to approve Item 17 on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Mohan and Fruen. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

3. Subject: Approval of July 9, 2024 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the July 9, 2024 City Council meeting minutes

4. Subject: Approval of April 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the April 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Written communications for this item included a supplemental report and Attachment B - Amended Draft Minutes.

5. Subject: Approval of May 2, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 2, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Written communications for this item included a supplemental report and Attachment B - Amended Draft Minutes.

6. Subject: Approval of May 6, 2025 Special City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 6, 2025 Special City Council meeting minutes

7. Subject: Approval of May 6, 2025 Regular City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 6, 2025 Regular City Council meeting minutes

8. Subject: Consider setting a hearing date of June 17, 2025 to declare brush with potential fire hazard a public nuisance and consider objections to proposed removal through the Cupertino Brush Abatement Program (Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area); and consider adopting a resolution declaring properties as having potential fire hazards from brush a public nuisance and authorizing removal (Postponed on March 4, 2025) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No 25-029 declaring properties as having 22 CC 06-03-2025
22 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

potential fire hazards from brush a public nuisance; and set a hearing date of June 17, 2025 to declare brush with potential fire hazard a public nuisance and to hear objections to proposed removal

9. Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending April 11, 2025 and April 25, 2025
Recommended Action: A. Adopt Resolution No. 25-030 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending April 11, 2025; and
B. Adopt Resolution No. 25-031 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending April 25, 2025

10. Subject: Accept the City's Investment Policy
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-032 accepting the City's Investment Policy

11. Subject: Award a contract to Lisa Molaro dba MudnStix, a sole proprietor/individual, for Ceramics and Art Instruction for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,025,000.

Recommended Action: 1. Award a five-year contract to Lisa Molaro dba MudnStix to provide Ceramics and Art Instruction at the Wilson Park Building in the amount not to exceed $205,000 per year, totaling $1,025,000; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Lisa Molaro dba MudnStix when all conditions have been met.

12. Subject: Award a contract to Dan Gertmenian dba Dynamic Teaching, a sole proprietor/individual, for Math Olympiads Instruction for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,480,000.

Recommended Action: 1. Award a five-year contract to Dan Gertmenian to provide Math Olympiads Instruction in the amount not to exceed $296,000 per year, totaling $1,480,000; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Dan Gertmenian when all conditions have been met.

13. Subject: Authorize OpenGov renewal contract for budgeting, performance, communications, and reporting software for a total amount of $222,401 over three years Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with OpenGov, Inc. to renew a contract for budgeting, performance, communications, and reporting software for a total amount of $222,401 over three years.

14. Subject: Acceptance of donation from the Houston Living Trust in the amount of $70,000 for the Cupertino Senior Center.

Recommended Action: Authorize the City of Cupertino to accept a $70,000 monetary 23 CC 06-03-2025
23 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

donation from the Houston Living Trust for the Cupertino Senior Center in accordance with the City's Donation Policy.

Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions.

15. Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/2026 projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by Senate Bill (SB) 1.

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-033 (Attachment A) establishing a list of projects proposed to be funded by $1,583,075 of SB 1 revenues, estimated to be received in FY 2025/2026
Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions.

16. Subject: Summary Vacation of a Portion of Street Along 21831 Hermosa Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-034 summarily vacating a portion of street along 21831 Hermosa Avenue
Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions.

17. Subject: Accept Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding SB 753, SB 79, AB 650, AB 340, AB 648, and SB 501
Recommended Action: Accept the Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding the following:

1. Support SB 753 (Cortese)

2. Oppose SB 79 (Weiner)

3. Support AB 650 (Papan)

4. Oppose AB 340 (Ahrens)

5. Oppose AB 648 (Zbur)

6. Support SB 501 (Allen)
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None

ACTION CALENDAR

18. Subject: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building

1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California 24 CC 06-03-2025
24 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

(Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) (Continued from May 6, 2025)
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-027 approving the First Addendum to an EIR and approving the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024- 003); and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-028 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation, developer presentation, supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions, and emails to the Council.

Councilmembers disclosed any ex parte communications prior to deliberation in this matter.

Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.

Balint Simsik, Senior Vice President of Development with Related California, and Terry Ervin, Vice President Operations at Oakmont Senior Living, gave a presentation.

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

Nick
Ruben Galvan, representing Norcal Carpenters Union
Jennifer Griffin
Richard Adler
Jean Bedord
Lisa Warren
Rhoda Fry
Planning Commissioner San Rao (representing self)
Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham (representing self) Planning Commissioner Seema Lindskog (representing self) Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

AMENDED MOTION: Fruen moved an amended motion to approve the staffrecommended action with the following changes:

1. Amend the Resolution for M-2024-003 at Section 3, Clause 8, entitled “Retail/Parkland In-Lieu Dedication Fee” to replace the existing text and to read as follows:
25 CC 06-03-2025
25 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

a. Applicant may increase the proposed retail square footage to 6,500 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 2,500 squarefoot retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the amount of $3 million, with said refund to be made at the time of issuance of building permit, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

2. “Retail” here shall consist of the same retail uses as defined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan and shall be a “public accommodation or facility” as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code section 19955.

3. Authorize the Director of Community Development to approve modifications to the project plans reasonably necessary to accommodate the additional ground floor retail square footage pursuant to the amendment in 1.a. above, including, but not limited to a square footage increase in the floor area at level 6 of the building.

4. Require the City Attorney to make such changes to the Resolutions for M-2024-003 and ASA-2024-003 to give effect to the amendment in 1.a. above and to avoid internal inconsistencies and to confirm the process for effectuating any refund necessary within fourteen (14) days of the adoption of this Resolution.

Fruen’s amended motion did not have a second and it was not considered.

MOTION: Chao and Wang seconded the Recommended Action on the agenda to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-027 approving the First Addendum to an EIR and approving the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024- 003); and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-028 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).

AMENDMENT: Chao amended the motion as follows:
 Strike Condition 8 in the Draft Resolution for M-2024-003:

8. RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).
 Authorize the Director of Community Development to approve modifications to the project plans as reasonably necessary, in line with what Council acts on today. (Wang accepted the amendment).

Chao’s amended motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Wang. Noes: Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
26 CC 06-03-2025
26 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

19. Subject: Introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status (Continued from May 6, 2025)
Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading." Written communications for this item included a Desk item report Attachment C - Amended Draft Ordinance (redline) and Attachment D - Amended Draft Ordinance (clean).

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

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded as amended to:

Introduce Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading;" as amended to include the modified version of the language in the Desk Item Report Attachment C - Amended Draft Ordinance (redline).

The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Wang. and Mohan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

STUDY SESSION

21. Subject: Study Session regarding possible reactivation of and appropriate scope for the Environmental Review Committee (“ERC”) and the Legislative Review Committee (“LRC”), and possibly amending the scope of the Audit Committee Recommended Action: 1. Environmental Review Committee: Direct the Planning Commission to consider re-enacting the ERC and establishing its appropriate scope of review for recommendation to the City Council.

2. Legislative Review Committee: Direct the current limited scope and limited duration Ad Hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee to consider reenacting the standing Legislative Review Committee and establishing an appropriate scope of review for recommendation to the City Council.

3. Audit Committee: Direct the Audit Committee to consider amending its scope of 27 CC 06-03-2025
27 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

review for recommendation to the City Council
As noted under Postponements and Orders of the Day, this item was moved before Item

20. Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Jennifer Griffin
Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Chao and Moore seconded to:

1. Environmental Review Committee: Direct the Planning Commission to consider re-enacting the ERC and establishing its appropriate scope of review for recommendation to the City Council.

2. Legislative Review Committee: Direct the current limited scope and limited duration Ad Hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee to consider reenacting the standing Legislative Review Committee and establishing an appropriate scope of review for recommendation to the City Council.

3. Audit Committee: Direct the Audit Committee to consider amending its scope of review for recommendation to the City Council
The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Wang. and Mohan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

At 9:47 p.m. Mayor Chao recessed the meeting and Councilmember Wang left the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 9:53 p.m. with Wang absent.

20. Subject: Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-035 approving Budget Modification No. 2425-390, decreasing appropriations by $(157,425) and increasing estimated revenues by $5,411,435.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation, revised staff presentation, supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions, Attachment H – Updated Special Projects - Based on Special Project Policy, Amended 28 CC 06-03-2025
28 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

Attachment B - Draft Resolution Exhibit A, Amended Attachment D – Description of Carryovers and Adjustments as of March 31, 2025, and Attachment I - Amended Staff Report Third Quarter Adjustments Table.

As noted under Postponements and Orders of the Day, this item was moved after Item

21. Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro and Acting Budget Manager Toni Oasay-Anderson gave a presentation.

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

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

MOTION: Mohan and Chao seconded to:

1. Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-035 approving Budget Modification No. 2425-390, decreasing appropriations by $(157,425) and increasing estimated revenues by $5,411,435.

The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Mohan. Noes:

None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wang.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR – None

CITY MANAGER REPORT

22. Subject: City Manager Report
Acting City Manager Tina Kapoor conducted the City Manager’s Report.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED – None

ADJOURNMENT
At 10:28 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting. There was no Council discussion on the remaining agenda items.

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

23. Subject: Councilmember Reports
29 CC 06-03-2025
29 of 1012
City Council Minutes May 20, 2025

Councilmembers reported on their various committees and events as provided in the published agenda.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
The Council did not hear this item.

24. Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
A tentative council meeting agenda calendar was provided in the published agenda.

Minutes prepared by:
___________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
30 CC 06-03-2025
30 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13925 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 5.

Subject: Second reading of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status
Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading."
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 31
CC 06-03-2025
31 of 1012
01276.0001 2007095.1
ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010,

PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSIONS AND REGULAR MEETINGS
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code currently sets a fixed start time of 6:00 p.m. for City Council closed sessions held on regular meeting days; and WHEREAS, often the City Council needs more time to discuss the agendized matters than the 30-40 minutes currently provided by the codified start time of 6:00pm; and WHEREAS, it is preferable that the City Council have the flexibility to begin closed sessions earlier than 6:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to improve closed session flexibility by setting a suggested start time of 5:30 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code does not currently clarify that meetings moved because of a holiday or Cupertino elections are regular meetings of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to confirm that rescheduled meetings due to holidays or elections remain regular meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown below. Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance. Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code.
///
32 CC 06-03-2025
32 of 1012
Closed Session Time Update and Regular Meeting Confirmation - Page 2 01276.0001 2007095.1
“Sec. 2.04.010 Regular Meetings.

The City Council shall hold regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at six forty-five p.m. and may adjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so adjourned, such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. Such adjourned meetings may likewise be adjourned and any so adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. The City Council may cancel a regular meeting by a vote of a majority of the Council.

On regular meeting days, the City Council shall reserve the time beginning at five-thirty p.m. for closed sessions.

City Council meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day and shall be regular meetings.

City Council meetings that fall on any Election Tuesday in a regular Cupertino election year shall automatically be moved to the first Monday of the month and shall be regular meetings.”
SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions. ///
33 CC 06-03-2025
33 of 1012
Closed Session Time Update and Regular Meeting Confirmation - Page 3 01276.0001 2007095.1
SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action to remove the fixed start time for closed session items on regular meeting days and the rescheduled meetings shall continue to be considered regular meetings would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because it is a procedural change that does not result in a physical change to the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
///
///
///
///
///
34 CC 06-03-2025
34 of 1012
Closed Session Time Update and Regular Meeting Confirmation - Page 4 01276.0001 2007095.1
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 20, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on June 3, 2025 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
________________________
Date
35 CC 06-03-2025
35 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13653 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 6.

Subject: Approval of renewal of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee (with no increase) and renewal of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38% increase.

Adopt:

1. Resolution No. 25-036 (Attachment B) approving the renewal and collection of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38% increase in rates for FY 2025-26.

2. Resolution No. 25-037 (Attachment A) approving the renewal and collection of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee with no increase in rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™ 36
CC 06-03-2025
36 of 1012

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 3, 2025
Subject
Approve the renewal of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee (with no increase) and renewal of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38% increase.

Recommended Action
Adopt:

1. Resolution No. 25-XXX (Attachment B) approving the renewal and collection of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.38 % increase in rates for FY 2025-26.

2. Resolution No. 25-XXX (Attachment A) approving the renewal and collection of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee with no increase in rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.

Executive Summary
The City is subject to regulations implemented locally by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board) through the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, commonly referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP.) In order to provide the services and resources necessary to meet MRP requirements, the City has established two property-based fees to help cover the costs of compliance. These two fees are the 1992 Storm Drainage Service Charge Fee (1992 Fee) that is $12 per year for a singlefamily home, and the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee (2019 Fee) that is approximately $47 per year for an average single-family home. The fees must be renewed every year by the City Council and appear on property tax bills. The 2019 Fee can be increased by CPI up to a maximum of 3% in any single year, however the 1992 Fee has no mechanism to enable an increase. Given the need for ongoing compliance and infrastructure repair, staff recommends an increase at CPI of 2.38% which will generate approximately $27,513 more revenue and cost the average homeowner an additional $1.12 per year. The fees are billed via property tax bills or billed directly as necessary.
37 CC 06-03-2025
37 of 1012
Background
In 1992, the City established the 1992 Storm Drain Fee to help cover the cost of complying with stormwater pollution prevention permit requirements that were then in effect. Permit requirements continued to increase, and revenue from the 1992 fees were no longer covering costs. The 2019 Fee, a property-related fee subject to Proposition 218, was approved by Cupertino property owners in 2019 and was authorized by Council on July 17, 2019, for inclusion on the 2019-2020 Property Tax bills. The fees must be renewed every year following review by the City Council. The last renewal was brought to the City Council on June 4, 2024, with approval of the 1992 Fee at no increase and approval of the 2019 Fee at a 2.62% increase. Given the ongoing cost of MRP compliance and the need for infrastructure repairs, staff recommends increasing the 2019 Fee for 2025-2026 at the calculated CPI of 2.38%.

Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
City of Cupertino’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program The City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (also known as the Nonpoint Source Program) is mandated by the State of California (State) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations implementing the Federal Clean Water Act. Regulations by the EPA and the State require cities to take specific actions to eliminate or control pollutants in water that belongs to the State. These regulations are implemented locally by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board) through the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, commonly referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP.) Additional details of the City’s compliance activities are provided in the Engineer’s Report (Exhibit A to each of the resolutions located in Attachments A and B).

Information about the City’s stormwater pollution prevention program is also available at www.cupertino.org/cleanwater, which includes links to a variety of resources and guidance including an interactive creek map, a link to the City’s most recent annual report submitted as required to the Water Board, information for developers and contractors, and education on less toxic pest control.

Two property-based fees have been established to help cover the costs of compliance:
1992 Storm Drainage Service Charge Fee (1992 Fee)
In 1992, the City established the 1992 Fee to help cover the cost of complying with stormwater pollution prevention requirements that were then in effect. The 1992 Fee is applied to each property in the City, with exceptions for those owned by certain entities, such as properties owned by the government, utility agencies, and schools, which were exempt under the laws at the time the fee was approved. The fee is collected by the Santa Clara County Tax Collector on behalf of the City and is subject to annual review by the City Council. The Fee consisted of three rates, which were based on type of land 38 CC 06-03-2025
38 of 1012
use of each parcel as follows: 1) $12 for residential parcels; 2) $144/acre for apartments, commercial and industrial parcels; and 3) $36/acre for unimproved and recreational parcels.

The Fee has no mechanism to enable an annual increase. As such, the revenue collected from the 1992 Fee has not increased since it was established and has remained at approximately $375,000 per year. However, regulatory requirements, stormwater system maintenance expenses, wages, and permit fees have not remained static since 1992, and the cost of compliance has risen over the years. When the first MRP was approved and implemented in 2009, and again when the second permit was adopted in 2015, permit requirements increased significantly. The third reissuance of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0) was adopted on May 11, 2022, with an effective date of July 1, 2022, and further increased requirements. In 2019, The cost of compliance significantly exceeded the revenues from the 1992 fee and was creating a draw upon the City’s General Fund by over $600,000 per year. Renewal of the 1992 Fee is recommended in FY 2025-26.
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee (2019 Fee)
The 2019 Fee, a property-related fee subject to Proposition 218, was approved by Cupertino property owners in 2019 and was authorized by Council on July 17, 2019, for inclusion on the 2019-2020 Property Tax bills. The 2019 Fee was calculated starting from the average acreage of a median single-family residential parcel and a benchmark amount of impervious surface. Details of the rate structure analysis can be found in the Fee Report attached to the 2019 Fee Ordinance (Attachment C).

The 2019 Fee may be increased annually by Council to meet expenses of the Nonpoint Source Program. The potential increase is tied to the annual change in Consumer Price Index (CPI) as of December each year, up to a maximum of 3% in any single year. The CPI change and fee impact is shown in the table below.

CPI change for
the period
December 2023 to
December 2024
Additional revenue the CPI
increase will generate
Fee increase for medium
residential parcel per year

2.38% $27,513 $1.12
Current rates and the proposed increased rates for a medium sized parcel (the most common single-family parcel size) are shown in the tables below. 39 CC 06-03-2025
39 of 1012
Current Annual Rates:

40 CC 06-03-2025
40 of 1012
Annual Rates With 2.38% Increase:

Single-Family Residential *
Small (Under 0.13 acre) $ 39.58 per parcel
Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre) $ 48.07 per parcel
Large 0.23 to 0.40 acre) $ 60.15 per parcel
Extra Large (over 0.40 acre) $ 115.15 per parcel
Condominium 1 (1 story) $ 39.58 per parcel
Condominium 2+ (2+ stories) $ 12.97 per parcel
Non-Single-Family Residential **
Multi-Family Residential $ 33.42 per 0.1 acre
Commercial / Retail / Industrial $ 43.70 per 0.1 acre
Office $ 33.42 per 0.1 acre
Church / Institutional $ 28.28 per 0.1 acre
School (w/playfield) $ 20.56 per 0.1 acre
Park $ 7.72 per 0.1 acre
Vacant (developed) $ 2.58 per 0.1 acre
Open Space / Agricultural
* Single-Family Residential category also includes du- tri- and four-plex units ** Non-SFR parcels are charge per the tenth of an acre or portion thereof *** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-singlefamily properties.

Land Use Category Fee
no charge
Low Impact Development Adjustment *** 25% Fee Reduction 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Incentive Programs The City continues to offer the cost-share program for low-income residents. Eligible residents will receive a 20% reduction in their annual fee. The cost-share program is funded by the General Fund because revenues from the 2019 Fee are restricted from being used for a cost-share (e.g., funding a reduced rate for others property owners). An online application form is available1 and applicants are also welcome to call 408-777- 3236 or email staff for assistance at [email protected].

Fee Reduction for Commercial and Multi-family Low Impact Design Features As allowed by the 2019 Fee Ordinance, 267 commercial and multi-family properties that had already installed low-impact design (LID) elements such as bioswales, capture basins, and bioretention facilities, were assigned a 25% fee reduction, consistent with the fee schedule, after the fee was adopted. Installation of new LID features under the requirements of C.3 in the MRP (stormwater treatment measures in new development 1 Cupertino.org/watercostshare
41 CC 06-03-2025
41 of 1012
and redevelopment projects) qualifies additional properties for the same reduction.

There is no change to this fee reduction for qualifying properties.

Audit and Review of Programs
Pursuant to the 2019 Fee Ordinance, expenses and revenues are audited annually by an independent auditor. The final AUP reports for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 are attached as Attachment D, E, and F and no exceptions were noted.

Sustainability Impact
The 1992 Fee and 2019 Fee support water pollution prevention and water conservation (NPDES) activities. Significant sustainability benefits include the reduction or elimination of pollutant discharges, which could degrade local creeks and threaten the supply of clean water, as well as the capture of rainwater, which can be used as a resource. Green Stormwater Infrastructure uses engineered features to mimic natural processes that allow stormwater to infiltrate the groundwater system instead of entering the storm drain system, enhancing climate change resilience.

Fiscal Impact
The combined revenues from the 1992 Fee and 2019 Fee generate approximately $375,000 and $1.15M per year respectively, received into Fund 230 Environmental Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain. Projected expenses by the end of the fiscal year are expected to come in under the approved budget, but will exceed the revenues generated by the 1992 Fee and the 2019 Fee as shown in the table below. The proposed budget for FY 2025-26 as shown in the table reflects full staffing, adjusted staffing allocations, maintenance projects on aging infrastructure for storm protection, installation of drain inlet treatments, and the other activities that ensure compliance with the MRP.

Nonpoint Source Program Revenue and Expenses
FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 (proposed)
Fund Balance (previous FY) $729,027 $373,587
Revenue 1992 Fee $375, 263 $375,263
Revenue 2019 Fee (on tax roll) $1,059,353 $1,059,353
Revenue 2019 Fee (manually billed) $96,650 $96,650
CPI increase to 2019 Fee Included above $27,513
Total Program Funding $2,260,292 $1,932,365
Program Expenses (p/budgeted) $2,616,243 $2,120,868
Outfall project $ to carry over $465,788
Program Expenses (projected actual) $1,886,705
Total Program Expenses $2,586,656
Remaining Fund Balance at end of
FY (projected) $373,587 ($654,291 )
42 CC 06-03-2025
42 of 1012
In recent years, the shortfall between the APN fee revenues and the program expenses has been covered by the balance in Fund 230 330-301. The 2.38% increase is still recommended because even with a projected positive fund balance at the end of FY24- 25, the budgeted expenses for FY 25-26 will exceed revenue and will likely use up the remaining fund balance. (See table above).

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.

Council Goal
Fiscal Strategy, Environmental Sustainability, Quality of Life California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager Nicole Lee, Environmental Programs Assistant
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Acting City Manager Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution 1992 Fee
B – Draft Resolution 2019 Fee
C – Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Ordinance with Fee Report D – Calendar Year 2022 AUP
E – Calendar Year 2023 AUP
F – Calendar Year 2024 AUP
43 CC 06-03-2025
43 of 1012
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE

RENEWAL AND COLLECTION OF THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN FEE
WITH NO INCREASE IN RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino enacted Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 to meet the requirements of the federally mandated Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Management Program, federal regulations, and the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a storm drainage service charge (“storm drain fee” or “fee”); and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 9.18 provides regulations and gives legal effect to the Municipal Regional Permit issued to the City and assures ongoing compliance with the most recent version of the City’s NPDES permit regarding the effect of urban stormwater runoff on the ability of the City’s storm drain system to comply with federal and state laws; and WHEREAS, in 1992 the City adopted a storm drain fee based on the City’s Master Storm Drain Study runoff coefficients and average area of impervious surface per acre based on the type of land use of each parcel; and WHEREAS, a written report titled “Engineer’s Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program” (“report”), concerning the method of assessing fees to fund the City’s Stormwater Management Program, was prepared by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section 3.36.080(B) of the City’s Municipal Code and filed with the City Clerk on May 28, 2025; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed rates was published in a local newspaper on May 16, 2025 and May 23, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds and determines as follows:

1. After considering the “Engineer’s Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program,” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, and the testimony received at this public hearing, the City Council hereby approves the report.

Attachment A
44 CC 06-03-2025
44 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

2. There is a need in the City to continue collecting a storm drain fee to cover the costs of federal and state requirements, as heretofore described, in that properties within the City will not otherwise contribute a portion of costs toward this program and without the availability of such storm drain fee, the City’s general fund will further be negatively impacted in such a manner as to jeopardize other essential services.

3. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for this fee and the impacts for which this fee shall be used, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the properties that are to be charged this fee. These relationships or nexus are described in more detail in the above-referenced Engineer’s Report.

4. The amounts of the fee for each category of property, as set forth below, are reasonable amounts, because the fee is based on the percent of impervious area established in the Master Plan, City of Cupertino Storm Drainage System and are below the amount needed to recover the cost of storm drainage services.

5. It is further determined that each and every parcel of land to which the fee applies will, and has received, a benefit of flood control from the storm drainage system and that the fees imposed herein on each such parcel are in conformity with, and in fact lower than, the benefits that such parcel has received as further described in the report.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, that:

1. Charge. The storm drain fee shall continue to be charged to each parcel within the City, unless exempt, to contribute to the costs of the City’s federal and state requirements for Nonpoint Source Control and a Stormwater Management Program.

2. Use of Revenue. The revenue derived from said fee shall be used in connection with implementing and enforcing Chapters 3.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code titled “Storm Drainage Service Charge” and Chapter 9.18 titled “Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection.” 45 CC 06-03-2025
45 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

3. Schedule of Charges.
a. Annual fees for each category of property will be assessed and collected as follows:

Residential premises $ 12.00/parcel
Apartment premises $144.00/acre
Commercial/Industrial premises $144.00/acre
Unimproved/Recreational $ 36.00/acre
b. The following public properties are exempt from, and shall not be assessed the environmental fee:

Cupertino Sanitary District
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Southern Pacific Transportation Company
State of California
The Santa Clara County Fire Department
The City of Cupertino
The Cupertino Union School District
The Foothill-De Anza Community College District
The Fremont Union High School District
The MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District
United States of America

5. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to challenge, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3
rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
46 CC 06-03-2025
46 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
47 CC 06-03-2025
47 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

EXHIBIT A

ENGINEER'S REPORT

ASSESSMENT OF FEES FOR STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSES

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM
A. Program Description and Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to collect fees to fund the City of Cupertino's Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention Program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Water Act. Regulations by the EPA and the State of California require cities to take specific actions to eliminate or control pollutants in waters of the State.

The term "nonpoint source pollution" represents a process whereby pollutants, debris, trash, sediment, and chemicals which accumulate on streets, in neighborhoods, at construction sites, in parking lots, and on other exposed surfaces are washed off by rainfall and carried away by stormwater runoff (via city drain inlets and pipes installed for flood control) into local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Sources of these pollutants may include automobile exhaust and oil, pesticides, fertilizers, eroded soil, detergents, pet waste, paint, litter, and other material carried through the City's storm drainage system without treatment directly to the Bay. Many of these pollutants are hazardous to aquatic and human life.

The City of Cupertino has implemented several mandated and pro-active programs to mitigate this problem. Among other activities, these programs include an illegal storm drain discharge investigation and elimination complaint response program; scheduled proactive inspections of outdoor housekeeping practices at business sites within the City; sweeping of residential and commercial streets; installation of trash capture devices and curb drain inlet screens to prevent litter from entering the City's storm drainage system; inspection and cleaning of storm drain structures and trash capture devices; public education and engagement with teachers and students, educational activities offered at City events; and a popular, unique, and well established District-wide third-grade creek education & field trip program led by the City's naturalist at McClellan Ranch Preserve and Stevens Creek. 48 CC 06-03-2025
48 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) approved the first Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) on October 14, 2009, and, on November 18, 2015, adopted the second regional permit (MRP 2.0) with additional requirements that became effective on January 1, 2016. A further update and reissuance (MRP 3.0) were adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and became effective on July 1, 2022. The MRP was issued to the City of Cupertino and 75 agencies or co-permittees which discharge storm water through municipal drainage systems to local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. The City of Cupertino and 14 other co-permittees in Santa Clara County are members of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) which works collaboratively to maintain compliance with MRP 3.0. In addition to conducting local activities, City staff work closely with the other SCVURPPP jurisdictions to implement pollution prevention, source control, monitoring, and educational programs.

B. Recent Notable Activities
In FY 2019-2020, the Nonpoint Source budget was increased to accommodate a new street sweeping contract, enhanced assessment and maintenance of aging structures, and additional staff to clean and maintain the city’s storm drain system. The City’s storm drain system consists of 2173 drain inlets and 90 miles of storm drainage pipes. Of the drain inlets, 200 are fitted with full trash capture devices and 271 have curb screens. Maintenance of these assets includes twice per year cleaning of inlets and trash capture devices which protects the city from flooding while preventing stormwater pollution. In FY 24-25, an equivalent total of 4.32 full time employees are included in the Nonpoint Source program budget distributed across 23 positions with varying allocations of each person’s time. This represents a slight decrease from the previous fiscal year due to the City’s financial challenges. The year before that, the Environmental Programs Division absorbed the Sustainability Division, which triggered a reorganization resulting in shifts to funding allocations as well. Most notably, in FY 23-24 one part-time staff went through an internal recruitment process to become a full-time Environmental Compliance Technician to meet the increased demands of MRP compliance and to accommodate succession planning. The part-time position was eliminated.

One maintenance worker was covered at 100%, but that was shifted to 35% during the response to the financial crisis. Remaining positions are allocated at between 0.02% - 50%.
49 CC 06-03-2025
49 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

C. Estimated Expenditures
The total amended budget to implement the required programs described above for FY 24-25 is shown in the table below along with a breakdown of past actuals, current actuals as of Q3, and budgeted expenses for FY 25-26:

FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Budgeted
FY 24-25 Q3
7/1/2024-
3/31/2025
FY 25-26
Requested
Budget
Staffing $811,310 $805,035 $575,218 $781,734
Materials $60,243 $76,021 $40,488 $112,193
Contract Services $433,395 $1,097,278 $284,869 $443,007 Allocations $346,142 $598,995 $449,246 $773,020
Cost Share & Rebate
Programs $19,558 $39,914 $24,307 $10,914
Special Projects $12,161 $— $— $—
Outfall Repair (as
carryover) $465,788
Total Expenses $1,682,809 $2,616,243 $1,374,128 $2,586,656 Expected Final $1,886,705
Activities undertaken within the Nonpoint Source program for permit compliance:

Countywide Program
SCVURPPP Program Assessment - Regional Permit Implementation Regional Watershed Monitoring (administered by EOA, Inc.1) State NPDES2 Permit Fees
Countywide Public Education and Municipal Staff Training CA Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Participation County Policy Development
Operations and Maintenance

1 EOA, Inc. is the environmental engineering and regulatory consulting firm that manages the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program for the co-permittees www.eoainc.com. 2 NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 50 CC 06-03-2025
50 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

Catch Basin and Frequent Trash Capture Device Cleaning
Installation of Trash Capture and Retractable Screen Devices On-call Emergency Spill and Discharge Response
Staff and Equipment to Implement City's Mandated Litter Reduction Plan Street Sweeping
Assessment and repair of storm drain infrastructure
City Public Education Awareness
Public Outreach Materials & Events
Third-Grade Creek Education for Local Schools
Support High School Students' Watershed and Creek Education Support De Anza College and Community Environmental Education
Community Engagement - Creek Cleanup & Watershed Monitoring Events
Staff to Conduct Public Education, Training and Outreach CA Product Stewardship Council membership (Extended Producer Responsibility)
Local Programs
Development, Administration, and Evaluation of Mandated Programs Environmental Impact and New and Redevelopment Review
Rain barrel, rain garden, and landscape conversion rebates Ordinance Revisions
Database Maintenance
Illegal Discharge Complaint Investigation and Enforcement Industrial/Commercial Discharger Inspection Program
Construction Site Inspection Program
Verification of Treatment Measure Maintenance by Private Property Owners
Low Impact Development (LID) and Green Infrastructure Management Litter Reduction Education and Enforcement
City's Participation in Multiple Countywide and Regional Programs Annual Parcel Stormwater Fee Assessment
Other Staffing Costs
Cost Allocations
D. Revenue And Assessment
51 CC 06-03-2025
51 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

Revenues generated to fund this program come from two fees assessed on parcels in Cupertino. The Storm Drain Fee was established in 1992. Revenues from that fee are inadequate to meet the expenses associated with maintaining the storm drain system in Cupertino and ensuring compliance with the MRP, so the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee was established in 2019 and first appeared on 2019-2020 property tax bills. Revenue from the two fees as assessed on the 2024-2025 tax roll and direct-billed are shown below:

FY 24-25 Assessed Actuals
Number of Parcels
1992 Storm Drain Fee $375,262.68 16,641
2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee
$1,156,002.21 16,624
Total Assessed $1,531,264.89
1992 Storm Drain Fee
Fees are based on a factor calculated from the City's Master Storm Drain Study runoff coefficients and average area of impervious surface per acre based on type of land-use development. The factor for each category is based on a comparison to an average residential parcel assigned a factor of one.

Certain parcel-owners such as schools and government entities were exempt from such fees in 1992 and as such are not assessed this fee.

The 1992 fees assessed on the 2024-2025 tax roll were applied to residential, commercial, and vacant or recreational use parcels.
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
The Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is imposed on properties that shed water, directly or indirectly, into the City’s storm drainage system, and is calculated to be proportionate to the amount of stormwater runoff contributed by each parcel, which is in turn proportionate to the amount of impervious 52 CC 06-03-2025
52 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

surface area. The details of the methodology are described in the Fee Report as prepared by SCI Consulting Group (SCI) in February of 2019 that is attached to the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee ordinance. The calculations are informed by the City’s 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, which includes an analysis of the percentage of impervious area for Cupertino, and rates are further calculated by parcel size and land use category. Unlike the 1992 fee, the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is subject to treatment under prop 218 and as such all parcels are assessed the fees without exemptions for parcelowners such as schools and government entities.

The fees assessed on the 2024-2025 tax rolls were applied to parcels in fourteen categories including single-family residential parcels in four sizes, condominiums, and apartments, commercial, office, institutional, recreational, and vacant. Fees billed directly to parcel-owners that do not receive property tax bills (such as schools and government) applied to 78 parcels.

For both of the fees, in coordination with the City’s contracted consultant for this purpose, each parcel was identified, and a fee established in a separate report submitted to the County entitled Certification of Special Assessment Annual Enrollment which lists the APN and associated fee. The consultant used by the City, SCI, prepares both forms and submits them to the County in accordance with the annual deadline in early August so that the fees can appear on the property tax bills. Additionally, SCI staff are available to answer questions via a phone number provided on the tax bill.

D. Annual Review
The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee included annual review requirements beginning with FY 2020-2021 as described in ordinance 19-2183 (Chapter 3.38 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). Section 3.38.040 describes the review process and allows for an annual increase based on the change in CPI as of December each year, up to 3% maximum, if actual additional costs are incurred.

Expenses attributed to the Nonpoint Source Program from the previous fiscal year through to next fiscal year’s projections are shown in the table in section C above.
53 CC 06-03-2025
53 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

A full year of expenses and revenues for the Nonpoint Source Program were audited under the City’s annual external audit and reviewed by the City’s Audit Committee. An additional Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) audit specific to the Nonpoint Source Program was developed to further assess this program using a calendar year cycle. The AUP was performed on calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 (Attachment D to the staff report) and no exceptions were noted. The City requests preparation of calendar year AUPs for the stormwater program in order to provide more up to date findings to the City Council for review during this annual process, which must happen prior to the normal fiscal year cycle in order to meet County tax roll deadlines.

Chad Mosley
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
54 CC 06-03-2025
54 of 1012
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE RENEWAL AND COLLECTION OF THE EXISTING 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopted Resolution 19-022 initiating proceedings to obtain approval of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee (“Fee”), which is a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution, and approved the Fee Report for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee (“Fee Report”) which sets forth the basis and the amount of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee on various parcels of land in order to finance, in compliance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, the costs of the City’s Clean Water and Storm Protection Program; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2019, a notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners whose property would be subject to the Fee, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 5473.1; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 19-041 finding that a majority protest does not exist and ordering a mailed ballot proceeding for the proposed Fee proceeding in accordance with Article XIII of the Constitution, Section 53755.5 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2019, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 19- 2183 establishing Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code to establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2019, ballots were mailed to all property owners whose property would be subject to the Fee; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, by its Resolution 19-096 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 19-2183 establishing Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code, found that the Fee was approved by 51.15% of the returned ballots from property owners of the property subject to the Fee and thereby ordered that the Fee for fiscal year 2019-20 be levied at the rates specified in the Fee Report; and WHEREAS, Sections 3.38.040 through 3.38.070 of the Ordinance establishing the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee allow the City Council Attachment B
55 CC 06-03-2025
55 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
to review the Fee annually and apply a rate increase based on the change in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) up to a maximum increase of 3% in any single year, and to collect the Fee on the property tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, the general taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds and determines as follows:

1. There is a need in the City to continue collecting the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee to cover the costs of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Program; and

2. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for this Fee and the impacts for which this Fee shall be used, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use and the properties, which are to be charged the Fee. These relationships or nexus are described in more detail in the above referenced Fee Report; and

3. The amounts of the Fee for each category of property, as set forth below in the Schedule of Charges, are reasonable amounts, because the amounts are based on the methodology established in the Fee Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, that:

1. Charges. The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee shall continue to be charged to each parcel within the City to contribute to the costs of the City’s Clean Water and Storm Protection Program. The Fee charged will be increased by

2.38% for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

2. Use of Revenue. The revenue derived from said Fee shall be used in connection with implementing and enforcing Chapters 3.38 of the Cupertino Municipal Code titled “Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee” and Chapter 9.18 titled “Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection.”

3. Schedule of Charges.
a. Annual fees for each category of property will be assessed and collected as follows:
56 CC 06-03-2025
56 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
Single-Family Residential *
Small (Under 0.13 acre) 39.58$ per parcel
Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre) 48.07$ per parcel
Large 0.23 to 0.40 acre) 60.15$ per parcel
Extra Large (over 0.40 acre) 115.15$ per parcel
Condominium 1 (1 story) 39.58$ per parcel
Condominium 2+ (2+ stories) 12.97$ per parcel
Non-Single-Family Residential **
Multi-Family Residential 33.42$ per 0.1 acre
Commercial / Retail / Industrial 43.70$ per 0.1 acre
Office 33.42$ per 0.1 acre
Church / Institutional 28.28$ per 0.1 acre
School (w/playfield) 20.56$ per 0.1 acre
Park 7.72$ per 0.1 acre
Vacant (developed) 2.58$ per 0.1 acre
Open Space / Agricultural
* Single-Family Residential category also includes du- tri- and four-plex units ** Non-SFR parcels are charge per the tenth of an acre or portion thereof *** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-singlefamily properties.

Land Use Category Fee
no charge
Low Impact Development Adjustment *** 25% Fee Reduction

4. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to challenge, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
57 CC 06-03-2025
57 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
58 CC 06-03-2025
58 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________

EXHIBIT A

ENGINEER'S REPORT

ASSESSMENT OF FEES FOR STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSES

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM
A. Program Description and Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to collect fees to fund the City of Cupertino's Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention Program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Water Act. Regulations by the EPA and the State of California require cities to take specific actions to eliminate or control pollutants in waters of the State.

The term "nonpoint source pollution" represents a process whereby pollutants, debris, trash, sediment, and chemicals which accumulate on streets, in neighborhoods, at construction sites, in parking lots, and on other exposed surfaces are washed off by rainfall and carried away by stormwater runoff (via city drain inlets and pipes installed for flood control) into local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Sources of these pollutants may include automobile exhaust and oil, pesticides, fertilizers, eroded soil, detergents, pet waste, paint, litter, and other material carried through the City's storm drainage system without treatment directly to the Bay. Many of these pollutants are hazardous to aquatic and human life.

The City of Cupertino has implemented several mandated and pro-active programs to mitigate this problem. Among other activities, these programs include an illegal storm drain discharge investigation and elimination complaint response program; scheduled proactive inspections of outdoor housekeeping practices at business sites within the City; sweeping of residential and commercial streets; installation of trash capture devices and curb drain inlet screens to prevent litter from entering the City's storm drainage system; inspection and cleaning of storm drain structures and trash capture devices; public education and engagement with teachers and students, educational activities offered at City events; and a popular, unique, and well established District-wide third-grade creek education & field trip program led by the City's naturalist at McClellan Ranch Preserve and Stevens Creek. 59 CC 06-03-2025
59 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) approved the first Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) on October 14, 2009, and, on November 18, 2015, adopted the second regional permit (MRP 2.0) with additional requirements that became effective on January 1, 2016. A further update and reissuance (MRP 3.0) were adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and became effective on July 1, 2022. The MRP was issued to the City of Cupertino and 75 agencies or co-permittees which discharge storm water through municipal drainage systems to local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. The City of Cupertino and 14 other co-permittees in Santa Clara County are members of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) which works collaboratively to maintain compliance with MRP 3.0. In addition to conducting local activities, City staff work closely with the other SCVURPPP jurisdictions to implement pollution prevention, source control, monitoring, and educational programs.

B. Recent Notable Activities
In FY 2019-2020, the Nonpoint Source budget was increased to accommodate a new street sweeping contract, enhanced assessment and maintenance of aging structures, and additional staff to clean and maintain the city’s storm drain system. The City’s storm drain system consists of 2173 drain inlets and 90 miles of storm drainage pipes. Of the drain inlets, 200 are fitted with full trash capture devices and 271 have curb screens. Maintenance of these assets includes twice per year cleaning of inlets and trash capture devices which protects the city from flooding while preventing stormwater pollution. In FY 24-25, an equivalent total of 4.32 full time employees are included in the Nonpoint Source program budget distributed across 23 positions with varying allocations of each person’s time. This represents a slight decrease from the previous fiscal year due to the City’s financial challenges. The year before that, the Environmental Programs Division absorbed the Sustainability Division, which triggered a reorganization resulting in shifts to funding allocations as well. Most notably, in FY 23-24 one part-time staff went through an internal recruitment process to become a full-time Environmental Compliance Technician to meet the increased demands of MRP compliance and to accommodate succession planning. The part-time position was eliminated.

One maintenance worker was covered at 100%, but that was shifted to 35% during the response to the financial crisis. Remaining positions are allocated at between 0.02% - 50%.
60 CC 06-03-2025
60 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
C. Estimated Expenditures
The total amended budget to implement the required programs described above for FY 24-25 is shown in the table below along with a breakdown of past actuals, current actuals as of Q3, and budgeted expenses for FY 25-26:

FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Budgeted
FY 24-25 Q3
7/1/2024-
3/31/2025
FY 25-26
Requested
Budget
Staffing $811,310 $805,035 $575,218 $781,734
Materials $60,243 $76,021 $40,488 $112,193
Contract Services $433,395 $1,097,278 $284,869 $443,007 Allocations $346,142 $598,995 $449,246 $773,020
Cost Share & Rebate
Programs $19,558 $39,914 $24,307 $10,914
Special Projects $12,161 $— $— $—
Outfall Repair (as
carryover) $465,788
Total Expenses $1,682,809 $2,616,243 $1,374,128 $2,586,656 Expected Final $1,886,705
Activities undertaken within the Nonpoint Source program for permit compliance:

Countywide Program
SCVURPPP Program Assessment - Regional Permit Implementation Regional Watershed Monitoring (administered by EOA, Inc.1) State NPDES2 Permit Fees
Countywide Public Education and Municipal Staff Training CA Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Participation County Policy Development
Operations and Maintenance
Catch Basin and Frequent Trash Capture Device Cleaning

1 EOA, Inc. is the environmental engineering and regulatory consulting firm that manages the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program for the co-permittees www.eoainc.com. 2 NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 61 CC 06-03-2025
61 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
Installation of Trash Capture and Retractable Screen Devices On-call Emergency Spill and Discharge Response
Staff and Equipment to Implement City's Mandated Litter Reduction Plan Street Sweeping
Assessment and repair of storm drain infrastructure
City Public Education Awareness
Public Outreach Materials & Events
Third-Grade Creek Education for Local Schools
Support High School Students' Watershed and Creek Education Support De Anza College and Community Environmental Education
Community Engagement - Creek Cleanup & Watershed Monitoring Events
Staff to Conduct Public Education, Training and Outreach CA Product Stewardship Council membership (Extended Producer Responsibility)
Local Programs
Development, Administration, and Evaluation of Mandated Programs Environmental Impact and New and Redevelopment Review
Rain barrel, rain garden, and landscape conversion rebates Ordinance Revisions
Database Maintenance
Illegal Discharge Complaint Investigation and Enforcement Industrial/Commercial Discharger Inspection Program
Construction Site Inspection Program
Verification of Treatment Measure Maintenance by Private Property Owners
Low Impact Development (LID) and Green Infrastructure Management Litter Reduction Education and Enforcement
City's Participation in Multiple Countywide and Regional Programs Annual Parcel Stormwater Fee Assessment
Other Staffing Costs
Cost Allocations
D. Revenue And Assessment
Revenues generated to fund this program come from two fees assessed on parcels in Cupertino. The Storm Drain Fee was established in 1992. Revenues 62 CC 06-03-2025
62 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
from that fee are inadequate to meet the expenses associated with maintaining the storm drain system in Cupertino and ensuring compliance with the MRP, so the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee was established in 2019 and first appeared on 2019-2020 property tax bills. Revenue from the two fees as assessed on the 2024-2025 tax roll and direct-billed are shown below:

FY 24-25 Assessed Actuals
Number of Parcels
1992 Storm Drain Fee $375,262.68 16,641
2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee
$1,156,002.21 16,624
Total Assessed $1,531,264.89
1992 Storm Drain Fee
Fees are based on a factor calculated from the City's Master Storm Drain Study runoff coefficients and average area of impervious surface per acre based on type of land-use development. The factor for each category is based on a comparison to an average residential parcel assigned a factor of one.

Certain parcel-owners such as schools and government entities were exempt from such fees in 1992 and as such are not assessed this fee.

The 1992 fees assessed on the 2024-2025 tax roll were applied to residential, commercial, and vacant or recreational use parcels.
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
The Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is imposed on properties that shed water, directly or indirectly, into the City’s storm drainage system, and is calculated to be proportionate to the amount of stormwater runoff contributed by each parcel, which is in turn proportionate to the amount of impervious surface area. The details of the methodology are described in the Fee Report as prepared by SCI Consulting Group (SCI) in February of 2019 that is attached 63 CC 06-03-2025
63 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
to the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee ordinance. The calculations are informed by the City’s 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, which includes an analysis of the percentage of impervious area for Cupertino, and rates are further calculated by parcel size and land use category. Unlike the 1992 fee, the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is subject to treatment under prop 218 and as such all parcels are assessed the fees without exemptions for parcelowners such as schools and government entities.

The fees assessed on the 2024-2025 tax rolls were applied to parcels in fourteen categories including single-family residential parcels in four sizes, condominiums, and apartments, commercial, office, institutional, recreational, and vacant. Fees billed directly to parcel-owners that do not receive property tax bills (such as schools and government) applied to 78 parcels.

For both of the fees, in coordination with the City’s contracted consultant for this purpose, each parcel was identified, and a fee established in a separate report submitted to the County entitled Certification of Special Assessment Annual Enrollment which lists the APN and associated fee. The consultant used by the City, SCI, prepares both forms and submits them to the County in accordance with the annual deadline in early August so that the fees can appear on the property tax bills. Additionally, SCI staff are available to answer questions via a phone number provided on the tax bill.

D. Annual Review
The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee included annual review requirements beginning with FY 2020-2021 as described in ordinance 19-2183 (Chapter 3.38 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). Section 3.38.040 describes the review process and allows for an annual increase based on the change in CPI as of December each year, up to 3% maximum, if actual additional costs are incurred.

Expenses attributed to the Nonpoint Source Program from the previous fiscal year through to next fiscal year’s projections are shown in the table in section C above.

A full year of expenses and revenues for the Nonpoint Source Program were audited under the City’s annual external audit and reviewed by the City’s Audit Committee. An additional Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) audit 64 CC 06-03-2025
64 of 1012
Resolution No. __________________
specific to the Nonpoint Source Program was developed to further assess this program using a calendar year cycle. The AUP was performed on calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 (Attachment D to the staff report) and no exceptions were noted. The City requests preparation of calendar year AUPs for the stormwater program in order to provide more up to date findings to the City Council for review during this annual process, which must happen prior to the normal fiscal year cycle in order to meet County tax roll deadlines.

Chad Mosley
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
65 CC 06-03-2025
65 of 1012
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO. 19- 2183
AN ORDINANCE OF Tlill CITY COUNClL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTlNO ADDING CHAPTER 3.38 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE

CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino («City") oversees and manages a municipal separate stonn sewer system (''MS4"), which includes making capital improvements, overseeing maintenance and operations, and conducting activities to ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the Clean Water Act and the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") pennit; and
WHEREAS, the City's MS4 is made up of a comprehensive drainage infrastructure system that includes man-made drainage elements such as curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch basins (inlets) and outfall structures; and WHEREAS, the City, through its MS4, provides storm drainage services ("Services") that include, but are not limited to, collecting, conveying, protecting, treating, and managing storm water runoff from improved parcels within tbe City; and 'WHEREAS, in 1992, the City adopted a $12 per residence storm drain service charge to conserve and protect the MS4 from the burden placed on it by the increasing flow of nonpoint source runoff and to otherwise meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations and the City's NP DES pennits, which charge has not been increased since its inception; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently have adequate funding to fully finance the system needs of its MS4, and in order to finance the infrastructure, maintenance, and regulatory oversight of the MS4 and the provision of services, the City Council has determined that there is a need to adopt an additional fee ("Clean Water and St01m Protection Fee"), in compliance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), to cover the costs associated with capital improvements, operations and maintenance, and regulatory compliance needs of the MS4; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, the City Council approved the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Stonu Protection Fee Report ("Fee Report") that sets forth the basis and the amount of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fees on various parcels of land in order to finance, in compliance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, the clean water and storm protection program needs and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 5, 2019 adopted Resolution No. 19-022 initiating proceedings in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, approving the Fee Report, and setting the date of May 7, 2019 for a public hearing and directing the mailing of a notice to the owners of real property affected by the proposed Clean Water and Stonn Protection Fee, which included a description of the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, the amount to be charged, the total amount to be collected, and the right of property owners to protest the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee;and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 5, 2019 adopted Resolution No. 19-023 establishing procedures for conducting a baUot proceeding in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is a property-related fee, subject to Proposition 218.
1 66
CC 06-03-2025
66 of 1012
·wHEREAS, the City mailed i1otices of a public hearing on March 19, 2019 and conducted said public heming on May 7, 2019 and heard testimony from residents and property owners regarding the proposed Clean Water and Stonn Protection Fee, and a majority protest was found not to exist; and
WHEREAS, the City Council introduced this Ordinance on May 7, 2019, after a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIID of the Constitution requires that the property-related fees defined in the Fee Report and included in this Ordinance shall not be imposed unless and until that fee is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the properly subject to the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee· and
WHEREAS, upon introduction of this Ordinance, tbe City Council will direct that it be submitted to the affected property owners in a mail ballot proceeding in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, Sectioh 53 755 .S of the Government Code, and City of Cupertino Resolution No. 19- 023 .

NOW, THEREFORE, the Cow1ciJ of the City of Cupertino does ordain as follows:

SECTION ONE - Chapter 3.38 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby established to read as follows:

3.38.010 Purpose of the Fee-Limitation of Use.

A. The purpose of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is to conserve and protect the City's essential values of maintaining our aging stotm drainage infrastructure, e11couraging groundwater replenishment, and maintaining a sustainable environment in accordance with tbe Clean Water Act, EPA regu1ations and the City's NPDESpermits.

B. The specific purpose of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee established pursuant to this chapter is to derive fee revenue which shall only be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the storm drainage system of the City or related green infrastructure or other activities required by the City's NPDES pennits, to repay principal and interest on any bonds which may hereafter be issued for said purposes, to repay loans or advances which may hereafter be made for said purposes, ahd for any other purpose set forth in Section3.38.160.

C. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is imposed pursuant to Articles XIll C and D of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 38900 - 38901 and 53755 - 53756, and Health and Safety Code Section 5471 - 5473.11 .

D. Proceeds frotn the Clean Water and Storm Protection. fee will be deposited in the "environmental management / clean creeks fund" created by Section 3.36.170 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code (Stonn Drainage Service Charge) as the "stonn drainage service charge fund" and subsequently rnnan1ed, and may be comingled with the revenues of the City's storm drainage service charge because they are authorized to be used for th.e same purposes.

3.38.020 De6nitions.

Except where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions in this section shall govern the construction of th.is chapter:
2 67
CC 06-03-2025
67 of 1012
A. "City" means and includes all territory lying within tbe municipal bounda1ies of the City of Cupertiuo as presently existing plu all Le1Tit01y which may be added thereto duting the effect term of the ordinance codified herein.

B. "Condominium" means a parcel that is an individually-owned single residential ll.llll attached to an undivided or joint ownership of the remaining pmtion of the property. The ·•condominium 1 ' category refers to a condominium complex where each residential unit has no other units above or below it. The ''Condominium 2+' refers to a condominium complex where residential units are built above or below other reside1ltial wJits.

C. "Director of Public Works" means the Di.rector of Public Works and his/her duly authorized agents and representatives.

D. "Fee Repo1t'' means the report prepared by SCI Consulting Group dated February 2019 which was approved by the City Council on March 5, 2019 in Section 2 of Resolution No. 19-022. The Fee Repoli sets forth the rate structure and methodology of apportionment of the fee to variouscatego1ies of parcels and shall be the basis for the Clean Water and Stenn Protection Fee.

E. "Director of Administrative Services" means the Director of Administrative Services of the City of upertino and his/her duly authorized agents and representatives.

F. "Impervious Area" means any part of any parcel that bas been modified by the action of any person in a manner which reduces the land's natural ability to absorb and hold storm and surface water.

This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as: grading of property, the creation of any hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle, or the hardening of an existing surface which causes water to flow at an increased rate. Common impervious areas include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walk-ways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, or any cleared, graded, paved, graveled, or compacted surface or paved earthen materials used for vehicular travel, or areas covered with surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water into soil mantle. Impervious area can be expressed as a percentage of a parcel's total size.

G. "Maintenance and operation" means the administration, operation, maintenance and repair of any facility in the City's storm drain system, including, but not limited to:

1. Items ordinarily recognized as capital items (e.g., acquisition of interests in land) when reasonably necessary to support operations;

2. Street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and capture and removal of trash from the storm drain system;

3. Replacement ofpo1tions of existing facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of accident or natutaJ disasters or found to be of inadequate size or condition;

4. Damages or settlements paid in the course of, or because of, threatened or actual legaJ actions related to the City's stonn drain system or non-point sourceprogram;

5. Regional monitoring, pennit fees public educatfon and awareness programs regarding the City's stom1 drain system and the City's nonpoint sourceprogram;

6. Management of the City's non-point sow-ce-program including, but not limited to, BMP manuals, public outreach, printed materials, City staff and legal costs relatedthereto. 3 68
CC 06-03-2025
68 of 1012
H. ''Multi-Family Residential" means parce1s improved or used for a residence for .five or more families liviJ1g independently of each other and doing their own cooking and which is llOt separately assessed by the county tax assessor for each such family dwelling. This term is synonymous witb "apartment."
I. "Open Space" means laud that is substantially in a natural condition and includes agricultural or other lands that demonstrate storm water absorption equal to or greater than natural conditions.

J. "Parcel" means a wtit of land which is designated by the tax assessor of Santa Clara County for property tax purposes.

K. ''Rate Category" means a group of parcels that are of similar imperviousness characteristics and are charged the same rate. Si11gle-Family Residential Parcels are categorized by size; Non-SiugleFarn:ily Parcels are categorized by impervious percentage ranges.

L. "Single-Family Residential" means parcels, other than multi-family parcels, improved or used solely as a residence for one, two, three or four fruu.ilies living separately in separate dwelling units.

M. "Storm drainage system" means any pipe, conduit, or sewer oftbe City designed or used for the collection, conveyance and management of storm and surface waters and drainage including unpolluted cooling water and unpolluted industrial process water but excluding any community sanitary sewer system.

N. "Vacant (developed) means a parcel which bas been altered from its natural condition through grading or compaction activity or .in another manner which reduces the land's natural ability to absorb and hold storm and surface water without any stmctw-e existing upon it.

3.38.030 Determination and Imposition of Fee for Fiscal Year 2019-20.

For purposes specified in Section 3.38.010 the Clean Water and Stonn Protection fees established pursuant to thls chapter are hereby prescribed and imposed, and shall be paid to and collected by the City, for services and facilities furnished by the City in connection with its stonu drainage system to or for each parcel whlch is benefited directly or indirectly by said storm drainage system or aby part thereof, or from which any storm water is conveyed or discharged directly or indirectly into the stonn drainage system. Said fee is imposed annually and will be assessed and collected as follows:

A. Single-Family Residential Class
Category Parcel Size (acres) Annual Fee per Parcel
SmaU Under 0.13 $36.58
Medium 0.13 to 0.22 $44.42
Large 0.23 to 0.40 $55.58
Extra Large Over0.40 $106.42
Condominium 1 Na $36.5&
4 69
CC 06-03-2025
69 of 1012
I Condominium 2+ Na $1 l .99
B. Non-Single-Family Residential Class
I Category' Annual Fee
per0.10 Acre
of Pare l Size2
Multi-Family $30.88
Commercial / Retail / Industrial $40.38
Office $30.88
Church/ lnstitutional $26.13
Schoo} with play field $19.00
Park $7.13
Vacant (developed) $2.38
Rate Strncture Notes:
l. The Rate Category for any Non-Single-Family parcel shall be assigned by the description of the land use of the parcel. For Non-Single-Family land uses that do not fit the descriptions in Table 5 of the Fee Report (for example, mixed use parcels), the rate with the nearest percent impervious area shown in Table 5 of the Fee Report shall be assigned to a parcel.

2. Non-Single-family fees are calculated in 0.1-acre increments. For example, an office parcel is charged at $30.88 for each tenth of an acre or portion thereof.

C. Non-single-family parcels and condominium parcels that comply with the version of Provision C,3 (New Development and Redevelopment Requirements) of the City's NPDES permit that is applicable at the time of building permit issuance shall have their fees reduced by 25% in recognition of the reduced impact on the City's storm drainage system inherent in C.3 compliance, as documented in the Fee Report (Low Impact Development Rate Adjustment). Other single-family residential parcels do not qualify for this rate reduction. C.3 compliance will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Public Works, who may also establish procedures to verify and validate such compliance on a peiiodic basis.

D. For non-single-family residential parcels that have both improvements and significant open space areas (described in the Fee Report as "hybrid parcels'), the chargeable acreage shall be adjusted downward in recognition that the open space areas do not increase the need for the fee. 5 70
CC 06-03-2025
70 of 1012
e. Open space and agticultural parcels are not subject to the Clean Water and Stonu Protection fees.

3.38.040 Annual Review of Fee.

Commencing with FiscaJ Year 2020-21, the City Council shall, by xesolution, annually determine the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee in accordance with the following:

A. In no event shall the rate for any category of property be increased beyond the rate approved by a majority vote of property owners subject to the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee. Commencing in Fiscal Year 2020-21 , the amow1t of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee may be increased by an amount equal to the change in the Conswner Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the area including Santa Clara County (the "CPI'), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of December of each succeeding year, uot to exceed a maximum increase of three percent (3%) in any single year, Adjustments will only occur if actual additional costs areincurred.

B. The Clean Water and Stonn Protection fee shall not be deemed to be increased iu the event the actual fee upon a parcel in any given year is higher due to a change in use of the subject parcel or an increase in tbe amount of the impervious area of the subject parcel.

C. In any year in which the City Council does not change the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee rate, pursuant to the voter-approved CPI allowable annual increase, the previously adopted fee shall continue in full force and effect for the next fiscal year.

D. The City Council shall not be required to enact a CPI increase each year. 3.38.040.A.

3.38.050 Various Actions.

Without a vote of the property owners, in any year the City Council may do any and all of the following: (a) discontinue the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee; (b) reduce the rate for all parcel categories; or ( c) increase the rate up to or below the maximum voter-authorized rate if it has been previously set below such rate.

3.38.060 Effective Date of Fees.

The Clean Water and Sto1m Protection fees shall become effective on July 1, 2019.

3.38.070 Fees Collected with General Taxes.

A Subject to the exceptions hereinafter set forth, the City elects, as an alternative procedure for the coUection of Clean Water and Stonn Protection. fees prescribed or imposed by the provisions of this chapter, to have all such Clean Water and Storm Protection fees for each ii.seal year collected on the tax roll in the same manner by the same persons and at the same time as, and together with and not separately from, its general taxes.

B. The Director of Public Works is hereby directed to prepare and file with the City Clerk, on or before the fifteenth day of June of each year, or such other date or dates as the City Council may specify by resolution, a written report containing a description of each and every parcel of real property receiving the benefit of the stonn drainage system mentioned in this chapter, except for those parcels the fees for which ar-e not to be collected on the tax roll, and the amount of the Clean Water aud Sto1m Protectionfees 6 71
CC 06-03-2025
71 of 1012
for each parcel for the forthcoming fiscal year, computed in confonnity with the fees prescdbed by the provisions of th.is chapter.

C. The City Clerk sllall cause notice of the filing of said report and of a time and place of hearing thereon to be published, prior to the date for hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the ity. The publication of said notice shall be once a week for two consecutive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or more often, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates. not c w1ting such publication dates, are sufficient.

The period of notice commences upon the first day publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day.

D. At the time stated in the above-mentioned notice, the City ouncil sha ll bear and con ider all objections or protests, if any, to the report refen-ed to in said notice, and may continue the bearing from time to time. Jf the Council finds that protest is made by owners of a majority of separate parcels of prope1ty described in the report, then the report shall not be adopted, and fees shall be collected separately from the tax roU and shall not constitute a lien against any parcel orparcels.

E. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify any fee or ovenule any ot all objections and shall make its detenuination upon each fee as described in said report, which detemlination shall be final.

F. l. On or before the first day of August of each year following such fina l detennination, the ity Clerk shall file with the Finance Director a copy of the report with a statement endorsed thereon over the City Clerk's signature that it has been fina lly adopted by the CityCouncil.

2. The Finance Director shall thereupon cause said fees to be placed on the prope1ty tax roll and collected by the County for the City, as hereinafter provided. The County's tax collector shall enter the amounts of tbe fees against the respective parcels as they appear on the cunent assessment roll. If the property is not described on the roll, the County's tax collector may enter the description thereon, together with the amounts of the fees as shown in the report.

G. The amount of the fees shall constitute a lien against the parcel against which the fee has been imposed as of noon on the first M011day in March immediately preceding the date of the levy.

H. The tax collector shall include the amount of the fees on bills for taxes levied against the respective parcels. Thereafter the amount of the fees shall be coll ected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the City and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties. l. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the Cjty including, but not limited to, those pertaining to matters of delinquency, collection cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such fees .
.I. The tax collector may, at the tax collectors discretion, issue separate bills for such fees and separate receipts for collection on account of such fees.

K. If any parcels receiving benefit from the sto1m drainage system are omitted from the abovementioned report or said tax roll, either because the fee therefor shalJ not have yet been ascertained by the City as of the date of said report, or for any other reason, the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for such parcels shall be collected in the manner provided elsewhere in this chapter. If the fee for any parcels, as shown on said report for the forthcoming fisca l year, should be less than what should bethe 7 72
CC 06-03-2025
72 of 1012
fee therefor under the provisiolls of this chapter, the balance of such fee shall be collected in the manner provided elsewhere in this chapter. If, however, the fee for any parcels shown in the report and collected on Lh e tax roll should exceed the oon-ect fee for such parcels for the fiscal year, the Finance Director shall refund the excess amount so collected.

3.38.080 Payment of Balance of Fee.

A. lf the fee for any parcels placed on the tax roll, or for any parcels collected based upon billing, was less tban what should be the fee therefor under the provisions of this chapter due to en·or, the balance of said fee shall be collected by a bill or invoice based on a detailed statement showing the basis of the calculations, the location of the parcels and other relevant information, and prepared on or after January 1st for the preceding six months from July to December during which a discrepancy between the amouot collected and tbe conect fee is discovered, and on or after July 1st for the preceding six months from January to June during which such a discrepancy is cliscovered. The Finance Director shall mail said bill or invoice to the person or persons listed as the owners of the parcels on the last equalized assessment roll of the County at the address shown on such assessment roll or to the successor in interest of such owner if the name and address of such successor in interest is known to the Finance Director.

Failure to mail any such bill or invoice, or failw-e of any owner to receive any such bill or invoice shall not excuse the owner of any parcels from the obligation of paying the balance of any Clean Water and S tonn Protection fee for any parcels owned by him or her.

B. The interested owner may, at any reasonable time, review the detailed statement prepared by the Finance Director.

C. The balance of the Clean Water and Stonn Protection fee for such parcels shall be due and payable on the date the bill or invoice referred to in this section ismailed.

3.38.090 Collection of Fees Omitted from Tax Roll-Billing.

A. The Finance Director shall semi-annually, on or after July 1st, prepare or cause to be prepared a detailed statement containing the basis ofthe calculations, the location of the parcels and other relevant information, showing the total monthly fee for the preceding six months from January to June and on or after January 1st, for the preceding six months from July to December for any parcels the fee for which should be collected on the tax roll pursuant to Section 3.38.070A but was omitted from the reportrefen-ed to i.11 Section 3.38.070B, or parcels the fee for which is collected pursuantbilling.

B. An invoice may be rendered for a period of less than six months if the commencement dateof fees is other than July 1st or January 1st, as may be the case with newaccounts.

C. On the basis of the statement, the Finance Director shall prepare a bill or invoice showing the total fee for such six months or less, and shall mail said bill or invoice to the person or persons listed as the owners of the parcels on the last equalized assessment roll of the County at the address shown on such assessment roll, or to the successor in interest of such owner if the name and address of such successor io interest is. known to the Director. Failure to mail any such bill or invoice, or failure of any owner to receive any such bill or invoice shall not excuse the owner of any parcels from the obligation of paying any Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for any parcels owned by bim or her.

D. The interested owner may, at any reasonable time, review the detailed statement prepared by the Finance Director.
8 73
CC 06-03-2025
73 of 1012
B. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for such parcels shall be due and payable immediately upon receipt of the bill or invoice refened to in this section.

3.38.100 Payment ofFees-Owne1· Responsibility.

The owner of any parcel is and shall be responsible for payment of any and all Clean Water and StomJ Protection fees applicable to parcels owned by him or her. It shall be and is hereby made the duty of each such owner to provide to the Finance Director information sufficient to calculate the land atea of the parcels within thirty days after request of the Finance Director and ascertain from the Finance Director the amount and due date of any such fee applicable to parcels owned by such owner and to pay such fee when due and payable. It also shall be and is hereby made the duty of all owners of all parcels to infonn the Finance Director immediately of all circumstances, and of any change or changes in any circumstances, which will in any way affect the applicability of any fee. In pa1ticular, but oot by way of limitation, an owner of any parcel shall immediately inform the Finance Director of any sale or transfer of such parcel by or to such owner.

3.38.110 Payment of Fees-Location.

Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this chapter all Clean Water and Storm Protection fees shall be payable at the office of the Finance Director in the City Hall of the City.

3.38.120 Payment of Fees-Delinquency Date.

Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this chaptei- eacb Clean Water and Stonn Protection fee shall be deUnquent if not paid on or before the fortieth day immediately following 'the date upon which such Clean Water and Stonn Protection fee became due and payable.

3.38.130 Penalty for Delinquency.

Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in th.is chapter, whenever any Clean Water and Storm Protection fee becomes delinquent, there shall be imposed a penalty equal to one hundred percent of the amow1t as set forth under Section 3.38.030.

3.38.140 Disputed Fees.

If any owner disputes the amount of the fee in any bill or invoice, the owner shall, within thirty days from and after the date such bill or invoice is mailed, and no later, file a claim with the Finance Director accompanied by detailed supporting factual data in support of the claim. lt shall be the duty of each such owner to prove to the Finance Director, that such fee is in error and the COffect amount thereof. lf the finance Director detetmines that the bill or invoice was in error, the Finance Director shall correct said bill. Failure to dispute the amount of the fee in accordance with this section shall be deemed acceptance of the correctness of the fee.

3.38.150 Fiscal Accountability
A The City shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit of the Clean Water and Stonn Protection Fee and environmental management/ clean creeks fund as part of its comprehensive annual financial report. The auditor shall include an accotuiting of the revenue received from the fee and expenditures thereof in the audited financial statements. The auditor's report shall be presented to the City Cou cil and made available to the public. The Director of Adminish·ative Services or the Director of Public Works shall prepare and present to the City CounciJ an annual report in conjunction withthe 9 74
CC 06-03-2025
74 of 1012
annual audjl that reviews the status and perfonnance of the programs, services and projects fonded wholly or paitially with proceeds of the Clean Water and Stom1 Protection Fee.

B. The City Council shall either select a citizen's oversight committee or assign oversight duties to a pre-ex.isling oversight committee to review and report annually on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the stom1 drainage service charge fund authorized by this chapter.

3.38.160 Special Fund-Restricted U e of Revenues.

A All revenues collected pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be placed into a special fund, which is known as the "environmental management/ clean creeks fund," created by Section 3 .36.170 of Chapter 3 .36 of the Mumcipal Code (Stonn Drainage Service Charge). Such revenues may be used for the purpose specified in Section 3.38.010, and for no other purpose; provided, however, that moneys deposited in the fund may be used for direct and administrative costs of the City in collecting the Clean Water and Storm Protection fees imposed by this part and for direct and indirect overhead costs of the City in perfomJing any tasks, including, but not limited to, calculation of the benefits received by prope1ties from the stonn drainage system.

B. As used in this section, • direct costs'' means wages and salaries a11d costs of employee fringe benefits incurred by the City, aud mileage reimbw-sement attributable to said collection activities. As used in this section, "admi.n.istrative costs" includes, but is not limited to all costs for computer service, materials, postage, supplies and equipment.

C. Notwithstanding subsections 3.38.160A and 3.38. l 60B interest on revenues in the environmental management / clean creeks fwid may be credited to the general fund of the City or to any other fund in the discretion of the City Council.

3.38.170 Refunds.

Whenever any refunds should become owing by virtue of any relief granted by the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.38.140 or by virtue of any error made in ascertaining the fee applicable to any parcels, the Finance Director is authorized to make such refunds and to expend for such purpose the moneys in the environmental management/ clean creeks fund. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.38.140, any claim for refund for fees collected under Section 3.38.070 must be made within one yeru· after the date bills for ta es are received by the owner. The City shall not be liable for interest or any amount determined to be refundable.

3.38.180 Inspection of Parcels Authorized.

The Director of Public Works, the Finance Director and their authorized representatives are hereby given power and authority to enter upon and within any parcels to ascertain the nature of such parcels; to inspect, observe, and review the benefit received from the storm drain system as may be allowed by law.

3.38.190 Payment of Delinquent Fees-City Enforcement Powers.

A. Notwithstanding other remedies, in the event of the failure of any owner to pay when due any Clean Water and Storn1 Protection fees applicable to parcels owned by such owner, the City may enforce payment of such delinquent fees by instituting action in any cowt of competent jurisruction to collect any fees wluch may be due and payable in the same manner as any other debts owing to the City may be collected.
10 75
CC 06-03-2025
75 of 1012
B. Any and aJI delinqueut payments may be placed on the ta · roll, and collected with properly tax.es, as provided in Section 3.38.070.

C. Such other action may be taken as may be authorized by law and by the CityC0tmcil.

D. Remedies under this secti011 are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil and criminal.

SECTION TWO - CEQA EXEMPTION
The City Council finds, based on its own independent judgement, that the proposed amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code are statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines 15273(a) - Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 . A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk.

SECTION THREE - INCONSISTENCIES REPEALED
This Ordinance is intended to be controlling on the authority to establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee, and shall supersede all prior ordinances, resolutions, rules or regulations that in conflict wherewith. Any provision of tJ1e Cupertino Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, or any other ordinances of the City inconsistent herewith, are repealed only to the extent of such inconsistencies a11d no further.

SECTION FOUR-™-PLEMENTATION
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take any action and sign any documents necessary to implement this ordinance.

SECTION FIVE - SEVERABil,ITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining po11ions of the Ordinance. The Council of the City of Cupertino hereby declares that they would ha e passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective oftbe fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION SIX-EFFECTIVE DATE· PlJBLICATION.

The City Clerk is directed to post and publish this ordinance in accordance with law in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Santa Clara, or as otherwise required by law.

This ordinance shall take effect as provided by Government Code Section 36937. 11 76
CC 06-03-2025
76 of 1012
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 7u, day of May 2019 and enacted al a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino after certification of the ballot results on the 161h day of July 20]9.

Members of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

Schruf, Chao, Paul, Sinks, Willey
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SI~
l _/ 1~1k.\\~
Steven Scharf, Mayor Date \
City of Cupertino
ATTEST:
6Ai:.9 L,l'))-- &--/1'}_
Date
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
·J~ A ?(3oL {\
Heather Minner, City Attorney Date
Exhibit A (Attachment Bl) -Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Stonn Protection Fee Report 77 CC 06-03-2025
77 of 1012

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
·COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

CITY OF CUPERTINO )
I, GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, do hereby certify the attached to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 19-2183, which was enacted on July 16th, 2019, and that it has been published or posted pursuant to law (G.C. 40806).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 16th day of July, 2019.

GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City of Cupe1iino, California 78 CC 06-03-2025
78 of 1012
Attachment B I

CITY OF CUPERTINO

FEE REPORT
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE
FEBRUARY 2019
PURSUANT TO THE ARTICLES XIII( & 0 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND THE GOVERNMENT (ODE SECTIONS 38900- 38901 ET AL.

ENGINEER OF WORK:

SCIConsultingGroup
4745 MANGELS BOULEVARD
FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA 94534
PHONE 707.430.4300
FAX 707.430.4319
WWW.SCI-CG.COM
79 CC 06-03-2025
79 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CITY COUNCIL
Steven Scharf, Mayor
Liang Chao, Vice Mayor
Darcy Paul, Councilmember
Rod Sinks, Councilmember
Jon Willey, Councilmember

INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Timm Borden

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Roger Lee, Acting Director

ENGINEER OF WORK
Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group
2019 CLEAN WATER ANO STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
PAGEi
Cl Consulting Group
80 CC 06-03-2025
80 of 1012
PAGE ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................... .............................. , ..... , ....... 1 CITY1S FACILITIES ............................... .. ........................................................................... 1 STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE ................................................................... 2 FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 4 FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS ........... , .................. 5 ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................... 6 RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK ................ .................. ................... 7 NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ........................................................ ............. 9 Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT.. .................................. ........ .. ................ 11 STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................... 12 ANNUAL COST INDEXING ....... , .... , ...... ............................................................................. 14 MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS .. , ................................................ ......... 14 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A- REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS ..................... 15 APPENDIX 8-PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS .......................... ... ......... 28 APPENDIX C- STORMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ............... , ... , .............. 30

CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
S ConsuftingGroup
81 CC 06-03-2025
81 of 1012
PAGE iii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES ............................. , .......................................... 5 TABLE 2-SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS ........ , ........... ........................ " .............. , ... .. .. .. .. ...... 6 TABLE 3- ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ....................................................... 6 TABLE 4- SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ............................................... 9 TABLE 5- SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS ........................................................................ , 10 TABLE 6-Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS ..................................... 12 TABLE 7-PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE ................. 13 TABLE 8 - PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN .......... , ............. 28 TABLE 9- PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN ............ 29 TABLE 10- RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES .. ........................................................ 31 TABLE 11 - SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ................................................. 32

CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
CtConsultingGroup
82 CC 06-03-2025
82 of 1012

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW
The City of Cupertino ("City'') has engaged SCI Consulting Group to study, make recommendations, and assist in the Implementation of a funding approach for its municipal separate storm sewer system1 ("MS4'') including environmental programs, maintenance and operations, and compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System2 ("NPDES") permit.

Since 2013 the City's Public Works Department has developed several planning documents pertaining to its Clean Water and Storm Protection program ("Program"). These Include the Trash Reduction Plan (2014 ), the Green Infrastructure Plan currently under development (to be completed in 2019) and the Storm Drain Master Plan ("SDMP,'' completed in 2018), These plans made it clear that the Program would need to expand its levels of service to achieve the goals of responsible environmental stewardship and smart investment in the City's aging infrastructure.

In 20181 the City embarked on a two-phase project to determine the feaslbillty of implementing a dedicated, sustainable revenue stream to fund the City's Clean Water and Storm Protection needs. The first phase included exploring potential funding sources, estimating user rate ranges for various budget scenarios, and conducting a public opinion survey of Cupertino residents and property owners to determine storm drain-related priorities and willingness to support a fee for these services. The City Council has now embarked on the second phase: implementation of a funding mechanism. This Fee Report is the first step in that process.

CITY'S FACILITIES

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The City operates and maintains a storm drainage system, as it is empowered to do per Government Code Sections 38900 and 38901 . This system is comprised of integrated storm drain pipes, inlets, outfalls. culverts, and ditches which divert stormwater to local creeks to prevent flooding. As the community grew and neighborhoods and business districts expanded, the City's storm drainage system was developed. When the first NPDES permit was issued in the early 1990s, the City recognized the fiscal burden these new clean water requirements would bring and established a property fee on mos! parcels to fund this activity.

Since that time the City has worked diligently and efficiently to continue meeting the everincreasing requirements of the NPDES permit, while the State's clean water requirements have evolved into a comprehensive environmental stewardship program. 1 In this report, the terms ''storm sewer." ''storm drainage," "storm protection," and ''stormwater" are used interchangeably, and are considered to be synonymous. 2 Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program is authorized by the EPA to allow state governments to perform many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program.
►
DRAFT - 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019
S IConsultingGroup
83 CC 06-03-2025
83 of 1012
The operations and maintenance ("O&M") side of the Program has also developed many activities that support a clean water supply and maintain the City's aging infrastructure to protect the neighborhoods and businesses from local flooding. On average, the industrystandard life expectancy of a storm drain system is approximately 60 years. The majority of the City's storm drain pipes were installed approximately 50 or more years ago, leaving the City with a system that is approaching the end of its useful life. Moreover, as noted in the Storm Drain Master Plan, so"me of the drainage system does not have adequate capacity.

STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND
The City historically has funded lts clean water program and storm drain matntenance activity primarily through two sources: The General Fund and the Storm Drainage Service Charge3 established in 1992. The 1992 charge, established at $12 per year for single-family residential and $144 per acre for commercial parcels, has not been increased since its inception.4 For more than a decade, the General Fund has carried the increasing burden of the Program. As a result, the City has needed to limit capital expenditures and keep operations and maintenance activities to a less than desirable level of service, mostly responding to storm-related emergencies and basic regulatory compliance.

The scale and projected needs of the system in a time of competing demands on the General Fund point toward the need for developing a separate, dedicated and sustainable funding stream. As many other municipalities in California have done, including San Jose and Palo Alto, the City of Cupertino is considering developing a new, additional, more secure and predictable source of funding for the Program. This Fee Report is the first step in that process, should the City decide to proceed.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE

CITY OF CUPERTINO
This Report calculates the Stormwater Fee as a property-related fee. Property-related fees are subject to the requirements of Articles XIIIC and D of the State Constitution, which were approved by voters in 1996 through Proposition 218, as well as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Sections 53750- 53758).

Any property-related fee must comply with requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6. These include the following:
■ Revenues derived from the fee shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service;
■ Revenues derived from the fee shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee was imposed;
■ The amount of a fee upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel; 3 Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 3.36.
4 This "freeze" on the stormwater fees are due primarily to the stringent requirements of Proposition 218 for a ballot measure to increase fees . 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
ConsuJtingGroup
84 CC 06-03-2025
84 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
p
• No fee may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees based on potential or future use of service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with the assessment section of the code; and
• No fee may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to the property owners. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT ---------- FEBRUARY 2019 .ConsuftingGro-up
85 CC 06-03-2025
85 of 1012

FACILITIES AND SERVICES

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The City operates and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system within the City's boundaries. The system is made up of man-made drainage systems including, but not limited to, curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch basins (inlets) and outfall structures. The natural creek system that runs throughout the City serves as the backbone of the City's system. While primary maintenance of those creeks is the responsibility of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City, through its Program, collaborates with the Water District for creek stewardship and educational activities. The system serves the entire City.

The primary storm drainage service provided by the City is the collection, conveyance, and overall management of the stormwater runoff from parcels. By definition, all parcels that shed stormwater into the City's system, either directly or indirectly utilize, or are served by, the City's storm drainage system. The need and necessity of this service are derived from property improvements, which historically have increased the amount of stormwater runoff from the parcel by constructing impervious surfaces such as rooftops, pavement areas, and certain types of landscaping that restrict or retard the percolation of water into the soil lens beyond the conditions found ih the natural, or unimproved, state, As such, open space land (in a natural condition) and agricultural lands that demonstrate stormwater absorption equal to or greater than natural conditions are not charged a fee. Other vacant land that was once improved or has been prepared for future improvements do not qualify as open space or natural land and will typically be charged a fee.

The 2018 SDMP contains a thorough set of maps and lists of various elements within the stormwater system. Those descriptions are the basis for this Report. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SCIConsultiJlgGroup
86 CC 06-03-2025
86 of 1012
Pa u5

FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS

CITY OF CUPERTINO
As part of.the fee implementation task, the SCI team conducted an analysis of the City's Clean Water and Storm Protection system needs. This analysis is contained in a technical memorandum dated February 20, 2019 from the firm of Larry Walker Associates and is included in Appendix A of this Report. This analysis reviewed existing revenues and estimated the true costs to the Program of preventing local flooding and remaining in compliance with the current NPDES permit, commonly known as the Municipal Regional Permit ("MRP") issued by the Water Board to all Phase 1 permittees in the San Francisco Bay area. The first MRP was issued in 2009. The second MRP was issued in 2015 and is referred to as MRP 2.0.

PROGRAM REVENUES
The first step of the analysis was to review the revenues available to the City's Program.

Based on information provided by the City, the existing revenues are projected through Fiscal Year 2023-24 as shown in Table 1 below. These values are drawn from Appendix A, Table 1.

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES
, Shown in thousands
, ~~~ F~re
,Revenue Category 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Storm water Charges $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 Other Revenue $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9
General Fund Transfer In $ 818 $ . $ $ - $ . $
TOTAL Revenues $ 1,197 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379

PROGRAM COSTS
The City's Program is influenced primarily by the requirements to prevent local flooding and to comply with the MRP 2.0. Cost estimates were based on budgetary and supplemental information provided by the City. In broadly assessing the Program's costs and following the City's current Budget structure, two main categories were used: Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") Costs, and Clean Water Program5 Costs. These categories reflect how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-to-day storm drainage-related operations.
5 The City's Budget document uses "Non-Point Source" as the name for the Clean Water program.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
C IC onsuttingGroup
87 CC 06-03-2025
87 of 1012
Page6
More detailed information can be found in Appendix A. The program costs are summarized in Table 2 below. The total costs shown in the right-hand column is for the five future years.

These values are drawn from Appendix A, Table 2.

Category
. :

Clean Water

TOTAL COSTS
TABLE 2- SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS
Shown in thousands
Current Future
18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 TOTAL
$ 477
$ 721
$ 552 $ 569 $ 586 $ 603 $ 622 ,. 891 918 964 994 1,025 4,792 $ 1,197 $ 1,443 $ 1,487 $ 1,550 $ 1,597 $ 1,647 $ 7,724

ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The proposed fee is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20. Therefore, the data presented in Appendix A for prior years do not factor into the analysis. What remains is a five-year window in which projected revenue sources and projected costs are presented.

Over the five fiscal years, the projected costs exceed revenues by $6.0 million. This is the amount that the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would need to generate in order to bring the Program into balance. The resulting revenue requirement is therefore based on an annual revenue, adjusted for inflation at 3.0% per year over the five-year period, that totals $6.0 million over those five years. These projections are summarized in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3-ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
Shown In thousands
Category
Expenditures
Shortfall
Current Future
18-19
na
na
na
19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
1,443 1,487 1,550 1,597 1,647
$11,064) $11,108) $11,171) $(1,218) $(1,268)
TOTAL
.. .
7,724
$ 15,829}
Revenue Requirement* $ 1,098 $ 1,131 $ 1,165 $ 1,200 $ 1,236 $ 51828 • Revenues ore increased by 3.0% annually for inflation 2019 CLEAN WATER ANO STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
S rconsultingG.roup
88 CC 06-03-2025
88 of 1012
< . 7

RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Proposition 218 states that the amount of a fee upon any parcel shall not exceed the proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel. It also states that no fee may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property. As noted earl'ier, all properties that shed stormwater into the Citys system are served by that system. In compliance with Propos~ion 218, the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee will only be imposed on properties that shed water, directly or indirectly, into the City's system. Additionally, the amount of use attributed to each parcel is proportionate to the amount of stormwater runoff contributed by the parcel1 which is, in turn, proportionate to the amount of impervious surface area on a parcel (such as building roofs and pavements).

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The most widely used method of establish Ing storm drainage rates6 is to use the average or median single-family residential parcel7 ("SFR") as the basic unit of measure, or benchmark, which is called the single-family equivalent, or "SFE." Since the metric for this fee structure is impervious surface area, a benchmark amount of impervious surface area CISA") must be established.

Cupertino has a wide range of sizes of SFR parcels, which have varying percentages of impervious area ("%IA"). Generally, smaller, denser parcels tend to have a higher proportion of impervious area than larger, less dense parcels, which tend to have a lower percentage of impervious area. (This can be best visualized by the fact that larger residential properties tend to have a larger proportion of pervious landscaping, and: therefore a smaller proportion of impervious area.) Therefore, the range of SFR was broken into four size categories as shown in Table 4 below with the medium category containing the largest number of parcels.

The City's 2018 SDMP includes an analysis of the %IA for Cupertino.8 The SDMP findings of ¾IA for various land uses were used as a basis for this Report. Since the categories in the SDMP don't completely align with the rate categories established in this Report, some adjustments were made. A summary of these adjustments is shown in Appendix B.

The median sized SFR parcel is 0.17 acre (approximately 7,405 square feet), which is also the median parcel size for the medium SFR rate category. That size of parcel is considered 6 Stormwater Utility Survey, 2017, page 2, Western Kentucky University. 7 The SFR category also includes multiplex parcels of two, three or four units, since the lot development characteristics do not vary significantly from the SFR parcels of similar size.

In all, this includes the approximately 496 multiplex parcels In the City, which were distributed to the same four parcel size categories as the other SFRs. Any residential structure with five or more units is categorized as multi-family residential ("MFR"), which is calculated separately.
8 Section 2.2.3, page 2~6 of the City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Co nsultingGroup
89 CC 06-03-2025
89 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
to fall into the low-density residential category of the SDMP, which is reported to have a %IA of 55%. Therefore, the median parcel in Cupertino contains 4,073 square feet of impervious surface area ("ISA") as shown in the calculation below. This will be used as the benchmark (1 SFE) for all other size categories and other non-residential land uses. 1 SFE = %IA x Median Parcel Siz
= 55% X 7,405 4
= 4,073 sf
This becomes the basis for calculating the SFEs for all other types of land uses. The %IA for each size category,was applied to the median size parcel. in that category to calculate its median !SA The SFE per parcel for each size category is a simple ratio of the median ISA for each category to the ISA (4,073 sQ for the benchmark category of medium-sized parcels as shown ih the following formula:

SFE per Parcel =

SPECIAL NOTES ON CONDOMINIUMS
Median ISA
4,073
Condominium units are particularly difficult to categorize as they are often on very small individual parcels yet share larger common areas that are made up of landscaped {pervious) areas, parking lots and shared roofs, and other recreational uses (either pervious or impervious). The data for these variables is not readily available, so some assumptions are made about their characteristics.

Condominiums can be grouped into two categories: High density where they tend to have units on multiple floors (similar to apartment buildings), and medium density where they are only one unit high (i.e., townhomes), For the medium-density condominium units, the presence of common areas with landscape features make them very similar to the small-lot SFR parcels, and therefore they are assigned the same ISA (3,354 sij and SFE per parcel as a small-lot SFR parcel.

For the high-density condominium units, further analysis was done. Fourteen condominium complexes with 1,246 unit~ were identified throughout the City. Using aerial photographs, measurements were made of the impermeable areas. A strong trend was found such that the average ISA per unit was 1,099 square feet. Therefore, the high-density condominiums are assigned an ISA of 1,099 square feet This is 33% of the ISA for the medium-density condominiums.

Table 4 below shows a summary of the SFEs for single-famlly residential parcels. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
fConsuttiogGroup
90 CC 06-03-2025
90 of 1012
Page9
TABLE 4- SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
I
Median
Total Total Parcel SFE per
I Lot Type Parcel Size Range Parcels* Acres• Size % I A** IS A Parcel Acres SF SF
Small under 0.13 1,526 159 4,792 70% 31354 0.82
Medium 0.13 to 0.22 8,958 1,510 7,405 55% 4,073 1.00
Large 0.23 to 0.40 1,542 420 11,326 45% 5,097 1.25
Extra Large over 0.40 345 460 27,878 35% 9,757 2.40
Condosl (one story) 2,221 95 na na 3,354 0.82
Condos 2+ (2+ stories) 1,246 46 na na 1,099 0.27
15,838 2,690
• Total Pa ree ls an d Acres do not factor into the basis of the SFE calculation; they are shown for informa tional purposes on ly.

NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Unlike the SFR parcels, the non-SFR parcels can vary widely in size as well as characteristics. For this reason, the parcels have been grouped into land use categories according their %IA characteristics (as shown in Appendix B). The SFE for each land use category is based on a per-acre basis, so size can be a variable in the calculation of the fee.

The SFE-per-acre can be computed for each category using the following formula:
(43,560 sf I acre) x % I A SFE p er Acre = ~--~-~---
4,073 sf
where 4,073 square feet is the amount of ISA in one SFE.

Table 5 below shows a summary of resulting the non-single-family parcel SFEs for each non-SFR land use category.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
CfConsuJtingGroup
91 CC 06-03-2025
91 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE 5-SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS
I Total Total SFE per
land Use Category Parcels* Acres* % I A** Acre
Multi-Family (Apartments) 79 200 65% 6.95
Commefcial /Retail/ Industrial 256 441 85% 9.09
Office 217 372 65% 6.95
C:hurch / Institutional 39 98 55% 5.88
School (w/playfield) 16 329 40% 4.28
Park 3 53 15% 1.60
Vacant (developed) 134 153 5% 0.53
Open Space/ Agricultural 240 1,192 na
TOTAL 984 2,837
• Tota I Pa rce Is and Acres do not factor into th e bas is of the SFE ca I cu l a tion ; they a re shown for info rmationa I purpose s only.
0 %IA is taken fro m Appendix B
Each individual parcel's SFE is then calculated by multiplying the parcel size (in acres9) times the SFE per acre for that land use category, as shown in the following formula:

SFE = Parcel Size (acres) x SFE per Acre
DEVELOPED VACANT10 PARCELS
Developed vacant parcels are devoid of obvious structures or improvements but are distinguished from undeveloped vacant land by one of several characteristics. Typically, a developed vacant parcel has been graded to be ready for building construction (possibly as part of the original subdivision or adjacent street grading). In some cases, the parcel previously contained a structure or improvement that has been removed, but its fundamental alteration from a natural state remains. Although developed vacant parcels may have significant vegetative cover, the underlying soil conditions resulting from grading work or previous improvements usually cause some rainfall to runoff into the storm drainage system.

The %IA for developed vacant parcels is reasonably assumed to be 5%, which is also used as a minimum value of imperviousness for any land use type (excluding open space and agricultural land - see next section). Vacant parcels that have significant impervious paving remaining from prior improvements may be classified as Commercial or some other classification best representing the %IA of the parcel. 9 Parcel size for non-SFR parcels is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof. 10 "Vacant" in this Report refers to land that is devoid of improvements. It does not refer to land with vacant buildings or improvements, which would continue to shed water to the MS4 the same as if they were occupied.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
C IConsultingGroup
92 CC 06-03-2025
92 of 1012
OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL PARCELS ARE Nor CHARGED
The City's storm drain system was developed in response to land development over the many decades. Tracts of land that have not yet been developed, or have been used primarily for agricultural purposes, have not created an impact on the system beyond the natural condition, and are therefore considered to receive no service from the system, In practical terms, these parcels generate no additional storm runoff beyond the natural condition. For these reasons, open space and agricultural parcels are not charged a Fee.

HYBRID PARCELS
Some parcels may have both improvements as well as significant open space areas, For such parcels that contain a residence, the open space acreage does not increase the fee because residential parcels are not charged on a per-acre basis. Rather, they are charged based on the median ISA for that size category.

For such parcels that contain non-residential improvements (which are charged on a peracre basis), the chargeable acreage should be adjusted downward to reflect the improved area only, leaving the open space area "invisible" to the fee calculation. Where parcels have been found in this category, that acreage adjustment has been made.

Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The current NPDES Permit requires certain properties to construct stormwater treatment and attenuation facilities1 also known as low impact development ("LID"), These facilities are typically designed to capture a portion of the storm flows, retain them, and enable them to infiltrate into the ground. While this is intended to help filter pollutants from the water, it also can reduce the parcel's stormwater runoff quantity to some extent, which in turn can reduce a parcel's impact on the system. In addition to NPDES-required L'ID1 other parcel owners may elect to follow LID guidelines voluntarily.

The section of the MRP that requires LID facilities is Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment). Compliance with C.3 is a well-established and convenient metric on which to base customer activities that further Program goals and affect Program costs. C.3 compliance can have impacts to many of the Program elements. In order to analyze the extent to which C.3 compliance will impact Program costs, each Program element was rated with one of four impact levels: none (0%), minor (25%), medium (50%), and major (80%.).

By applying those impact levels to the costs of each Program element, it was determined that compliance with Provision C.3 equates to approximately 25% of the overall Program costs. Table 6 below shows the results of that analysis.

Based on that analysis, a commensurate reduction in the fees for certain CJ-compliant parcels is warranted. However, C.3 compliance brings with it some additional administrative burdens to verify ongoing compliance. While this burden is relatively minor, for single-family parcels where the annual fee is also relatively small, the administrative burden negates the LID benefits to the program. Therefore, single-family residential parcels do not qualify for the reduced fee. Conversely, C.3 compliance for condominiums is typically accomplished on a collective basis, so the minor administrative burden is spread across many parcels 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
IConsuJtingGroup
93 CC 06-03-2025
93 of 1012

making it insignificant. Therefore, a 25% red uction in fees will be applied to all C.3-compliant parcels that are either non-single-family or condominium.

TABLE 6- Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS E ... :, ... OJ 0 ·- 0 i
~
C C "'D -
_ _____ MRP Provision ____ L _~ ___ f __ :[ ____ _ __ _ _ Notes _____ _ Operations & Maintenance
Program Management
C.2 Municipal Operations
Clean Water Program
Cl
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
c.7
C.8
C.9
C.10
C.11
C.12
C.13
C.17
Permit Compliance
Municipal Operations
New Development and
Redevelopment
Industrial and Commercial
Site Controls
Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
Construction Site Control
Publlc Information and
Outreach
Water Quality Monitoring
Pesticides Toxicity Control
Trash load Reduction
Mercury Controls
PCBs Controls
Copper Controls
Annua l Reports
Bm Does not lessen Program Management
burden
Reduces storm flows in minor storm,
reducing burden on operations
Is a small part of overall Program
Compliance
Does not lessen Municipal Operations
compliance burden
Is all about C.3
Provides controls
Does not lessen Illicit Discharge burden
Does not lessen Construction Controls
burden
Aids In educating property owners
Does not lessen WQ Monitoring burden
Capture & infiltration may filter out
pesticides
Many C.3 devices are considered a
partial trash capture device
Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
Does not lessen reporting requirements

STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The primary metric in this analysis is the SFE as illustrated above. To arrive at the fee amount for the various land use categories, the total City-wide SFEs must be divided into the total revenue requirement to arrive at the rate per SFE. Using the analysis above, that calculation is represented by the following formula:
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
C ConsultingGroup
94 CC 06-03-2025
94 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
SFERate
Annual Revenue Requirement
Total SFEs
Or, using numbers from the analysis:

SFE Rate =
$1 ,097,787
24,713.810
= $44.42 per SFE

This SFE rate amount is then multiplied by the SFEs per parcel or acre for the various land use categories to arrive at the Stormwater Fee Rate Schedule shown in Table 7 below.

TABLE 7- PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE l Proposed Fee
_ ~ land Use Category SF~_ ~~t_e_ _ FY 2019-_20
Single-Family Residential *
Small (under 0.13 acre) 0.824 $ 36.58 per parcel - Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre) 1.000 $ 44.42 per parcel Large (0.23 to 0.40 acre) 1.251 $ 55.58 per parcel
Extra Large (over 0.40 acre) 2.396 $ 106.42 per parcel
Condominium 1 (1 story) 0.824 $ 36.58 per parcel -.

Condominium 2+ (2+ stories) 0.270 $ 11.99 per parcel - Non-Single-Family Residential * * Multi-Family Residential 0.695 $ 30.88 per 0.1 acre
Commercial/ Retail/ Industrial 0.909 $ 40.38 per 0.1 acre Office 0.695 $ 30.88 per 0.1 acre
Church/ Institutional 0.588 $ 26.13 per 0.1 acre
School (w/playfield) 0.428 $ 19.00 per 0.1 acre
Park 0.160 $ 7.13 per 0.1 acre
Vacant (developed) 0.053 $ 2.38 per 0.1 acre
Open Space/ Agricultural no charge
Low Impact Development Adjustment • 0 25% Fee Reduction • SFR category also includes duplex, triplex and four-plex units. '* Non-SFR parcel size is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof. •** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-single-family properties.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SC Consulting.Group
95 CC 06-03-2025
95 of 1012
P ga 14

ANNUAL COST INDEXING
The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is subject to an annual adjustmen! tied to the Consumer Price lndex~U for the San Jose Area as of December of each succeeding year (the "CPI"), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. Any ,change in the CPI ih excess of 3% shall be cumulatively reserved as the ''Unused CPI" and shalli be used to increase the maximum authorized rate in years in which the CPI is less than 3%. The maximum authorized rate is equal to the maximum rate in the first fiscal year the Fee was approved adjusted annually by the lower of either 3% or the change in the CPI plus any Unused CPI as described above.

MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS

CITY OF CUPERTINO
The City shall deposit into a separate account(s) all 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee revenues collected and shall appropriate and expend such funds only for the purposes outlined by this Report. The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific programs and projects listed, and the division of revenues and expenses between the two primary categories (Clean Water and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future revenue needs and are not intended to be binding on future use of funds , The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific programs or projects listed, and the division of revenues and expenses between the two primary categories (Glean Water and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future revenue needs and are not intended to be binding on future use of funds.

Dated: February 20, 2019
Engineer of Work
By ?(~
Jerry Bradshaw, License No. C48845
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SC1ConsultfrtgGroup
96 CC 06-03-2025
96 of 1012
aeh

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A- REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS

CITY OF CUPERTINO
On the following pages is a regulatory assessment and cost and revenue analyses, drawn from a technical memorandum prepared for this project by Larry Walker Associates, The information contained in this Appendix forms a basis for the fee calculations in the main body of this Fee Report and is referenced as appropriate.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Consulti.ngGrou
97 CC 06-03-2025
97 of 1012
Memorandum
DATE :

TO :

SUBJECT:

Cc:

Febmaiy 20, 2019
Susan Barnes, SCI Consulting Group
Fee Study Report: Regulatory Assessment
& Cost and Revenue Analysis
Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group
Cheri Donnelly, City of Cupertino
Jo Anne Johnson, City of Cupe1iino
Karen Ashby, Lany Walker Associates

1. INTRODUCTION

L A R R Y
WALKER

ASSOCIATES
Rachel Warren
Airy Krich-Brinton
1480 Drew Ave., Suite 100
Davis, CA 95618
530.753.6400
[email protected]
Alr{[email protected]
In the early l 990s, in response to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) amendment of l 987 to address urban stonnwater runoff pollution from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and the pending federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations that would implement the amendment, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) issued municipal stormwater Phase 1 NPDES pennits to the countywide urban areas of Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and Contra Costa.

These countywide areas had individual pennits until 2009, when the Regional Water Board issued a Mwlicipal Regional Stormwater Pennit (MRP). L The MRP was subsequently reissued in 2015.2
The current MRP regulates stonnwater discharges from municipalities in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties (including the City of Cupe1ii110 ), as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo in Solano County. The MRP includes requirements for the following components, including an increased focus on requirements for control of specific pollutants to address some of the more persistent water quality issues:
• C. l Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations • C.2 Municipal Operations
• C.3 New Development and Redevelopment
• C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Contra.ls
• C.5 Illicit Discharge and Elimination
• C.6 Conshuction Site Controls
• C.7 Public Lnfmmation and Outreach
1 Order R2-2009-0074 .is amended by Order No. R2-201 L-0083 2 Order No. R2-20 IS-0049
Appendix-A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 16 98 CC 06-03-2025
98 of 1012
• C.8 Water Quality Monitoring
• C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls
• C. l O Trash Reduction
• C.11 Mercury Controls
• C.12 PCB Controls
• C.13 Copper Controls
• C. l 4 Bacterial Controls
• C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges
• C.16 Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance • C.17 Annual Repo1ts
The City of Cupertino (City) is committed to water quality and watershed stewardship by continuing to build a safer, healthier, and more aesthetically pleasing community through programs, initiatives, and ordinances that align with MRP activities. Over the years, the range of actions taken by the City bas greatly increased in response to evolving regulatory requirements and commwtity needs.

As a part of the stormwater program initiative1 tbe City leverages its resomces by paiticipating in a comprehensive effort in the Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which was initiated in 1990 and is organized, coordinated, and implemented in accordance with a memorandwn of agreement (MOA) between its 15 member agencies. The Santa Clara Valley collaboration is further supplemented by participation in the regional Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). In addition to directly benefitting member agencies with access to better science, the regiona] collaborations enhance technical approaches and ensure consistent messaging to the public and community decision makers. Implemented when the fast stonnwater pennits were issued to Santa Clara Valley pe1mittees, the coJlaboration has effectively assisted member agencies in maintaining storm.water programs that achieve federally and State-mandated water quality regulations.

The putpose of this Technical Memorandum is to develop a planning-level cost estimate for the full costs of implementing the stormwater program, which may be used to support a funding measure for the City·s st01m drain operations and maintenance and Clean Water Program needs.

The assessment includes a summary of known revenues and estimates of p1ior year, current year, and future implementation costs of the stormwater program.3 This info1mation may also he used in the future to budget program funding and/or to identify other potential funding sources, This memorandum is organized as follows:
l . Introduction

2. Approach

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Overall Summary

3.2. City Expenditures
3 Prior year is fiscal year 2017-2018; current is fiscal year 2018-2019; future 1s fiscal years 2019-2020 through 2023-2024.

Appendi x. A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 17 99 CC 06-03-2025
99 of 1012

2. APPROACH
To understand the funding needs for the stormwater program, the 'true' costs for full implementation of the MR.P requirements must be understood. However, tracking and compiling staff time and resources across multiple departments can be a complex and time-consullling process. To identify the implementation costs for the City as comprehensively and efficiently as possible, an interview was conducted with key City staff, which included stmctured questions and discussions regarding the agency's staffing, implemei1tation approach for the range ofMRF requirements prior and cuiTent stormwater program revenues, and the estimated costs for program implementation. The revenues and expenditures were compiled and assigned to two main categories, which reflects how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-today stormwater-related operations:
• Operations and Maiutenance (O&M): This includes ongoing and routine ac6vities supp01ti.11g the O&M of the stormwater infrastructure, including inspection and cleaning of storm drain inlets, st01m cl.rain lines, and trash capture devices, as well as street sweeping management (prin1ariJy MRP provision C.2).
• Clean Water Program: This includes ongoing and routine activities that are directly related to water quality improvement., such as implementation of the MRP requirements, participation in the SCVURPPP, clean creek programs, community outreach, business and construction site inspections street sweeping, and implementation of the City's trash reduction plan (all MR.P provisions, with the exception of green infrastructure projects).

3. RESULTS ANO DISCUSSION
A summary and discussion of total City costs for implementation of the MRP during the prior year (2017-2018) current year (2018-2019), and future years (2019-2020 through 2023-2024), is provided within this section. The cost information is presented io two ways: a summary of City expenditures by cost category (O&M and Clean Water Program) (3.1. Overall Summary) and a detailed breakdown of expenditures (3.2. City Expenditures) as they relate to the two cost categories. The approach and assumptions used to develop each of these summaries are desc1ibed below. All costs are in present-value dollars.

3.1. Overall Summary
Costs for the full implementation of the stormwater program were estimated based on budgetary and supplemental infonnation provided by the City, The approach and assumptions used were as follows:
• The revenue and expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were based on the City 's 2018 and 20 I 9 Adopted Budgets.
• Futme revenue was assumed to be the same as that for the ciment fiscal year, 2018-2019 without the transfers in from the General Fund (i.e., $379 000) (Table 1). • The category-specific expenditure totals in Table 2 were taken directly from the detailed City Expenditures for 2017-2018 tlu·ougb 2023-2024 (see Section 3.2, Table 4). • Future cost projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018, information obtained during City staff interviews, and a percentile multiplier (3% for personnel costs and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for participation in SCVURPPP). Additional details Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 18 100
CC 06-03-2025
100 of 1012
regarding assumptions for futurn, potential cost i.ncrnases related to specific MRP provisions are provided in 3.2. City Expenditures.

Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Proteolion Fee Report Page 19 101
CC 06-03-2025
101 of 1012
This page left intentionally blank for printing piuposes Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 20 102
CC 06-03-2025
102 of 1012
The estimated revenue for 2017-2018 through 2023-2024 is shown in Table 1 and Figure I.

Table 1. Overall Summary of Revenue
- PriorlaJ CurrentCaJ Future - Projected
Revenue Category 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 O&M Fund 100-85
Total Fund Revenue $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer in (General Fund) $448,250 $476,503 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clean Water Program Fund 230-81
Fines and forfeitures $6,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Charges for services $380,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Transfer in (General Fund) $375,720 $341 ,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 [a] Values are from the City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget' (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81 ) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)).
4 https://www.cupe,ti110.org/home/ howdocument?id=2 l 776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 21 103
CC 06-03-2025
103 of 1012
The total estimated expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (based on the 2018 and 2019 Adopted Budgets) and the total estimated expenditures for the next five years, organized by cost category, are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1.

Table 2. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs for MRP, by Cost Category and Fiscal Year Prior[a] CurrentCaJ Future - Projected
Cost Category 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 O&M $449,950 $476,503 $552,000 $569,000 $586,000 $603,000 $622,000 F1,md 1 00-S5
Clean Water Program $761,720 $720,785 $891,000 $918,000 $964,000 $994,000 $1,025,000 Fund 230-81 Total Expenses $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $1,443,000 $1,487,000 $1,550,000 $1,598,000 $1,646,000 [a] Values are from the City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget' (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Stonn Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)),
s hll[Js://www.cupertino.ore:/home/showdocument'! id= 2 l 776 P. ,dix A 2019 Clean Water and St 0 rotection Fee Report Pager 104
CC 06-03-2025
104 of 1012
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
- o&M, Fund 100-85 - clean Water Program, Fund 230-81 Total Revenue Figure 1. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs and Revenue for MRP, by Cost Category and Fiscal Year

3.1.1. Overall Summary: Discussion
Below are a few key observations regarding the overall estimated expenditw·es:
• During the observed time period, the estimated cost of stoimwater program implementation will exceed the estimated, dedicated revenue (Figure 1). • The Clean Water Program costs account for the larger portion (62%, as a seven-year average) of the City's stormwater-related costs.
• Overall, it is anticipated that the City's stormwater program will spend similar percentages on O&M and the Clean Water Program annually. Additional, one-time cost increases are included for the Clean Water Program in FY 2021-2022, based on potential increases in MRP requirements (as described in 3.2. City Expenditures). • Based on the information available and the assumptions made, the total cost of the sto1mwater program is expected to increase by 36% between 2017-2018 and 2023-2024 (Figure 1). However, it should be noted that the cost increase could be greater depending upon the requirements of the final, renewed MRP.
o Between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, a 21 % increase in the total cost of the sto11nwater program is anticipated to occur. This increase is based on a thorough evaluation of the City personnel and non-personnel costs required to implement the current MRP provisions and provide stmm protection (as described in 3.2. City Expenditures).

Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Stonn Protection Fee Report Page 23 105
CC 06-03-2025
105 of 1012

3.2. City Expenditures
osts for the implementation of the storm water program for the MRP were estimated based on budgetaiy and supplemental information provided by the City. When detennining which costs to include, the City consider d, at a rn.inimum, the following:
• Labor·
• Materials;
• Contract Services;
• Contingencies; and
• Cost Allocation.

The following key pieces of infonnation were provided by the City:
• "Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY17 _ 18 Expenctitw·e (Actual)" spreadsheet, which details the expenditures for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2017-2018.
• 'Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY 17 _ 18 Revenue (Actual) ' spreadsheet, which details the revenues for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2017- 2018.
• "Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY] 8 _ 19 Expenditure (Budget)' spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and expenditures to date fol' the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2018-2019.
• "Fund 230-81 -Environmental Programs FY18_19 Revenue (Budget)" spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and revenues to date for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2018-2019.
• '100-85-818 FY17 _ 18 Expense (actual)" spreadsheet, which details the expenditures for O&M by expense type for FY 2017-2018.
• '100-85-818 FYl8_19 Expense (Budget)" spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and expenses to date for O&M by expense type for FY 2018-2019. • Hard copy tables describing the staff positions under '230-81-802 Env Mgmt Cln Crk Stnn Drain - Environmental Programs - Non Point Sow·ce'' and FTE- General Fund. ' • Hard copy "Resolution 18-039, Schedule B- Engineering" describing the various fees effective July 1, 2018.
• The City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget6 detailing the revenue, expenditure, and General Fund Costs for the 2018 adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100- 85) (p. 434-435).
6 http ://www .cupcrtino.org/home/showdocument?id= 1776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 24 106
CC 06-03-2025
106 of 1012
The approach and assumptions used were as follows:
• All costs were id ntified as O&M Costs or Clean Water Program Costs (Table 4). • The City s "Cost Allocation" for each fund, which includes overhead costs such as Human Resow-ces, Finance1 and lnfo1mation Technology Support, are divided as follows:
o The fulJ Cost Allocation amount for O&M (Fund l 00-85) is accounted for under Provision C.2.
o The Cost Allocation amount for Clean Water Program (Fund 230-81) is allocated propmtionally to specific. !v1RP provisions based on the identified labor costs. • The City's contribution to SCVURPPP was detennined as follows:
o Based on the Memorandum of Agreement, the Cityf s rumual, propo1tional cost share is 2.46% of the annual SCVURPPP Program Budget.
o The City's payment h.istory (JuJy 2008 through July 2018) wa~ used to determine the average annual increase in the City's contribution (3.57%). Thjs multiplier was used to estimate contributions for future years.
o The total SCVURPP contribution was distributed equally amongst the MRP provisions (C.2 through C.13).
• Future costs were projected as follows:
o Future projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018 and a percentile multiplier (3% for personnel costs and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for participation in S VURPPP). This is based on preliminary feedback from Regional Water Board staff that the MRP should oat change significantly. However, if significant changes are made to the MRP during the renewal process, then the estimates should be modified accordingly.
o Implementation costs for specific MR.P provisions are anticipated to require an additio11al increase dwing the first year of the next l\.1RP tem,.7 These increases were applied as additive percent increases only for FY 2021-2022. These are preliminary estimates, and the actual cost increases are to be detennined upon adoption of the new MRP. These provisions, the anticipated, potential cost increase for each, and the rationale for the potential increase are as follows:
- C.3 New Development and Redevelopment (5%). This estimated increase is based on potential expansion of the C.3 requirements to small projects and single-family residences, which would necessitate updating the application materials and guidance, including the C.3 Technical Guidance. In addition, there will be increased costs associated with enhanced O&M requirements for green infrastmcture projects. This does not include costs for implementation/instatlation of green infrastmcture projects. 7 The cu1Tent NlRP expire on December 31, 2020. If the MRP is reissued on schedule, the new MRP will begin to be implemented on January 1, 2021. The e increases have been applied to the anticipated, first full year of implementation of the new MRP, beginning July I, 2021 .

Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 25 107
CC 06-03-2025
107 of 1012
- C.10 Trash Load Reduction (7.5°/c>), This estimated increase is based on anticipated, new monitoring/assessment costs and implementation reqt1irements, including the assessment of private catchments. In addition, by 2022, the City wit I need to achieve 100% reduction of the trash load from its base trash generation level; based on the 2017-2018 Annual Report the City is cun-ently achieving 93% reduction.
- C.11 Mercury Controls and C.12 Polychlorioated Bipbenyls (PCBs) Controls (7.5%}. This estimated increase is based on implementation of new programs for building demolition to address mercmy and PCBs. - C.17 Annual Reports (5%). This estimated increase is based on anticipated changes in reporting requirements and the potential for some increased costs related to electronic reporting (via EPA) and cost repmting (via the state). o No incremental projections were made for expenses described as "one-time costs." The total expenditures for 2017-2018 (prio year) and 2018-2019 (cw-rent year), based on the adopted budgets for those years, and the total, estimated expenditmes for the next five years (:fut1ire), organized by cost category (fund) and MRP provision, are shown in Table 4.8 Only total fund values are included foT 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. 8 The total cost for each cost category (fund) are also summarized in Table 2, Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 26 108
CC 06-03-2025
108 of 1012
Table 4. City Estimated Expenditures for MRP, by Cost Category (Fund) and Fiscal Year PriorlaJ CurrentCaJ
Fund MRP Provision 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
Fund 100-85, Operations & Maintenance
Program Management $59,000
C.2 Municipal Operations $493,000
Fund Total $449,950 $476,503 $552,000
Fund 230-81, Clean Water Program
C.1 Permit Compliance $23,000
C.2 Municipal Operations $148,000
C.3 New Development and Redevelopment $70,000
C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls $83,000
C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination $129,000 C.6 Construction Site Control $43,000
C.7 Public Information and Outreach $118,000
C.8 Water Quality Monitoring $11 ,000
C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control $21 ,000
C.10 Trash Load Reduction $130,000
C.11 Mercury Controls $24,000
C.12 PCBs Controls $51,000
C.1 3 Copper Controls $11,000
C.17 Annual Reports $29,000
Fund Total $761,720 $720,785 $891,000
Total $1,211,670 $1 ,197,288 $1,443,000
-
2020-2021
Future - Projected£bl
2021-2022
$61 ,000 $63,000
$508,000 $523,000
$569,000 $586,000
$24,000 $25,000
$153,000 $157,000
$72,000 $77,000
$86,000 $88,000
$133,000 $137,000
$44,000 $46,000
$122,000 $126,000
$11,000 $12,000
$21,000 $22,000
$134,000 $148,000
$25,000 $27,000
$52,000 $57,000
$11,000 $12,000
$30,000 $33,000
$918,000 $964,000
$1 ,487,000 $1 ,550,000
202.2-2023 2023-2024
$65,000 $67,000
$539,000 $555,000
$603,000 $622,000
$25,000 $26,000
$162,000 $167,000
$80,000 $82,000
$91,000 $94,000
$141,000 $145,000
$47,000 $49,000
$129,000 $1 33,000
$12,000 $1 3,000
$23,000 $23,000
$152,000 $157,000
$27,000 $28,000
$59,000 $61 ,000
$12,000 $13,000
$34,000 $35,000
$994,000 $1,025,000
$1,598,000 $1,646,000
[a] Values are from the City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget" (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)).
[b] Each value for the fiscal years under the "Future - Projected" column is considered to be estimated and has been rounded to the nearest $1 ,000; thus, summing individual values may result in a slightly different total than those shown in the "Fund Total" and "Total" rows. 9 http ://www .cupertino.org/home/ howdocument?id=2 l 776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 27 109
CC 06-03-2025
109 of 1012
PAGE28
APPENDIX 8-PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Section 2.2.3 of the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP, 2018) provided information about the percentage of impermeable area (%IA) for various land use types. Table 8 below summarizes that information.

TABLE 8- PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN :Land Use % I A --------------
Commercial/Industrial 85
Very Low Density Res. 35
Low Density Res. 55
Low-Medium Density Res 70
Medium Density Res 80
High Density Res . 75
Medium-High Density Res. 70
Open Water 100
Parks/Open Space 15
Publ ic (Schools, Gov't, etc.) 45
Quasi-Public/Institutional 65
Transportation/Right of Way 90
Undeveloped 0
Several of the SDMP land use types were the same as the rate categories for this Report.

However, some of the rate categories in this Report did not precisely match the land uses in the SDMP, so adjustments were made. Table 9 below shows the SDMP categories on the left side and the Fee Report rate categories on the right side. The ones in green matched sufficiently to use them outright. The ones in beige required some adjustments, which are explained below the Table.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SCIConsultingGro~p
110
CC 06-03-2025
110 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Pag..i 29
TABLE 9- PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN I _ Storm_ Drain_Ma_st_e_!_!>lan _ _ ~ __ __fe~ Repo_rt _ Low-Medium IDensity Res 70 7,0 Small SFR
Low Density Res. 55 55 Medil!Jm SFR
45 Large SFR
Very low Density Res. 35 35 Very Large SFR
Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 65 Multi-fam
Colil'lmercial/lndustrial 85 85 Comm/ln€lusl
Ql!lasi-Pul!Jlic/lnstitutional 65 65 €:Jf.fice
Public (Schools, Gov't, etc.) 45 55 Institutional
40 Schools
Parks/Open SJ!)ace 15 Il.5 Pa~~s
Undeveloped 0 5 Vacant
0 Open Space
EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO %IA
• Large Single-Family Residential- This category falls between the Medium and Very Large categories without a corresponding land use in the SDMP. That gap was split evenly to arrive at a %IA of 45%. This created an array of %IA for the residential rate categories that aligns well with other communities and associated fee reports. • Institutional & Schools - The SDMP grouped schools with other governmental uses, however the Fee Report distinguishes between governmental/institutional uses and schools (with play field areas). The SDMP blended rate of 45% was used as a basis to split the Fee Report categories to arrive at %IA values of 55% and 40%, respectively. Again, these values align relatively well with other communities and associated fee reports.
• Vacant & Open Space - The SDMP assigned a value of 0% for the undeveloped land use while the Fee Report distinguishes between open space/natural terrain and vacant land that has been developed (but not improved). It is assumed that the SDMP blended the two categories, which was split for the Fee Report categories to arrive at %IA values of 5% and 0%, respectively. Further justification for the %IA of zero for open space land is provided in the body of the Fee Report. Again, these values align relatively well with other communities and associated fee reports. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
ConsultjngGrroup
111
CC 06-03-2025
111 of 1012
APPENDIX C- ST0RMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES

CITY OF CUPERTINO
There have been relatively few voter-approved local revenue measures in the past 15 years to support stormwater programs in California. A summary of those efforts plus some others in process or being studied is shown in Table 10 on the following page, in roughly chronological order. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the equivalent.
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
IConsuJtingG,-oup
112
CC 06-03-2025
112 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE 10- RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES
I Annual
Municipality Status R Year Mechanism ate
San Clemente
Carmel
Palo Alto
Los Angeles
Palo Alto
Rancho Palos Verde
Encinitas
Ross Valley
Santa Monica
San Clemente
Solana Beach
Woodland
Del Mar
Hawthorne
Santa Cruz
Burlingame
Santa Clarita
Stockton
County of Contra Costa
Santa Clara Valley Water
District
City of Berkeley
County of LA
San Clemente
Vallejo San & Flood
Culver City
Palo Alto
Town of Moraga
City of Berkeley
Los Angeles Flood
Control
City of Los Altos
City of Alameda
County of San Joaquin
City of Sacramento
City of Salinas
City of Santa Clara
County of San Mateo
County of El Dorado
County of Orange
County of Ventura
Successful
Unsuccessful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful
Successful , then recalled and
reduced
Unsuccessful
Successful, Overturned by
Court of Appeals, Decertified
by Supreme Court
Successful
Successfully renewed
Non-Bal loted, Threatened by
lawsuit, Balloted, Successful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful
Deferred
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful
In Process
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
Studying
$
$
s
s

60.15 1

38.00 57.00

28.00 $ 120.00
2002
2003
2003
2004
2005
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax - G. 0. Bond
Balloted Property-Related Fee
S 200.00 2005, 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee
$ 60.00 2006
s 125.00 2006
s 87.00 2006
s 60.15 2007
s 21.84 2007
s 60.00 2007
$ 163.38 2008
$ 30.00 2008
s 28.00 2008
s 150.00 2009
$ 21.00 2009
s 34.56 2009
s 22.00 2012
s 56.00 2012
varies 2012
$ 54.00 2012
$ 74.76 2013
s 23.00 2015
$ 99.00 2016
s 163.80 2017
$ 120.38 2018
$ 42.89 2018
s 83.00 2018
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Non-Balloted Property-Related
Fee adopted in 2004,
challenged, balloted and failed
in 2006
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Non-Balloted & Balloted
Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax
Measure M - GO Bond
NA
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Reauthorization of 2005 Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Special Tax
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
Balloted Property-Related Fee
NA
Balloted Property-Related Fee
NA
NA
NA
NA
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SCIConsultingGroup
113
CC 06-03-2025
113 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO

In addition to the agencies listed above in Table 10 that have gone to the ballot for new or increased Stormwater Fees, there are several other municipalities throughout the State that have existing Stormwater Fees in place. Some of these rates are summarized in Table 11 below. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the equivalent.

The City's proposed $44.42 SFR rate is well within the range of stormwater rates adopted by other municipalities.

TABLE 11 - SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
. . 1. Annual f Munic1pa 1ty Type o Fee
Rate - - - - - - -
Bakersfield $ 200.04 Property-Related Fee
Culver City $ 99.00 Special Tax
Davis $ 84.94 Property-Related Fee
Elk Grove $ 70.08 Property-Related Fee
$ 190.20 Property-Related Fee
Hayward $ 28.56 Property-Related Fee
Los Angeles $ 27.00 Special tax
Palo Alto $ 136.80 Property-Related Fee
Redding $ 15.84 Property-Related Fee
Sacramento (City) $ 135.72 Property-Related Fee
Sacramento (County) $ 70.08 Property-Related Fee
San Bruno $ 46.16 Property-Related Fee
San Clemente $ 60.24 Property-Related Fee
San Jose $ 91.68 Property-Related Fee
Santa Cruz $ 109.08 Special Tax
Stockton* $ 221.37 Property-Related Fee
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood $ 23.64 Property-Related Fee Control District West Sacramento $ 144.11 Property-Related Fee
Woodland $ 5.76 Property-Related Fee
* This is the ca lcu lated average rate for the City of Stockton, which has 15 rate zones with rates ranging from $3.54 to $651.68 per year. 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
SCIConsuHingGroup
114
CC 06-03-2025
114 of 1012
115
CC 06-03-2025
115 of 1012
116
CC 06-03-2025
116 of 1012
117
CC 06-03-2025
117 of 1012
118
CC 06-03-2025
118 of 1012
119
CC 06-03-2025
119 of 1012
120
CC 06-03-2025
120 of 1012
121
CC 06-03-2025
121 of 1012
122
CC 06-03-2025
122 of 1012
123
CC 06-03-2025
123 of 1012
124
CC 06-03-2025
124 of 1012
125
CC 06-03-2025
125 of 1012
126
CC 06-03-2025
126 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13818 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 7.

Subject: Amend Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt CAL FIRE's recommendations for Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 of the Municipal Code to update a reference to the updated map.

Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-2272“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 to update a reference to the updated map”.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™127
CC 06-03-2025
127 of 1012

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 3, 2025
Subject
Amend Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt CAL FIRE's recommendations for Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 of the Municipal Code to update a reference to the updated map Recommended Action
Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-____ (Attachment A): “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 to update a reference to the updated map”.

Executive Summary
Recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to adopt all three Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) classification categories—Very High, High, and Moderate—based on CAL FIRE’s 2025 hazard maps. The proposed ordinance reflects these updates, applies the highest FHSZ designation to parcels with multiple FHSZ classifications, and updates code references accordingly. These designations affect building construction and fire code standards applicable to these properties. While the City has received questions from residents—primarily regarding insurance implications—no formal objections or suggestions for expanded designations have been submitted. Adoption of this map does not affect availability of insurance or rates, since insurance companies use fire risk maps prepared by them, which are different from the fire hazard map recommended by CAL FIRE. The Public Safety Commission reviewed the matter in May and raised additional concerns, including fire prevention funding, community engagement, and the long-term implications of hazard designations. The ordinance is exempt from CEQA and supports the City’s environmental sustainability goals.

Background
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 51177-51179, in February and March 2025, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) issued maps to indicate the State Marshall’s recommendations for the three Fire Hazard Severity Zones 128
CC 06-03-2025
128 of 1012
(FHSZ) classifications for all Local Responsibility Area (LRA)1 throughout the state.2 The City has received formal notification from CAL FIRE (Attachment B) and, pursuant to Government Code Section 51175, at a minimum, must adopt a map adopting the recommendations produced by the State (Attachment C) no later than June 24, 2025.

FHSZ consist of Very High, High, and Moderate designations, classified by the zone’s risk of fire hazard severity. This classification by CAL FIRE is based on consistent statewide criteria and the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. FHSZ classifications are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by CAL FIRE as a major cause of wildfire spread. The FHSZ classifications were determined by CAL FIRE using updated data and modeling.3
The Office of the State Fire Marshal has been required to identify FHSZ in the State Responsibility Area (SRA)4 since 1981. However, it wasn’t until the “Bates Bill” (AB 337, 1992), prompted by the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, that CAL FIRE was required to evaluate FHSZ in the LRAs and to make a recommendation to local jurisdictions where Very High FHSZ exist.

The evaluation process is directed by State law and the last LRA maps were made available in 2008/2009. The 2009 LRA maps identified approximately 10 properties (primarily at the terminus of Upland Way) as Very High FHSZ (identified in red in the current Chapter 16.74 – see Attachment D) with several properties identified as High FHSZ (identified in an orange-yellow color in the current Chapter 16.74 – see Attachment D). While the City was only required to adopt CAL FIRE’s Very High FHSZ recommendations, the City Council at the time, upon advice from the Santa Clara County Fire District, also adopted CAL FIRE’s High FHSZ recommended areas as part of the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area with Ordinance No. 09-2042.5 In 2021, State law (Government Code Section 51179) changed to require local agencies to adopt all three FHSZ classifications, Very High, High and Moderate, in the LRA.6 1 Local Responsibility Area (LRA) include areas, such as incorporated cities, urban regions, agricultural lands, and portions of the deserts, where local governments are responsible for wildfire protection. Within LRAs, fire protection services are typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, county agencies, and by CAL FIRE under contract. 2 These maps are available on CALFIRE’s website.
3 CALFIRE has provided information on their Fire Hazard Severity Zones website on how they conducted their analysis and developed their recommendations. 4 CAL FIRE is responsible for providing fire protection services for approximately 31 million acres within the State of California, called the State Responsibility Area (SRA), where the State has the financial responsibility for wildfire protection, prevention and suppression. 5 Cupertino Ordinance 09-2042
6 Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021) Government Code 51178 was amended to add the Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones with the Very High in local jurisdictions. 129
CC 06-03-2025
129 of 1012
Properties in those areas designated as Very High or High FHSZ are required to meet the following requirements:

1. In Very High FHSZ:
a. Vegetation management standards, related to defensible space clearance, in Government Code Section 51182, and
b. Ignition-resistant building for all new buildings, or major remodels classified as new construction by the Building Official, per Chapter 7A of the CA Building Code for commercial development and Section R337 of the CA Residential Code for residential development.

2. In High FHSZ: Wildfire resistant construction standards for all new buildings, or major remodels classified as new construction by the Building Official, per Chapter 7A of the CA Building Code for commercial development and Section R337 of the CA Residential Code for residential development.

3. In both Very High and High FHSZ: Conduct a natural hazard real estate disclosure at time of sale per CA CIV 1102.19 (AB 38, 2019).

Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
As previously stated, the City must at a minimum adopt the State’s recommended areas for all three FHSZ classifications in the LRA. Notwithstanding the minimum FHSZ that the City is required to adopt by State law, under the authority included in Government Code 51175, the City may re-designate areas already designated to a higher FHSZ or designate areas not included in the recommended CAL FIRE maps as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. The City may not, however, reduce the recommended designations, or boundaries, included on the CAL FIRE maps. No changes have been proposed to CAL FIRE’s recommendations.

Chapter 16.74 has been updated to reflect CAL FIRE’s recommendations. It should be noted that since some parcels have multiple FHSZ designations, CAL FIRE has provided guidance that in adopting the map, City’s should apply the highest designation recommended for that property to the entire property for clarity. Meaning, if a property has Very High FHSZ and Moderate FHSZ designations per CAL FIRE’s map, the entire parcel would have a Very High FHSZ on the adopted map. In addition, minor edits have been made to Chapter 16.40.200 to update a reference to the updated map/section. These changes have been reflected in the proposed draft Ordinance (see Attachment A).

Public Safety Commission Review
At a special meeting on May 8, 2025, the Public Safety Commission reviewed CAL FIRE recommendations. Comments from the commissioners included:
• Low response/engagement rate from the community
• Impacts of federal cuts to fire prevention
• Need for cameras/sensors for early fire detection
• Home insurance and whether the City can work with insurance companies to make sure residents do not lose their coverage
• Impact of designations to home prices
• Ways for the City to reduce hazard designations for future maps 130
CC 06-03-2025
130 of 1012
Community Input
In accordance with State law, the public must be allowed 90 days to review the maps and provide their input. The City has made these maps and an input form available on the City’s website since March 11, 2025. In addition, the City sent letters to all the property owners within the designated and potential FHSZ to inform them of their property’s inclusion in the FHSZ areas.

While there have been several questions from the community about CAL FIRE’s process, no input has been received about increasing the FHSZ or redesignating areas.

Community comments and questions are included in Attachment E.

One question asked frequently is related to how the new FHSZ map affects the ability for property owners to obtain or retain home insurance. CAL FIRE provides the following information in their Frequently Asked Questions Memo (see Attachment F) as it pertains to the question about homeowners’ insurance: “Insurance companies use risk models, which differ from hazard models, because they consider the susceptibility of a structure to damage from fire and other short-term factors that are not included in hazard modeling. It is unlikely that insurance risk models specifically call out CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones as a factor, but much of the same data that is used in the fire hazard severity zone model are likely included in the insurance companies’ risk models. However, insurance risk models incorporate many additional factors and factors that change more frequently than those that CAL FIRE includes in its hazard mapping, which is built to remain steady for the next 10+ years.” Sustainability Impact
Adoption of the map and implementation of the requirements of the Building Code would improve the City’s resistance to the impacts of wildfires and improve long-term sustainability. Wildfires that transition to a structure-to-structure conflagration have acute and far-reaching consequences, not only for the environment and climate, but also for the stability and well-being of impacted communities. These fires release large amounts of pollutants into the air, including soot and carbon dioxide, which contribute to climate change and degrade air quality. Additionally, toxic byproducts from burning structures, vehicles, and other synthetic material can pose significant health risks to residents and responders.

A commitment to strong fire safety regulations ultimately benefits the entire community—protecting public health, safeguarding financial resources, and ensuring a resilient and sustainable future.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Environmental Sustainability.
131
CC 06-03-2025
131 of 1012
California Environmental Quality Act
These actions are taken to protect the environment and are, therefore, exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Sean Hatch, Building Official
Reviewed by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Acting City Manager Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance
B – Letter from CAL FIRE
C – CAL FIRE recommended LRA map for Cupertino
D – Existing Chapter 16.74
E – Summary of Public Comments
F – CAL FIRE Frequently Asked Questions Memo
132
CC 06-03-2025
132 of 1012
133
CC 06-03-2025
133 of 1012
134
CC 06-03-2025
134 of 1012
135
CC 06-03-2025
135 of 1012
136
CC 06-03-2025
136 of 1012
137
CC 06-03-2025
137 of 1012
138
CC 06-03-2025
138 of 1012
139
CC 06-03-2025
139 of 1012




 





!" 

#$ 
% &#'
"#!% &#!'$
(
#%

&#$)% 





!" 

) $
#* 
% +$
#,
-.

/01
121/3
456574869:;<= >?@AB
CDEFB9DGCAH ;5;140
CC 06-03-2025
140 of 1012
141
CC 06-03-2025
141 of 1012
142
CC 06-03-2025
142 of 1012
143
CC 06-03-2025
143 of 1012
144
CC 06-03-2025
144 of 1012
145
CC 06-03-2025
145 of 1012
146
CC 06-03-2025
146 of 1012
147
CC 06-03-2025
147 of 1012
148
CC 06-03-2025
148 of 1012
149
CC 06-03-2025
149 of 1012
150
CC 06-03-2025
150 of 1012

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13924 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 8.

Subject: Consideration of Recommended Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, Adoption of the Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for FY 2025-26, Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions; Direction on past and current City Work Program and FY 2024-25 Special Projects

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-038 establishing an Operating Budget of $131,838,401 for FY 2025-26, which includes the following changes to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2025:
a. Approve the operating budget of $131,772,435, outlined in the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget. b. Approve a reduction in revenues of $1,500,000 for transfers in to Fund 580 ($500,000) and Fund 610 ($1,000,000) from the General Fund.
c. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($63,733) due to the elimination of the proposed parttime Economic Development Analyst. d. Approve additional appropriations of $146,710 for a proposed Administrative Assistant position in the City Clerk’s division to assist with all current and future hybrid Commissions and Committees meetings.
e. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($17,011) due to the elimination of the proposed Assistant Director of Administrative Services
f. Approve any other recommended changes as directed by City Council

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-039 establishing a Capital Improvement Program Budget of $4,225,000 for FY 2025-26.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 25-040 amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program a. Senior Business Systems Analyst Position Description; and b. Code Enforcement Supervisor Position Description

4. Adopt Resolution No. 25-041 amending the Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA) Memorandum of Understanding
a. Assistant Housing Coordinator Position Description

5. Adopt Resolution No. 25-042 establishing an Appropriation Limit of $141,134,546 for FY 2025-26

6. Provide direction on any remaining past and current City Work Program currently budget and FY 2024-25 Special Projects

7. Approve Resolution 25-043 and Budget modification number 2425-393 to reduce expenditures by CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™151
CC 06-03-2025
151 of 1012
25-13924 Agenda Date: 6/3/2025
Agenda #: 8.

7. Approve Resolution 25-043 and Budget modification number 2425-393 to reduce expenditures by $326,266, in the General Fund to defund three special projects and two City Work Programs CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™152
CC 06-03-2025
152 of 1012

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 3, 2025
Subject
Consideration of Recommended Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, Adoption of the Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets for FY 2025-26, Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions; Direction on past and current City Work Program and FY 2024-25 Special Projects Recommended Action

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX establishing an Operating Budget of $131,838,401 for FY 2025-26, which includes the following changes to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2025:
a. Approve the operating budget of $131,772,435, outlined in the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget.
b. Approve a reduction in revenues of $1,500,000 for transfers in to Fund 580 ($500,000) and Fund 610 ($1,000,000) from the General Fund.
c. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($63,733) due to the elimination of the proposed part-time Economic Development Analyst.
d. Approve additional appropriations of $146,710 for a proposed Administrative Assistant position to assist with all current and future hybrid Commissions and Committees meetings.
e. Approve a reduction in expenditures of ($17,011) due to the elimination of the proposed Assistant Director of Administrative Services
f. Approve any other recommended changes as directed by City Council

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX establishing a Capital Improvement Program Budget of $4,225,000 for FY 2025-26.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program
a. Senior Business Systems Analyst Position Description; and b. Code Enforcement Supervisor Position Description
153
CC 06-03-2025
153 of 1012
2 4. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX amending the Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA) Memorandum of Understanding
a. Assistant Housing Coordinator Position Description

5. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX establishing an Appropriation Limit of $141,134,546 for FY 2025-26

6. Provide direction on any remaining past and current City Work Program currently budget and FY 2024-25 Special Projects

7. Approve Resolution 25-XXX and Budget modification number 2425-393 to reduce expenditures by $326,266, in the General Fund to defund three special projects and two City Work Programs
Executive Summary
Overall, the Final Budget for both Operating and Capital Budgets for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is recommended at $136,063,401 across all funds with estimated revenues of $133,654,373, which includes the use of one-time funds of $2,373,901. Focusing on the General Fund, the City’s largest tax-supported fund, a proposed budget of $99,186,741, with estimated revenues of $97,229,134 resulting in a use of fund balance $1,957,607.

The proposed budget included the following requests:
• $2,280,000 in one-time funds for City Work Program (CWP) items • $3,983,565 in department requests, including special projects and staffing changes, and • Request to add three new positions, two part-time positions, and four new classifications for existing positions that will not result in additional full-time positions.

The final budget includes the following additional changes since the proposed budget was printed:
• Removing the request for a part-time management analyst in Economic Development, bringing part-time staffing request to one.
• Removing the request for an Assistant Director of Administrative Services classification • Adding a new Administrative Assistant position to assist with hybrid meetings bringing full-time staffing requests to four
• Transferring Economic Development division from Community Development back to Administration
• Transferring the Strategic Plan special project from Administrative Services to Administration, and
• The reduction of transfer in revenues to enterprise fund 580 and internal service fund 610 that were inadvertently placed in those funds.
154
CC 06-03-2025
154 of 1012
3 Reasons for Recommendation
At its May 15, 2025 meeting, City Council received the proposed budget and directed staff to bring it back for final adoption on June 3.

This report consists of the initial proposed budget that was printed on May 1, 2025, as well as any subsequent modifications made to date. Most of these modifications were also presented to Council on May 15 and include unforeseen adjustments to expenditures and revenues that have emerged since the publication of the Proposed Budget. New to the adjustments is the request to include the addition of one full-time position for an Administrative Assistant in the City Clerk’s Office to support hybrid meetings as highlighted in the informational memo dated May 29, 2025, and the reduction of transfers in totaling $1.5 million that were inadvertently included, the transfer of Economic Development division back to Administration from Community Development and the removal of the request to add the Assistant Director of Administrative Services. Those changes are summarized by funds below:

Changes to Revenues
Changes to Expenditures
Fund Type Proposed
Revenues
Changes
Since
Proposed
Final Revenues
General $ 97,229,134 $ - $ 97,229,134
Special Revenue $ 14,322,146 $ - $ 14,322,146
Debt Service $ 2,676,600 $ - $ 2,676,600
Capital Projects $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000
Enterprise $ 7,326,084 $ (500,000) $ 6,826,084
Internal Service $ 9,600,409 $ (1,000,000) $ 8,600,409
TOTAL $ 135,154,373 $ (1,500,000) $ 133,654,373
155
CC 06-03-2025
155 of 1012
4 Changes to Fund Balance/Net Position
In addition, responses to Council’s questions during the Proposed Budget Study Session are included in Attachment G.

The Final Budget for the upcoming fiscal year highlights a decrease in both expenditures and revenues compared to the previous year's Adopted Budget. Total expenditures for all funds are proposed at $136.1 million, a $10.6 million or 7.2%, decrease from the previous year’s Adopted Budget. Similarly, total revenues for all funds are anticipated to be $133.7 million, a $5.7 million or 4.1%, decrease from last year’s Adopted Budget. The decrease in expenditures and revenues is primarily due to a decrease in Capital Improvement Projects.

General Fund expenditures are at $99.2 million, which is an increase of $9.1 million or 10.2%, from the previous year's Adopted Budget. General Fund revenues are anticipated to be $97.2 million, which is a $7.4 million or 8.3%, increase from the previous year's Adopted Budget.

The following table shows the City’s budget by fund type.

Fund Type Proposed
Expenditure
Changes
Since
Proposed
Final Expenditure
General $ 99,120,775 $ 65,966 $ 99,186,741
Special Revenue $ 10,810,122 $ - $ 10,810,122
Debt Service $ 2,676,600 $ - $ 2,676,600
Capital Projects $ 4,225,000 $ - $ 4,225,000
Enterprise $ 9,153,170 $ - $ 9,153,170
Internal Service $ 10,011,768 $ - $ 10,011,768
TOTAL $ 135,997,435 $ 65,966 $ 136,063,401
Fund Type
Proposed Change
in Fund
Balance/Net
Position
Changes
Since
Proposed
Final Change in Fund
Balance/Net Position
General $ 1,891,641 $ 65,966 $ 1,957,607
Special Revenue $ (3,512,024) $ - $ (3,512,024)
Debt Service $ - $ - $ -
Capital Projects $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000
Enterprise $ 1,827,086 $ 500,000 $ 2,327,086
Internal Service $ 411,359 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,411,359
TOTAL $ 843,062 $ 1,565,966 $ 2,409,028
156
CC 06-03-2025
156 of 1012
5 General Fund
The General Fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for basic services such as public safety, public works, community development, park maintenance, code enforcement, and the administrative services required to support them. The fund generates revenue from the City's discretionary funding sources (e.g., sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax, and utility tax). As a rule, General Fund resources are used only to fund operations that do not have other dedicated (restricted) funding sources. Operations that rely heavily upon non-General Fund resources, such as street maintenance, solid waste collection, and recreation, are accounted for in other funds. Information on these funds may be found in the Other Funds section of this document on page 13.

As illustrated in the following chart, most of the General Fund supports costs for Public Works, Law Enforcement, and Community Development.

Fund Type Final Revenues Final
Expenditure
Final Change in Fund
Balance/Net Position
General $ 97,229,134 $ 99,186,741 $ (1,957,607)
Special Revenue $ 14,322,146 $ 10,810,122 $ 3,512,024
Debt Service $ 2,676,600 $ 2,676,600 $ -
Capital Projects $ 4,000,000 $ 4,225,000 $ (225,000)
Enterprise $ 6,826,084 $ 9,153,170 $ (2,327,086)
Internal Service $ 8,600,409 $ 10,011,768 $ (1,411,359) TOTAL $ 133,654,373 $ 136,063,401 $ (2,409,028)
157
CC 06-03-2025
157 of 1012
6 General Fund Expenditures
FY 2025-26 expenditures are estimated at $99.2 million, which represents a $9.1 million or 10.2% increase compared to the adopted budget from the previous year. This increase is primarily attributed to increases in salaries for additional position requests, increases in contracts and increases in special projects and capital outlay.
158
CC 06-03-2025
158 of 1012
7 General Fund expenditures increased by $65,966 from the $99.1 million the Proposed Budget printed on May 1, 2025, to the final budget due to:

Description Expenditure Change
Administration – Transfer in of Economic Development $999,057 Community Development – Transfer Out of Economic
Development
-$999,057
Eliminate request for additional part time Management Analyst in Economic Development
-$63,733
Add one new full-time position, Administrative Assistant $146,710 Eliminate request for an Assistant Director of Administrative Services
-$17,011
Total $65,966
The estimates for FY 2025-26 General Fund expenditures are based on a thorough analysis of anticipated personnel and non-personnel costs. To create a more fiscally responsible budget, department budgets reflect a base budget with only justified ongoing expenses. This accounts for changes in personnel costs as well as any other anticipated or known increased costs in FY 2025-

26. Personnel Costs
In FY 2025-26, personnel costs are expected to reach $34.8 million, accounting for 35% of the General Fund expenditures. These costs include salaries and compensation for benefited and 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26 Percent
EXPENDITURES Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Final Change Employee Compensation 21,760,345 21,367,731 23,388,317 24,182,741 24,197,538 3.5% Employee Benefits 8,464,077 9,503,988 11,329,376 10,595,638 10,643,857 -6.1% Total Personnel Costs 30,224,422 30,871,719 34,717,693 34,778,379 34,841,395 0.4% Non-Personnel Costs
Materials 5,507,090 5,215,228 5,775,194 6,174,481 6,174,481 6.9% Contract Services 21,845,913 25,655,721 29,216,149 31,496,502 31,496,502 7.8% Cost Allocation 10,385,961 10,257,656 10,638,580 11,993,327 11,993,327 12.7% Capital Outlay & Special Projects 3,020,115 3,683,913 1,165,000 2,968,433 2,968,433 154.8% Contingencies 277 5,732 254,580 50,000 50,000 -80.4%
Other Uses 619,687 482,077 925,000 1,065,000 1,065,000 15.1% Total Non-Personnel 41,379,044 45,300,327 47,974,503 53,747,743 53,747,743 12.0% Transfers 12,344,345 6,595,284 7,349,598 10,594,653 10,594,653 44.2% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 83,947,811 $ 82,767,330 $ 90,041,794 $ 99,120,775 $ 99,183,791 10.2%

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
159
CC 06-03-2025
159 of 1012
8 part-time staff (68%), retirement benefits (15%), and other fringe benefits (17%), such as health coverage.

To obtain these figures, the City extracted data from the payroll system and made necessary updates to account for vacant positions, new hires, salary adjustments, and reallocated positions.

Furthermore, the projected costs of benefits for the upcoming year, such as retirement and health plans, were taken into consideration. A transfer to the Retiree Medical Fund for retiree healthcare, which is an ongoing expense, is budgeted in FY 2025-26.

The FY 2025-26 Final Budget includes funding for a total of 211 positions, representing an increase of four positions from the FY 2024-25 Amended Budget.

Non-Personnel
Non-Personnel budgets were developed based on previous year's base budget and adjusted for the current year's needs. One-time projects were excluded to reflect ongoing expenditure needs.

Materials and contract services were adjusted by CPI, where applicable.

Major changes from the prior fiscal year include:
• Employee Compensation – Increasing primarily due to step progressions and requests to add additional full-time and part-time staffing.
• Contract Services – Increasing primarily due to the Hopper Community Shuttle costs, which has some offsetting revenue and increase cost for the Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Contract at 6%.
• Cost Allocation – Increasing because of our new Cost Allocation model and increased budget across service providing departments.
• Capital Outlays and Special Projects – Increasing due to a more robust City work Plan, and increased funding request for maintenance projects.

Contingencies
Contingencies for individual program budgets were calculated based on FY 2025-26 base budget numbers and then incorporated into the materials budget. This has resulted in the City Manager Contingency being the only remaining contingencies in the budget.

General Fund Revenue
The City's General Fund revenues for the upcoming fiscal year are projected to be $97.2 million, representing an increase of $7.4 million or 8.3% from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. This 160
CC 06-03-2025
160 of 1012
9 increase is primarily due to an increase in Property Tax, Intergovernmental Revenues, and Franchise Fees. There have been no changes to General Fund revenues since the Proposed Budget study session on May 15.

Property tax - Increasing by $2.2 million primarily due to actual growth in FY25 and updated budget methodology to align budget with actuals.

Franchise fees - Increased by $0.9 million primarily due to actual growth in FY25 and updated budget methodology to align budget with actuals.

Intergovernmental revenues are higher due to an increase in funds received from other cities and grant funds for the hopper shuttle.

General Fund – Fund Balance
FY 2025-26 total fund balance is estimated to be $155.3 million, a decrease of $2.0 million, or 1.2%, from the FY 2024-25 Projected Budget; however, this does not account for the $2.0 million vacancy 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Percent
REVENUES Actuals Actuals Adopted Final Change
Sales Tax 34,819,341 30,961,166 11,648,962 11,983,958 2.9% Property Tax 31,889,638 33,036,853 33,174,977 35,413,310 6.7% Transient Occupancy 7,062,150 6,486,798 7,731,947 7,500,000 -3.0% Utility Tax 4,103,906 3,935,917 4,130,140 4,206,907 1.9% Franchise Fees 3,995,018 4,313,669 3,509,346 4,394,563 25.2% Other Taxes 1,471,789 1,621,328 1,684,329 1,736,718 3.1% Licenses & Permits 4,093,631 4,412,057 3,665,866 4,261,859 16.3% Use of Money & Property 3,033,683 9,098,441 4,697,122 6,538,880 39.2% Intergovernmental 7,771,411 1,404,322 2,471,990 3,569,332 44.4% Charges for Services 10,841,202 12,181,459 15,102,136 15,162,032 0.4% Fines & Forfeitures 303,573 416,402 395,000 410,760 4.0% Miscellaneous 1,306,454 2,199,861 1,210,653 1,668,815 37.8% Transfers in 861,140 111,000 15,000 15,000 0.0%
Other financing sources 272,396 127,037 367,000 367,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES $ 111,825,331 $ 110,306,310 $ 89,804,468 $ 97,229,134 8.3%

GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
161
CC 06-03-2025
161 of 1012
10 savings discussed later in the report under the Forecast section. It’s important to note that the only portion available for use, according to City policy, is unassigned funds. Committed funds, such as the For Future Use Reserve, are set aside for specific purposes determined by City Council resolution. Restricted funds, such as the Section 115 Pension Trust, are allocated for specific purposes stipulated by external resource providers.

Of the total fund balance, $42.6 million is categorized as unassigned and available; however, approximately $14.3 million of this amount is tied to the Vallco Town Center project. While the current accounting reflects the assumption that all revenue and contracted expenditures for the project have been recognized, Vallco is a multi-year effort, likely spanning a decade. Key longterm costs, including staff salaries and benefits associated with managing and supporting the project, have not yet been fully incurred or accounted for. As a result, this portion of the unassigned balance should not be viewed as fully available, as the project is expected to ultimately net to a zero fiscal impact to the City.

The following table shows changes to fund balance for the General Fund since the close of FY 2022-23:
162
CC 06-03-2025
162 of 1012
11 Classification
2022-23
Actual
2023-24
Actual
2024-25
Adopted
Budget
2024-25
Year End
Projected
2025-26
Final Budget
Nonspendable
Loans Receivable 970,962 428,431 435,000 428,431 435,000 Advance to Other Funds 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Inventories/Prepaid Items 29,626 21,383 - 21,383 21,383 Total Nonspendable 4,000,588 3,449,814 435,000 3,449,814 3,456,383 Restricted
CASp Certification and Training - 7,628 12,377 7,628 7,628 Section 115 Pension Trust 19,088,859 21,663,664 19,088,859 21,663,664 21,663,664 Public Access Television - 1,639,443 1,565,153 429,443 429,443 Public Art In-Lieu - - - - -
Total Restricted 19,088,859 23,310,735 20,666,389 22,100,734 22,100,734 Committed
Sales Tax Repayment Reserve - 74,500,000 77,554,500 - - For Future Use Reserve - - - 64,500,000 64,500,000
Economic Uncertainty Reserve 24,000,000 24,000,000 21,346,728 18,000,000 22,543,315 Capital Projects Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - - -
Sustainability Reserve 127,891 127,891 127,891 127,891 127,891 Total Committed 34,127,891 108,627,891 99,029,119 82,627,891 87,171,206 Assigned
Reserve for Encumbrances* 9,735,187 4,741,474 7,000,000 - - Total Assigned 9,735,187 4,741,474 7,000,000 - -
Total Unassigned 71,603,813 25,965,405 23,630,860 49,069,295 42,561,802 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 138,556,339 $ 166,095,319 $ 150,761,368 $ 157,247,734 $ 155,290,125 *Beginning with the FY 2025–26 Budget, the City will no longer present projected or proposed fund balance amounts. Instead, prior year actuals will be updated to reflect recorded activity. This adjustment is being made to align with the City's practice of budgeting under the assumption that all appropriations will be fully expended within the fiscal year.
163
CC 06-03-2025
163 of 1012
12 General Fund Forecast
Since the City has reached resolution on the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) Audit, this budget focuses on the 10-year forecast post audit resolution. While longterm projections inherently carry more uncertainty than short-term projections, they remain a valuable tool for identifying potential structural budget issues in advance.

The following chart illustrates the City’s structural deficit beginning in FY 2033-34, driven by expenditure growth averaging 3.76% annually, compared to revenue growth at a more modest

1.71%. Although this updated forecast is a marked improvement from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget forecast, which projected six years of deficits, it now reflects modest deficits in only the final two years of the 10-year horizon. This change is primarily attributable to upward adjustments in expenditure assumptions, particularly in the areas of materials, contracts, and special projects. Notably, the City’s law enforcement contract costs have materialized at a 6% annual growth rate, higher than the 4% previously assumed in the forecast.

Additionally, the forecast accounts for ongoing expenditure growth related to personnel. These include requests for four new full-time positions and one part-time position, totaling $851,293 in additional salary and benefit costs, as well as $544,340 in additional materials and contracts.

It’s important to note that the 10-year forecast differs from the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget in its treatment of staffing vacancies. While the proposed budget reflects a shortfall of approximately 164
CC 06-03-2025
164 of 1012
13 $2.0 million, this gap is not present in the forecast due to the application of a 6% vacancy factor in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27. The proposed budget assumed a 4% vacancy rate; however, the forecast increases this to 6% in the near term to better reflect recent trends in vacancy savings.

Beginning in FY 2027-28, the forecast reverts to a 4% vacancy rate, consistent with more stable staffing levels and a fiscally prudent long-term approach. This adjustment ensures a realistic view of potential expenditure savings without understating long-term costs.

Additionally, the forecast does not yet reflect revenue adjustments from proposed user fee increases scheduled for consideration by City Council on July 2, 2025.

In the out years, the deficit is primarily driven by two factors: a recession scenario modeled in FY 2027-28, and the sunset of the Utility Users Tax in FY 2030-31.

Despite these pressures, the forecast demonstrates that the City is well-positioned to maintain balanced budgets without drawing on reserves during the majority of the 10-year period.

Fund Balance Outlook
The City’s long-standing commitment to fiscal discipline has resulted in a strong fund balance position, which provides flexibility to address future funding challenges. As of FY 2025-26, the General Fund’s total fund balance is projected at $157.3 million, with the Unassigned portion totaling $44.9 million.

As discussed during the mid-year, largely due to City fiscally prudent decisions to reduce the FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 budgets in addition to the CDTFA settlement and water system lease, the City's 10 year forecast positively improved with only the last two years of the forecast showing minor deficits compared to last year's forecast showing 6 years in the red.

The forecast anticipates total fund balance growing from an estimated $157 million at the end of FY 2026 to $178 million on FY 2035. Key reserve categories include:
- Future Use Reserve - Maintains a consistent balance of $64.5 million throughout the forecast period, available for use as determined by City Council. - Economic Uncertainty Reserve - Grows incrementally due to projected increases in General Fund revenues and expenditures, supporting the City’s ability to weather economic shocks. Section 115 Pension Trust - Grows initially through investment earnings. The trust may be used to offset CalPERS costs and ensure long-term pension funding stability.
- Unassigned Fund Balance - Projected to grow steadily from $44.1 million in FY 2026, peaking in FY 2031 before returning to $44.1 million in FY 2035, largely reflecting the impact of structural surpluses and prudent expenditure assumptions. 165
CC 06-03-2025
165 of 1012
14 As emphasized during the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Update, the positive trajectory in this forecast is largely a result of proactive reductions to the FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 budgets, the favorable resolution of the CDTFA audit, and the City’s recently executed water system lease agreement.

Overall, this forecast reaffirms the City’s commitment to responsible financial management and positions Cupertino to remain resilient in the face of future uncertainties.

Other Funds
This section combines all non-general funds. Discussion at the fund type level can be found in the All Funds Summary of the budget.
166
CC 06-03-2025
166 of 1012
15 All Other Funds Expenditures
Expenditure sources decreased by $19.8 million from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. This is primarily due to a reduction in Capital Outlays due to a decrease in CIP projects in FY 2025-26.

No changes have been made to all other funds expenditures since the budget study session on May 15.

All Other Funds Revenues
Revenue sources decreased by $13.1 million from FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. This decrease is primarily due to a reduction in Intergovernmental revenue anticipated from federal and state grants. Since the proposed budget study session on May 15, all other funds revenues have decreased by $1,500,000 as shown in the chart above. This was due to a correction of transfers out that were inadvertently included in the proposed budget document. 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Final
Employee Compensation 5,327,164 5,348,486 5,526,311 5,333,643 5,333,643 Employee Benefits 1,716,224 2,903,259 2,609,854 2,230,186 2,230,186 Materials 2,316,457 2,480,125 2,785,973 3,070,406 3,070,406 Contract Services 7,189,075 5,891,885 6,190,610 6,226,298 6,226,298 Cost Allocation 2,028,766 2,203,606 3,895,296 4,807,709 4,807,709 Capital Outlays 9,012,370 8,300,842 18,759,024 3,583,075 3,583,075 Special Projects 2,828,968 1,576,185 3,239,420 4,107,412 4,107,412 Contingencies - - 89,946 - -
Debt Services 2,675,800 2,677,600 2,676,200 2,676,600 2,676,600 Transfers Out 4,500,904 5,612,269 8,262,580 2,015,000 2,015,000 Other Financing Uses 960,438 732,685 960,440 1,149,020 1,149,020 Total Expenditure Uses $ 38,556,165 $ 37,726,941 $ 54,995,654 $ 35,199,349 $ 35,199,349

EXPENDITURE USES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Final
Other Taxes 891,503 349,283 4,628,530 4,637,703 4,637,703 Use of Money & Property 1,079,748 4,027,375 2,113,944 1,380,981 1,380,981 Intergovernmental 4,143,771 5,437,152 14,860,441 5,366,533 5,366,533 Charges for Services 12,389,180 11,777,241 11,844,814 11,880,319 11,880,319 Fines and Forfeitures 23,371 2,746 20,000 10,000 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,526,977 1,024,658 - 1,519 1,519 Transfers In 15,984,109 12,096,553 15,597,178 14,094,653 12,594,653 Other Financing Sources 466,620 30,750 468,984 553,531 553,531 Total Revenue Sources $ 36,505,279 $ 34,745,757 $ 49,533,891 $ 37,925,239 $ 36,425,239

REVENUE SOURCES
167
CC 06-03-2025
167 of 1012
16 All Other Funds Fund Balance/Net Position
Fund Balance/Net Position sources decreased by $0.5 million from the prior year Adopted Budget due to overall expenditures exceeding revenues.

Requests for Funding
City Work Program (CWP)
For the FY 25-27 CWP, Council prioritized a total of 19 projects at the March 18 City Council meeting. In total, the new projects require $2.28 million in additional funding that are being requested as part of the final budget. Details on funding for each project are included in Attachment I.

Special Projects
Special Projects are listed in the table below by department.

Program Project Expenditure Funding
Source

ADMINISTRATION
126 Administration 100-12-126-
750-277
Cupertino 70th
Anniversary
Celebration
5,000 General
Fund
100-12-120-
750-279
Strategic Plan 200,000 General
Fund
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 205,000

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
425 Administrative
services
100-41-425-
750-278
Citywide
Purchasing
Training
20,000 General
Fund
426 Administrative
services
100-41-426-
750-280
Tax Measure 20,000 General
Fund
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 40,000
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Final
Beginning Balance 98,065,778 99,344,693 94,961,562 87,890,754 87,890,754 Change in Fund Balance (3,446,543) (4,383,131) (7,070,808) 1,048,579 (451,421) Ending Balance $ 94,619,235 $ 94,961,562 $ 87,890,754 $ 88,939,333 $ 87,439,333

CHANGES TO FUND BALANCE
168
CC 06-03-2025
168 of 1012
17 Program Project Expenditure Funding
Source

INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY
310 Information
Services
610-34-310-
750-250
Adapt TS
Expansion
225,000 Innovation
&
Technology
TOTAL INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY 225,000

PUBLIC WORKS
122 Public works 100-81-122-
750-281
Greenhouse
Gas Inventory
Assessment
40,000 General
Fund
836 Public Works 570-87-836-
750-025
Energy
Management
System
Replacement
160,000 General
Fund
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 200,000
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL PROJECTS $ 670,000
All Other Department Requests
These requests can be found in Attachment Y. Please note that special projects also appear under department requests in order to illustrate total requests.

Staffing
Position Additions
The FY 2025-26 Final Budget proposes funding for a total of 211 positions, representing an addition of 4 positions from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.

Full-Time
Department Proposal Costs
ADMIN SERVICES 1 Management Analyst (Grants) CWP $207,883 PUBLIC WORKS 1 Maintenance Worker I/II $125,236
ADMINISTRATION 1 Receptionist $113,774
1 Administrative Assistant (Hybrid Meetings) $146,710
TOTAL ALL FULL TIME STAFFING REQUEST $593,603
169
CC 06-03-2025
169 of 1012
18 Part-time
Department Proposal Costs
ADMINISTRATION 1 Comms and Marketing Coordinator $66,351 TOTAL ALL PART TIME STAFFING REQUEST $66,351
New Classifications
Current Classification Current
Salary
&
Benefit
Cost
Proposed
Classification
Proposed
Salary &
Benefits
Costs
Difference
Business Systems Analyst $239,147 Sr. Business Systems
Analyst
$253,803 $14,656
Sr. Code Enforcement
Officer
$189,006 Code Enforcement
Supervisor
$242,552 $53,546
Housing Manager $275,760 Assistant Housing
Coordinator
$170,634 $(105,126)
Total $703,913 $666,989 $(36,924)
Budget Adjustments Summary and Detail
The changes are discussed further below and are also detailed in Attachment D.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
On April 2, 2025, the City Council conducted a study session to review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget for CIP is $2 million, along with $225,000 ongoing administrative support. This also includes the annual transfer in from the General Fund of $2,000,000. The chart below does not include ongoing cost of $225,000 for CIP Preliminary Planning & Design and Capital Project Support which are part of the CIP base budget.

Ongoing Challenges
The city is continuing to navigate a major loss in sales tax revenues along with stagnation in its transient occupancy taxes and the potential loss of Utility User Tax that is set to sunset in FY2030. 170
CC 06-03-2025
170 of 1012
19 In addition, expenditure increases continue to outpace revenue growth as shown by growing deficits in the last two year of the forecast.

Appropriations Limit
Article XIII B of the California Constitution established appropriations limits on government agencies within California. Originally established by Proposition 4 in 1979, the appropriations limit places a maximum limit on the appropriations of tax proceeds by the State, school districts, and local governments in California.

The City’s FY 2025-26 appropriations limit is $141,134,546 an increase of $8,592,161, or 6.5%, from the prior year. Please refer to Attachment E for the calculation of the appropriations limit, and Attachment F for the corresponding price and population factors utilized in the calculation of the appropriations limit.

Budget Study Session
On May 15, 2025, City Council conducted a study session to review the FY 2025-26 Operating and Capital Improvement Project Budgets. During the session, City staff presented General Fund revenues, expenditures, and forecasts. City Council offered input, sought clarifications, and provided recommendations.

During the study session, City Council requested staff follow-up on several items. The responses to Council’s questions are included in Attachment G.

Changes to the Budget Document
Changes to the Budget and Policies
Budget Format and Performance Measures Report and Implementation Action Plan In Fall 2024, the City engaged Baker Tilly US, LLP to conduct a comprehensive review of its Budget Document and Performance Measures. The primary objective of this engagement was to enhance clarity, accessibility, and to align the City's annual budget document and to improve the effectiveness of performance measures in tracking progress toward key citywide goals. The draft Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) was presented to the City Council in March 2025. This plan included 32 recommendations that were prioritized 1-3, with 1 being the highest priority. One additional recommendation was added by City Council for a total of 33. For further details on this IAP, please see City Council staff report dated March 4, 2025. The updated IAP was approved by City Council for on May 6, 2025.

The FY 2025-26 budget document accomplished 17 of the 33 recommendations which also includes a request for funding to assist in completing the Strategic Plan. It is also expected the Capital Improvement Plan will print with the budget this year, this would bring total recommendations accomplished between the two documents to 17 recommendations implemented or 50% implementation rate for the first year of the IAP. 171
CC 06-03-2025
171 of 1012
20 Special Projects Policy
As part of the Implementation Action Plan outlined above, the creation of a Special Projects Policy was identified as a top priority. Accordingly, City Council adopted the Special Projects Policy in March 2025 and is included in the financial policies on the City's website. This accomplishment is included in the total above.

Revised Fees
Matrix Consulting Group recently conducted a comprehensive fee study that was presented to City Council in February 2024. City Council will consider the FY 2025-26 fee schedule in May 2025 with the newly adopted fees going into effect 60 days after adoption in mid-July 2025.

Increased fee revenue has not been included in this budget.

Investment Policy
The City Council annually updates and adopts a City Investment Policy that is in compliance with State statutes on allowable investments. By policy, the Audit Committee reviews the policy and acts as an oversight committee on investments. The policy directs that an external auditor performs agreed-upon procedures to review City compliance with the policy. The Audit Committee reviewed and accepted the current Investment Policy on April 28, 2025. The City Council adopted the City's Investment Policy on May 20, 2025.

Citywide Conference and Training Budget Add-backs
As part of a budget reduction strategy, citywide training was significantly reduced across all budget units as part of budget reductions in the last two fiscal years. Staff is requesting the restoration of 50% of the previously reduced training funds. This amount was calculated by comparing the training budgets in materials and contracts from FY 2022–23 to those in FY 2024– 25, determining the difference, and then adding back 50% of that difference.

Contingencies
Contingency dollars have been calculated from the department’s FY 2025-26 base budget materials and contracts and have been consolidated into materials budgets. The City Manager Contingency is the only remaining budget with contingencies as an expense category.

Reorganizations
The City Manager's Office underwent a reorganization in April 2025, transferring Economic Development to the Community Development Department and Office of Emergency Management to Parks and Recreation from Administration. Since the printing of the proposed budget, the City Manager’s Office has reviewed these organizational changes and determined that the Economic Development program will be more effective as part of the City Manager’s Office. The current staff recommendation reflects this change. The City Manager’s Office will continue to evaluate whether the Office of Emergency Management is appropriately housed in the Parks and Recreation Department.
172
CC 06-03-2025
172 of 1012
21 General Plan Consistency and Environmental Compliance of the Capital Improvement Plan State law and the Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 2.32.070(C)) require the Planning Commission to review the CIP for consistency with the City's General Plan (General Plan:

Community Vision 2015 - 2040). The Planning Commission reviewed the FY 2025-26 Proposed CIP Budget on April 22, 2025, and found that the FY 2025-26 Proposed CIP is consistent with the City's General Plan and that this consistency determination is exempt from CEQA (see resolution Attachment H).

Special Projects
In April of 2025 the City Council passed a Special Project Policy (Attachment X) that defined special projects as “one-time, staff-initiated projects that require City Council approval due to the need for budget appropriations that exceed a department’s base budget. Base budget items are the baseline appropriations to continue operations at the current level. In instances where there are sufficient budget appropriations the City Manager must request City Council authority in the form of a consent agenda item to reappropriate the funds as a special project. As discussed in the Special Project Reporting section below, these projects will continue to be reported in the Special Project reports.

Special Projects are not meant to track ongoing operational costs like street pavement maintenance, minor repairs, development projects which may span multiple fiscal years, or the purchase of equipment, unless the department needs to track these expenses because of the use of restricted funds to pay for the equipment or materials. Ongoing operational costs will be included in the department’s base budget or added as an ongoing budget appropriation request to the City Council”.

As part of the FY 2024-25 Third Quarter Financial Presentation, Council requested that an item be brought back as part of the final budget adoption, to discuss the defunding of specials projects, using the broader term for a special project prior to policy adoption. This includes City Work Program, ongoing costs, development items, and minor maintenance repairs and/or purchases.

A total of 74 projects were listed for a total budgeted cost of $41,598,688. This includes the following major projects:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
Vallco Town Center (VTC) $21,963,179 $23,780 $3,767,988 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Software
$2,500,000 $0 $0
Special projects CDD/IT (New Community
Hall Control Room and AV and lighting
upgrade)
$1,242,675 $20,427 $1,102,479
Annual Asphalt Project $2,776,484 $607,033 $981,535
Annual Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Project $7,472,764 $2,278,856 $538,594 173
CC 06-03-2025
173 of 1012
22 Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
All other Special Projects $5,643,586 $968,798 $1,053,451 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $41,598,688 $3,898,894 $7,444,047*
*Totals vary due to rounding
Staff has reviewed and updated the special projects (Attachment Y) list provided as part of the Third Quarter Financial Report. The updates are marked in red and staff recommendations are summarized by categories listed in the narrative above.

City Work Program (Attachment Z & AA)
The second year of the FY 23-25 City Work Program (CWP) includes 22 projects. Of these, the current CWP includes 14 projects that have budget associated with them that were previously considered Special Projects in Attachment Z, with Budget, Actuals and Encumbrances shown in the table below:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrance
s as of
3/31/2025
CWP $2,261,844 $179,736 $708,667
When reviewing the 22 projects in total regardless of funding, 16 have either been completed or will be carried into the FY 25-27 CWP. Of the remaining six, four are ongoing and two can be defunded at year end, Block Leader Enhancements and The Rise Community Engagement, resulting in savings of $109,700. Status updates for all 22 projects, including the reason for defunding these projects, are included in Attachment AA.

Ongoing Costs (Attachment AB)
Ongoing Cost projects include 11 projects, with Budget, Actuals and Encumbrances shown in the table below. All these projects will be moved to the base budget. There is no recommendation to defund any ongoing projects:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
Ongoing Costs $10,887,456 $3,064,343 $1,611,624
Maintenance purchases/projects (Attachment AC)
Maintenance projects include 16 total projects; however, five projects were completed at or under budget and any under budget projects were defunded in the third quarter, leaving eleven projects remaining. All but one remaining project, the HVAC kitchen replacement at the Senior Center are in progress and expected to be completed by June 30, 2025. The department is not requesting 174
CC 06-03-2025
174 of 1012
23 to defund any additional maintenance projects. Budget, Actuals and Encumbrances for the remaining eleven special projects are shown in the table below:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
Maintenance purchases/projects $576,491 $288,902 $0
Development Projects (AD)
Development projects include 7 projects, with Budget, Actuals and Encumbrances shown in the table below. These projects are either active or have an entitlement period that requires us to leave the budget active. There is no recommendation to defund any development projects:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
Development Projects $22,268,964 $26,250 $3,801,182
All Remaining Special Projects per new Policy (Attachment AE) For projects meeting the new definition of a special project (there are 26 projects), nine of those projects have been completed and three were defunded as part of the third quarter financial report. Of the remaining 15, 12 are in progress and the remaining three projects, PR & Strategic Comm Strategy, Economic Development Strategy, and ERP Phase II are recommended to be defunded for a savings of $216,566. Budget, Actuals and Encumbrances shown in the table below for all projects:

Project FY25
Amended
Budget
FY25
Actuals as
of
3/31/2025
Encumbrances
as of 3/31/2025
All Remaining Special Projects $5,603,933 $339,663 $1,322,575 Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
City staff recommends establishing an Operating Budget of $131,855,412 and a Capital Improvement Program Budget of $4,225,000 for FY 2025-26.

For special projects, staff is recommending to defund three current special projects and two current CWP items for a total of four items for a savings of $326,266.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
175
CC 06-03-2025
175 of 1012
24 None
Council Goal
Public Engagement and Transparency
Fiscal Strategy
California Environmental Quality Act
The adoption of the budget is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), Each proposed project will be evaluated to determine if CEQA applies. As applicable, each project will conduct the appropriate level of environmental analysis.

Prepared by: Toni Oasay-Anderson, Acting Budget Manager Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Department Heads
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Acting City Manager Attachments for FY 2025-26 Final Budget:

A – Draft Resolution – Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 B – Draft Resolution – Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 C – Draft Resolution – Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2025-26 D – Budget Adjustments Summary and Detail
E – Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2025-26
F – Appropriation Limit Price and Population Factors for Fiscal Year 2025-26 G – Proposed Budget Study Session Supplemental Report
H – Planning Commission Adopted Resolution
I – Adopted FY 2025-26 City Work Program Budget Details J – Code Enforcement Supervisor Position Description
K – Senior Business Systems Analyst Position Description L – Assistant Housing Coordinator Position Description
M– Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program (Redline) N – Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program (Clean) O – UNREP Salary Schedule (Redline)
P– UNREP Salary Schedule (Clean)
Q – UNREP Salary Effective 7.01.2023
R– Draft Resolution Amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program S – CEA Local 21 Employees’ Compensation Program (Redline) T – CEA Local 21 Employees’ Compensation Program (Clean) U – CEA Local 21 Salary Effective 7.01.2023
V – Draft Resolution Amending the CEA Local 21 Employees’ Memorandum of Understanding W – All Other Department Requests
Attachments for FY 2024-25 Special Projects:
176
CC 06-03-2025
176 of 1012
25 X - City Council Special Project Policy
Y – All Special Projects from FY25 Q3
Z – CWP Status Updates from FY25 Q3
AA – Current CWP Status Updates for FY23-25
AB – Ongoing Special Projects from FY25 Q3
AC– Maintenance and Equipment Purchase Special Projects from FY25 Q3 AD – Development Special Projects from FY25 Q3
AE – Special Projects as Defined in City Council Special Projects Policy AF – Draft Resolution to Defund Special Projects
177
CC 06-03-2025
177 of 1012

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

ADOPTING AN OPERATING BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED

REVENUES AND FUND BALANCES IN EACH FUND TO COVER

APPROPRIATED MONIES, APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS, AND SETTING FORTH

CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTERING SAID BUDGET
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted her estimates of anticipated revenues and fund balances, has determined that estimated revenues and fund balances are adequate to cover appropriations, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the following sections as a part of its fiscal policy:

Section 1. The estimates of available fund balances and anticipated resources to be received in each of the several funds during Fiscal Year 2025-26, as submitted by the City Manager in her proposed budget and amended during the budget study sessions, are sufficient to cover appropriations.

Section 2. There is appropriated from each of the several funds the sum of money set forth as expenditures for the funds named in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget Financial Overview by Fund (Exhibit A), as amended during the budget sessions, and stated for the purposes as expressed and estimated for each department.

Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to administer and transfer appropriations between Budget Accounts within the Operating Budget when in her opinion such transfers become necessary for administrative purposes. 178
CC 06-03-2025
178 of 1012
Section 4. The Director of Administrative Services shall prepare and submit to City Council quarterly a revised estimate of Operating Revenues.

Section 5. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue appropriations for operating expenditures that are encumbered or scheduled to be encumbered at year end.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
179
CC 06-03-2025
179 of 1012
Exhibit A
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FINAL OPERATING BUDGET

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW BY FUND

Revenue Categories General Fund Special Revenue
Fund
Debt Service
Fund
Capital Project
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
Internal Service
Funds All Funds
Sales Tax 11,983,958 - - - - - 11,983,958
Property Tax 35,413,310 - - - - - 35,413,310
Transient Occupancy 7,500,000 - - - - - 7,500,000
Utility Tax 4,206,907 - - - - - 4,206,907
Franchise Fees 4,394,563 - - - - - 4,394,563
Other Taxes 1,736,718 4,637,703 - - - - 6,374,421
Licenses & Permits 4,261,859 - - - - - 4,261,859
Use of Money & Property 6,538,880 1,190,398 - - 531,450 99,701 8,360,429 Intergovernmental 3,569,332 5,335,717 - - 14,812 - 8,919,861 Charges for Services 15,162,032 1,504,373 - - 5,044,822 5,331,124 27,042,351 Fines & Forfeitures 410,760 10,000 - - - - 420,760
Miscellaneous 1,668,815 1,519 - - - - 1,670,334
Other Financing Sources 367,000 - - - - 553,531 920,531 Transfers In 15,000 2,067,000 2,676,600 - 1,235,000 2,616,053 8,609,653 TOTAL REVENUES $ 97,229,134 $ 14,746,710 $ 2,676,600 $ 6,826,084 - $ $ 8,600,409 $ 130,078,937 Appropriation Categories General Fund Special
Revenue Fund
Debt Service
Fund
Capital Project
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
Internal Service
Funds All Funds
Employee Compensation 24,200,418 1,602,256 - - 2,010,726 1,720,661 29,534,061 Employee Benefits 10,643,927 797,878 - - 746,937 2,347,371 14,536,113 Materials 6,174,481 1,013,894 - - 758,663 1,297,849 9,244,887 Contract Services 31,496,502 692,575 - - 3,578,026 1,730,697 37,497,800 Cost Allocation 11,993,327 2,197,032 - - 1,676,251 949,737 16,816,347 Capital Outlays 274,433 1,583,075 - - - - 1,857,508
Special Projects 2,694,000 2,908,412 - - 160,000 1,039,000 6,801,412 Contingencies 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Debt Service - 2,676,600 - - - - 2,676,600
Transfers Out 10,594,653 15,000 - - - - 10,609,653
Other Financing Uses 1,065,000 - - - 222,567 926,453 2,214,020 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 99,186,741 $ 10,810,122 $ 2,676,600 $ 9,153,170 - $ $ 10,011,768 $ 131,838,401

CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE/
NET POSITION $ (1,957,607) $ 3,936,588 $ - $ (2,327,086) - $ $ (1,411,359) $ (1,759,464) 2025-26 Final Budget
2025-26 Final Budget
180
CC 06-03-2025
180 of 1012

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED

REVENUES AND FUND BALANCES IN EACH FUND TO COVER

APPROPRIATED MONIES, APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS, AND SETTING FORTH

CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTERING SAID BUDGET
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the following sections as a part of its fiscal policy:

Section 1. The estimates of available fund balances and anticipated resources to be received in each of the several funds during Fiscal Year 2025-26, as submitted by the City Manager in the proposed budget and amended during the budget study sessions, are sufficient to cover appropriations.

Section 2. The Director of Public Works shall prepare and submit to City Council quarterly a revised estimate of Capital Improvement Program projects.

Section 3. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue appropriations for operating expenditures that are encumbered or scheduled to be encumbered at year end.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
181
CC 06-03-2025
181 of 1012
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
182
CC 06-03-2025
182 of 1012
Exhibit A
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FINAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW BY FUND
183
CC 06-03-2025
183 of 1012

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATION
LIMIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $141,134,546 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 WHEREAS, the State of California has adopted legislation requiring local jurisdictions to calculate their appropriation limits in complying with Article XIII B of the State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 111, passed by the voters of California on June 5, 1990, said limits are determined by an adjustment formula based upon change in population, combined with either the change in inflation (California per capita income) or the change in the local assessment roll due to local nonresidential construction; and WHEREAS, the local governing body is required to set an appropriation limit each year by adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara’s population percentage change over the prior year is 0.02%, and the California per capita personal income change is 3.62%; and WHEREAS, in computing the 2025-26 limit based upon the adjustment factors provided pursuant to Proposition 111, the City Council has elected to use the county population percentage change along with the California per capita income change, but the Council expressly reserves the right to use the non-residential assessed valuation percentage change when the figure is available.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves a 2025-26 fiscal appropriation limit of $141,134,546, based on Proposition 111 guidelines allowing for use of the county population percentage change along with the California Per Capita Personal Income change to adjust base year appropriations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby reserves the right to use the non-residential assessed valuation percentage change when the figure is available.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
184
CC 06-03-2025
184 of 1012
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
185
CC 06-03-2025
185 of 1012
FY 2025-2026 Budget Adjustments Since May 15
Operating Budget Summary

ATTACHMENT D
Fund Revenue Expenditure Change in Fund Balance Description GENERAL FUND100 General Fund ‐ (63,733) 63,733 Eliminate PT Economic Development Analyst 100 General Fund ‐ 146,710 (146,710) Administrative Assistant (Hybrid Commission Meeting Support)100 General Fund                         ‐ ‐                           ‐ Econ Development moved back to City Managerʹs Office from Community Development
100 General Fund ‐ (17,011) 17,011 Eliminate Assistant Director of Administrative ServicesTOTAL GENERAL FUND ‐ 65,966 (65,966) ENTERPRISE FUNDS580 Recreation Program            ‐ (500,000) (500,000) Removing Transfers In TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS (500,000) ‐ (500,000)INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS610 Innovation & Technology (1,000,000) ‐ (1,000,000) Removing Transfers InTOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS (1,000,000) ‐ (1,000,000)TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ (1,500,000) $ 65,966 $ (1,565,966) 186
CC 06-03-2025
186 of 1012

ATTACHMENT E
In 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, the Gann Initiative, and added Article XIIIB to the California State Constitution. Article XIIIB mandates a limit on the amount of proceeds of taxes that state and local governments can receive and appropriate (authorize to spend) each year.

The purpose of this law is to limit government spending by putting a cap on the total proceeds of taxes that may be appropriated each year. Proposition 111 and Senate Bill 88, approved by California voters in June of 1990, offered cities more flexibility in choosing inflation and population factors to calculate the limit. 1 The following chart and table show the appropriations limit and actual expenditures subject to the appropriations limit.

The limit is different for each agency and changes annually. It is calculated by taking the amount of tax proceeds that were authorized to be spent in FY 1978-79 and adjusting for changes in inflation and population each subsequent year. 187
CC 06-03-2025
187 of 1012

ATTACHMENT E
Proposition 111 changed the way the limit is calculated and allowed a City to increase its limit annually in two ways:
• By the percent change in per capita personal income in California or the percent change in the assessment roll the preceding year due to the addition of local non-residential new construction; or
• By the percent change in county or city population.

The City used the following factors from the California Department of Finance.

Price Factor
• (A) Percent Change in California Per Capita Personal Income: 6.44% Population Factor
• (B) Percent Change in County Population: 0.04%
• (C) Percent Change in City Population: -0.09%
The City multiplied the FY 2024-25 appropriations limit by Price Factor (A) and Population Factor (B) to calculate the FY 2025-26 appropriations limit, as shown below:

FY 2024-25 Appropriations Limit $132,542,385
Price Factor (A) 1.0644
Population Factor (B) 1.0004
188
CC 06-03-2025
188 of 1012

ATTACHMENT E
FY 2025-26 Appropriations Limit $141,134,546
The City's FY 2025-26 appropriations limit is $141.1 million, an increase of $8.6 million, or 6.5% from the prior year.
189
CC 06-03-2025
189 of 1012
May 2025
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2025, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2025-26. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2025-26 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change along with the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.

Article XIII B, Section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2025.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

JOE STEPHENSHAW
Director
By:

ERIKA LI
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment
190
CC 06-03-2025
190 of 1012
May 2025
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2025-26 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2025-26 6.44
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2025-26 appropriation limit.
2025-26:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 6.44 percent
Population Change = 0.28 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 6.44 + 100 = 1.0644 100
Population converted to a ratio: 0.28 + 100 = 1.0028
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2025-26: 1.0644 x 1.0028 = 1.0674

191
CC 06-03-2025
191 of 1012
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Attachment BAnnual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 and Total Population January 1, 2025City County Percent Change 24-25 Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-24
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25 Total Population 1-1-25
Alameda City Alameda -0.22 78,406 78,236 79,020
Albany City Alameda 0.28 20,520 20,578 20,578
Berkeley City Alameda 1.32 126,676 128,348 128,348
Dublin City Alameda 2.17 72,462 74,031 74,691
Emeryville City Alameda -0.28 13,509 13,471 13,471
Fremont City Alameda 0.16 232,241 232,619 232,619
Hayward City Alameda 0.24 161,977 162,359 162,359
Livermore City Alameda -0.23 86,094 85,899 85,899
Newark City Alameda 1.04 48,382 48,886 48,886
Oakland City Alameda 0.52 424,015 426,237 426,457
Piedmont City Alameda -0.28 10,836 10,806 10,806
Pleasanton City Alameda -0.38 77,526 77,232 77,232
San Leandro City Alameda -0.35 88,124 87,813 87,813
Union City Alameda -0.36 66,898 66,657 66,657
Balance of County Alameda -0.27 147,978 147,579 147,646 Incorporated Alameda 0.37 1,507,666 1,513,172 1,514,836 County Total Alameda 0.31 1,655,644 1,660,751 1,662,482 Balance of County Alpine -0.42 1,181 1,176 1,177
County Total Alpine -0.42 1,181 1,176 1,177
Amador City Amador -0.51 197 196 196
Ione City Amador -0.19 5,173 5,163 9,037
Jackson City Amador -1.69 4,905 4,822 4,822
Plymouth City Amador 1.17 1,109 1,122 1,122
Sutter Creek City Amador -1.63 2,580 2,538 2,538
Balance of County Amador -1.63 22,167 21,805 21,848Incorporated Amador -0.88 13,964 13,841 17,715 County Total Amador -1.34 36,131 35,646 39,563Biggs City Butte -1.25 1,998 1,973 1,973Chico City Butte 2.59 110,971 113,847 113,847 Gridley City Butte -1.10 7,383 7,302 7,302
Oroville City Butte 2.25 19,221 19,653 19,653Paradise Town Butte 7.83 10,283 11,088 11,088 Balance of County Butte -7.51 58,017 53,662 53,662Incorporated Butte 2.67 149,856 153,863 153,863 County Total Butte -0.17 207,873 207,525 207,525
Angels City Calaveras -0.42 3,585 3,570 3,570Balance of County Calaveras -0.21 41,183 41,096 41,152 192
CC 06-03-2025
192 of 1012
Incorporated Calaveras -0.42 3,585 3,570 3,570
County Total Calaveras -0.23 44,768 44,666 44,722
Colusa City Colusa -0.18 6,548 6,536 6,536
Williams City Colusa -0.48 5,616 5,589 5,589
Balance of County Colusa -0.28 9,929 9,901 9,901
Incorporated Colusa -0.32 12,164 12,125 12,125
County Total Colusa -0.30 22,093 22,026 22,026
Antioch City Contra Costa 0.52 116,177 116,781 116,781
Brentwood City Contra Costa 0.60 65,353 65,747 65,747
Clayton City Contra Costa -0.46 10,793 10,743 10,743
Concord City Contra Costa -0.34 123,074 122,650 122,650 Danville Town Contra Costa -0.16 43,030 42,960 42,960
El Cerrito City Contra Costa -0.31 25,943 25,862 25,862 Hercules City Contra Costa -0.50 26,357 26,225 26,225
Lafayette City Contra Costa -0.08 25,073 25,054 25,054
Martinez City Contra Costa -0.15 36,871 36,817 36,817
Moraga City Contra Costa -1.98 16,973 16,637 16,637
Oakley City Contra Costa 1.32 46,218 46,826 46,826
Orinda City Contra Costa -0.23 19,395 19,351 19,351
Pinole City Contra Costa -0.45 18,344 18,261 18,261
Pittsburg City Contra Costa 0.64 75,887 76,374 76,374
Pleasant Hill City Contra Costa -0.28 33,694 33,601 33,601 Richmond City Contra Costa -0.24 113,872 113,594 113,594 San Pablo City Contra Costa 0.18 31,450 31,507 31,507
San Ramon City Contra Costa 0.18 83,245 83,391 83,391
Walnut Creek City Contra Costa -0.44 70,238 69,927 69,927 Balance of County Contra Costa -0.20 176,178 175,833 175,917 Incorporated Contra Costa 0.03 981,987 982,308 982,308
County Total Contra Costa 0.00 1,158,165 1,158,141 1,158,225Crescent City Del Norte -0.69 4,064 4,036 6,056Balance of County Del Norte -1.44 20,738 20,439 20,488 Incorporated Del Norte -0.69 4,064 4,036 6,056County Total Del Norte -1.32 24,802 24,475 26,544 Placerville City El Dorado 0.14 10,617 10,632 10,642South Lake Tahoe City El Dorado -0.05 21,033 21,022 21,022Balance of County El Dorado 0.09 158,862 159,009 159,106 Incorporated El Dorado 0.01 31,650 31,654 31,664
County Total El Dorado 0.08 190,512 190,663 190,770
Clovis City Fresno 1.13 127,674 129,121 129,121
Coalinga City Fresno 0.00 13,419 13,419 17,608Firebaugh City Fresno 2.40 8,510 8,714 8,714 Fowler City Fresno 3.11 7,436 7,667 7,667
Fresno City Fresno 0.77 552,416 556,690 557,032
Huron City Fresno 7.96 6,421 6,932 6,932
193
CC 06-03-2025
193 of 1012
Kerman City Fresno 0.76 17,403 17,535 17,535
Kingsburg City Fresno 0.90 13,167 13,285 13,285
Mendota City Fresno 0.89 12,598 12,710 12,710
Orange Cove City Fresno 0.99 9,622 9,717 9,717
Parlier City Fresno 0.78 14,535 14,649 14,649
Reedley City Fresno 2.52 25,950 26,603 26,603
Sanger City Fresno 1.44 26,652 27,037 27,037
San Joaquin City Fresno 0.03 3,653 3,654 3,654
Selma City Fresno 0.40 24,487 24,585 24,585
Balance of County Fresno 0.17 158,883 159,148 160,204
Incorporated Fresno 0.97 863,943 872,318 876,849
County Total Fresno 0.84 1,022,826 1,031,466 1,037,053
Orland City Glenn 1.17 8,603 8,704 8,704
Willows City Glenn 1.62 6,372 6,475 6,475
Balance of County Glenn 1.33 14,004 14,190 14,190
Incorporated Glenn 1.36 14,975 15,179 15,179
County Total Glenn 1.35 28,979 29,369 29,369
Arcata City Humboldt 1.66 18,691 19,001 19,001
Blue Lake City Humboldt -0.70 1,144 1,136 1,136
Eureka City Humboldt 0.00 25,966 25,967 26,122
Ferndale City Humboldt -0.44 1,367 1,361 1,361
Fortuna City Humboldt -0.38 12,245 12,198 12,198
Rio Dell City Humboldt -0.71 3,255 3,232 3,232
Trinidad City Humboldt -0.67 298 296 296
Balance of County Humboldt -0.73 70,625 70,107 70,471
Incorporated Humboldt 0.36 62,966 63,191 63,346
County Total Humboldt -0.22 133,591 133,298 133,817
Brawley City Imperial 0.84 28,710 28,952 28,952
Calexico City Imperial 0.78 39,762 40,073 40,073Calipatria City Imperial 0.69 3,646 3,671 6,061 El Centro City Imperial 1.12 45,456 45,966 46,007Holtville City Imperial 0.57 5,653 5,685 5,685 Imperial City Imperial 1.98 22,422 22,866 22,866Westmorland City Imperial 0.39 2,076 2,084 2,084Balance of County Imperial 0.59 31,371 31,557 34,771Incorporated Imperial 1.06 147,725 149,297 151,728 County Total Imperial 0.98 179,096 180,854 186,499
Bishop City Inyo -0.10 3,854 3,850 3,850Balance of County Inyo -0.31 14,938 14,892 14,950Incorporated Inyo -0.10 3,854 3,850 3,850County Total Inyo -0.27 18,792 18,742 18,800Arvin City Kern 0.99 19,796 19,991 19,991Bakersfield City Kern 1.16 414,451 419,238 419,238 California City Kern 0.97 13,189 13,317 13,317
194
CC 06-03-2025
194 of 1012
Delano City Kern 1.15 46,036 46,566 52,831
Maricopa City Kern 0.59 1,018 1,024 1,024
McFarland City Kern 2.24 13,902 14,213 14,213
Ridgecrest City Kern 0.25 27,664 27,732 28,386
Shafter City Kern 4.72 22,356 23,412 23,455
Taft City Kern -0.03 7,089 7,087 7,087
Tehachapi City Kern 0.64 9,372 9,432 11,476
Wasco City Kern -2.55 23,447 22,850 26,235
Balance of County Kern 0.05 304,188 304,351 306,708
Incorporated Kern 1.09 598,320 604,862 617,253
County Total Kern 0.74 902,508 909,213 923,961
Avenal City Kings 1.07 9,431 9,532 13,315
Corcoran City Kings 0.88 13,547 13,666 21,612
Hanford City Kings 2.31 59,856 61,238 61,238
Lemoore City Kings 2.10 27,122 27,692 27,692
Balance of County Kings 1.45 25,135 25,500 30,158
Incorporated Kings 1.98 109,956 112,128 123,857
County Total Kings 1.88 135,091 137,628 154,015
Clearlake City Lake 1.01 16,367 16,533 16,533
Lakeport City Lake -0.85 5,069 5,026 5,026
Balance of County Lake -0.61 45,889 45,607 45,695
Incorporated Lake 0.57 21,436 21,559 21,559
County Total Lake -0.24 67,325 67,166 67,254
Susanville City Lassen 1.90 9,199 9,374 12,270Balance of County Lassen 1.77 14,802 15,064 16,446 Incorporated Lassen 1.90 9,199 9,374 12,270
County Total Lassen 1.82 24,001 24,438 28,716Agoura Hills City Los Angeles -0.18 19,940 19,904 19,904 Alhambra City Los Angeles 0.22 82,176 82,353 82,374Arcadia City Los Angeles 0.13 56,044 56,116 56,116Artesia City Los Angeles 1.33 16,060 16,273 16,359 Avalon City Los Angeles -0.12 3,387 3,383 3,383Azusa City Los Angeles -1.50 49,736 48,988 48,988 Baldwin Park City Los Angeles 0.23 70,685 70,848 70,848 Bell City Los Angeles -0.15 33,366 33,315 33,315
Bellflower City Los Angeles -0.32 76,902 76,656 76,656
Bell Gardens City Los Angeles 0.09 38,438 38,471 38,471Beverly Hills City Los Angeles -0.12 31,984 31,945 31,945 Bradbury City Los Angeles 0.78 895 902 902Burbank City Los Angeles 0.29 105,842 106,146 106,146 Calabasas City Los Angeles -0.26 22,856 22,797 22,797
Carson City Los Angeles 0.07 91,745 91,808 91,812Cerritos City Los Angeles -0.28 48,005 47,871 47,871 Claremont City Los Angeles -0.02 37,305 37,299 37,299
195
CC 06-03-2025
195 of 1012
Commerce City Los Angeles -0.32 12,185 12,146 12,146
Compton City Los Angeles -0.01 93,699 93,692 93,692
Covina City Los Angeles 0.92 50,625 51,090 51,090
Cudahy City Los Angeles -0.34 22,208 22,132 22,132
Culver City Los Angeles 0.16 40,340 40,403 40,403
Diamond Bar City Los Angeles -0.07 53,577 53,539 53,539 Downey City Los Angeles -0.02 111,891 111,871 111,871
Duarte City Los Angeles -0.22 23,798 23,746 23,746
El Monte City Los Angeles 0.82 107,056 107,938 107,986
El Segundo City Los Angeles -0.11 16,976 16,958 16,983
Gardena City Los Angeles 0.14 60,176 60,263 60,263
Glendale City Los Angeles 0.26 191,706 192,212 192,212
Glendora City Los Angeles -0.07 51,289 51,254 51,254
Hawaiian Gardens City Los Angeles 0.07 13,552 13,561 13,561 Hawthorne City Los Angeles -0.25 85,868 85,653 85,653
Hermosa Beach City Los Angeles -0.22 19,055 19,014 19,014 Hidden Hills City Los Angeles 0.23 1,742 1,746 1,746
Huntington Park City Los Angeles -0.32 53,213 53,041 53,051 Industry City Los Angeles -0.23 432 431 431
Inglewood City Los Angeles -0.29 106,617 106,305 106,305 Irwindale City Los Angeles -0.07 1,510 1,509 1,509
La Canada Flintridge City Los Angeles 0.05 20,149 20,160 20,160 La Habra Heights City Los Angeles -0.13 5,510 5,503 5,503Lakewood City Los Angeles 0.10 80,517 80,596 80,596 La Mirada City Los Angeles -0.17 48,315 48,233 48,233
Lancaster City Los Angeles 1.62 170,661 173,424 177,768 La Puente City Los Angeles 0.10 37,508 37,546 37,546
La Verne City Los Angeles 0.59 32,111 32,300 32,300Lawndale City Los Angeles -0.20 30,921 30,860 30,860 Lomita City Los Angeles 0.04 20,398 20,407 20,407
Long Beach City Los Angeles 0.44 460,230 462,246 462,561 Los Angeles City Los Angeles 0.44 3,813,575 3,830,479 3,835,263 Lynwood City Los Angeles 0.45 66,360 66,660 66,660
Malibu City Los Angeles -0.18 10,623 10,604 10,604Manhattan Beach City Los Angeles -0.18 34,111 34,051 34,051Maywood City Los Angeles -0.25 24,557 24,496 24,496Monrovia City Los Angeles 1.94 38,181 38,920 38,920Montebello City Los Angeles 0.79 62,243 62,732 62,732 Monterey Park City Los Angeles -0.13 59,342 59,262 59,269 Norwalk City Los Angeles -0.32 100,585 100,265 101,075
Palmdale City Los Angeles 0.31 166,580 167,097 167,097
Palos Verdes Estates City Los Angeles -0.12 13,014 12,999 12,999 Paramount City Los Angeles -0.08 52,415 52,371 52,371
Pasadena City Los Angeles 0.41 140,054 140,631 140,631
196
CC 06-03-2025
196 of 1012
Pico Rivera City Los Angeles 0.00 60,859 60,858 60,858
Pomona City Los Angeles 0.68 152,005 153,042 153,042
Rancho Palos Verdes City Los Angeles -0.25 40,831 40,727 40,727 Redondo Beach City Los Angeles -0.33 68,319 68,091 68,091 Rolling Hills City Los Angeles 0.24 1,673 1,677 1,677
Rolling Hills Estates City Los Angeles -0.14 8,557 8,545 8,545Rosemead City Los Angeles 0.41 50,296 50,501 50,501 San Dimas City Los Angeles -0.05 34,226 34,209 34,209
San Fernando City Los Angeles 0.62 23,546 23,692 23,692 San Gabriel City Los Angeles 1.00 38,569 38,953 38,953
San Marino City Los Angeles -0.09 12,341 12,330 12,330
Santa Clarita City Los Angeles 0.35 231,573 232,377 232,377 Santa Fe Springs City Los Angeles 0.90 18,341 18,506 18,680 Santa Monica City Los Angeles 0.19 93,034 93,212 93,212 Sierra Madre City Los Angeles -0.30 10,903 10,870 10,870 Signal Hill City Los Angeles -0.31 11,457 11,421 11,421 South El Monte City Los Angeles -0.02 19,538 19,535 19,535 South Gate City Los Angeles 0.08 92,883 92,955 92,955
South Pasadena City Los Angeles 0.06 26,272 26,287 26,287 Temple City Los Angeles 0.70 36,069 36,322 36,322
Torrance City Los Angeles -0.10 143,410 143,261 143,261 Vernon City Los Angeles -0.48 208 207 207
Walnut City Los Angeles 0.74 28,008 28,214 28,214
West Covina City Los Angeles -0.21 109,657 109,428 109,428 West Hollywood City Los Angeles 0.10 35,250 35,284 35,284 Westlake Village City Los Angeles -0.31 7,943 7,918 7,918 Whittier City Los Angeles 0.03 87,820 87,850 87,850
Balance of County Los Angeles 0.18 1,001,862 1,003,674 1,004,490 Incorporated Los Angeles 0.31 8,834,429 8,861,693 8,872,321 County Total Los Angeles 0.30 9,836,291 9,865,367 9,876,811 Chowchilla City Madera -1.64 13,729 13,504 18,742
Madera City Madera -0.85 67,013 66,443 66,443
Balance of County Madera 2.24 75,718 77,414 77,414Incorporated Madera -0.98 80,742 79,947 85,185 County Total Madera 0.58 156,460 157,361 162,599
Belvedere City Marin 0.29 2,052 2,058 2,058
Corte Madera City Marin 0.09 9,947 9,956 9,966Fairfax City Marin 0.09 7,400 7,407 7,407 Larkspur City Marin -0.15 12,750 12,731 12,731
Mill Valley City Marin 0.07 13,679 13,688 13,688
Novato City Marin 0.22 51,372 51,486 51,690Ross City Marin 0.83 2,290 2,309 2,309 San Anselmo City Marin 0.26 12,519 12,551 12,551San Rafael City Marin -0.05 59,917 59,885 59,885 197
CC 06-03-2025
197 of 1012
Sausalito City Marin 0.07 6,936 6,941 6,941
Tiburon Town Marin 0.18 8,894 8,910 8,910
Balance of County Marin 0.29 63,257 63,441 66,414
Incorporated Marin 0.09 187,756 187,922 188,136
County Total Marin 0.14 251,013 251,363 254,550
Balance of County Mariposa -0.21 16,897 16,861 16,917
County Total Mariposa -0.21 16,897 16,861 16,917
Fort Bragg City Mendocino -0.10 7,194 7,187 7,187
Point Arena City Mendocino 1.57 445 452 452
Ukiah City Mendocino 0.60 16,227 16,325 16,325
Willits City Mendocino -0.31 4,853 4,838 4,838
Balance of County Mendocino -0.09 61,031 60,975 61,025
Incorporated Mendocino 0.29 28,719 28,802 28,802
County Total Mendocino 0.03 89,750 89,777 89,827
Atwater City Merced -0.18 31,921 31,862 31,862
Dos Palos City Merced -0.28 5,728 5,712 5,712
Gustine City Merced -0.23 6,035 6,021 6,021
Livingston City Merced -0.07 14,451 14,441 14,441
Los Banos City Merced 1.42 48,213 48,896 48,896
Merced City Merced 5.26 93,138 98,039 98,039
Balance of County Merced -4.65 91,101 86,861 88,109
Incorporated Merced 2.75 199,486 204,971 204,971
County Total Merced 0.43 290,587 291,832 293,080
Alturas City Modoc -0.19 2,662 2,657 2,657
Balance of County Modoc -0.22 5,847 5,834 5,834
Incorporated Modoc -0.19 2,662 2,657 2,657
County Total Modoc -0.21 8,509 8,491 8,491
Mammoth Lakes Town Mono -1.47 7,145 7,040 7,040
Balance of County Mono -1.75 5,647 5,548 5,644
Incorporated Mono -1.47 7,145 7,040 7,040County Total Mono -1.59 12,792 12,588 12,684Carmel-by-the-Sea City Monterey -0.23 3,056 3,049 3,049Del Rey Oaks City Monterey -0.32 1,551 1,546 1,546Gonzales City Monterey -0.30 8,459 8,434 8,434 Greenfield City Monterey 1.18 20,543 20,785 20,785King City Monterey 1.09 14,189 14,344 14,344Marina City Monterey 1.12 22,831 23,086 23,086Monterey City Monterey -0.33 24,282 24,202 27,273Pacific Grove City Monterey -0.43 14,935 14,871 14,871Salinas City Monterey -0.24 161,039 160,645 160,645 Sand City Monterey -0.27 374 373 373Seaside City Monterey 1.35 26,367 26,724 32,019 Soledad City Monterey 1.80 20,005 20,366 27,310
Balance of County Monterey -0.14 105,111 104,962 105,096 198
CC 06-03-2025
198 of 1012
Incorporated Monterey 0.25 317,631 318,425 333,735
County Total Monterey 0.15 422,742 423,387 438,831
American Canyon City Napa 2.94 21,757 22,396 22,396
Calistoga City Napa -0.41 5,181 5,160 5,160
Napa City Napa 0.28 77,520 77,736 77,736
St Helena City Napa -0.13 5,356 5,349 5,349
Yountville City Napa -0.54 2,056 2,045 2,638
Balance of County Napa -0.30 21,840 21,775 22,845
Incorporated Napa 0.73 111,870 112,686 113,279
County Total Napa 0.56 133,710 134,461 136,124
Grass Valley City Nevada -0.72 13,461 13,364 13,364
Nevada City Nevada -0.86 3,365 3,336 3,336
Truckee Town Nevada 0.03 16,923 16,928 16,928
Balance of County Nevada -0.63 67,092 66,667 66,726
Incorporated Nevada -0.36 33,749 33,628 33,628
County Total Nevada -0.54 100,841 100,295 100,354
Aliso Viejo City Orange -0.45 50,442 50,213 50,213
Anaheim City Orange -0.08 341,967 341,686 341,773
Brea City Orange -0.42 48,101 47,900 47,900
Buena Park City Orange -0.13 82,772 82,667 82,667
Costa Mesa City Orange 0.25 110,048 110,321 110,321
Cypress City Orange -0.13 49,563 49,499 49,499
Dana Point City Orange -0.37 32,850 32,730 32,730
Fountain Valley City Orange -0.09 56,612 56,560 56,560
Fullerton City Orange -0.31 141,909 141,469 141,469
Garden Grove City Orange 0.12 171,260 171,470 171,492
Huntington Beach City Orange -0.19 193,510 193,134 193,134 Irvine City Orange 0.79 316,119 318,629 318,629
Laguna Beach City Orange 0.02 22,759 22,763 22,763
Laguna Hills City Orange -0.41 30,435 30,309 30,309Laguna Niguel City Orange 0.65 64,834 65,257 65,257Laguna Woods City Orange -0.46 17,262 17,183 17,183 La Habra City Orange -0.06 61,236 61,202 61,202Lake Forest City Orange 0.10 87,553 87,639 87,639La Palma City Orange -0.44 15,177 15,110 15,110Los Alamitos City Orange -0.32 12,044 12,006 12,006Mission Viejo City Orange -0.28 91,993 91,740 91,740 Newport Beach City Orange -0.41 82,995 82,654 82,654
Orange City Orange 0.95 138,403 139,724 139,724
Placentia City Orange 2.52 52,653 53,982 53,982
Rancho Santa Margarita City Orange -0.46 46,553 46,341 46,341San Clemente City Orange -0.35 63,085 62,865 62,865 San Juan Capistrano City Orange 0.23 35,247 35,329 35,329Santa Ana City Orange 0.68 313,210 315,325 315,325 199
CC 06-03-2025
199 of 1012
Seal Beach City Orange -0.47 24,439 24,325 24,400
Stanton City Orange -0.06 40,576 40,552 40,552
Tustin City Orange -0.15 79,449 79,326 79,326
Villa Park City Orange -0.21 5,750 5,738 5,738
Westminster City Orange 0.13 90,181 90,295 90,295
Yorba Linda City Orange -0.46 66,573 66,267 66,267
Balance of County Orange 0.54 132,313 133,023 133,033
Incorporated Orange 0.15 3,037,560 3,042,210 3,042,394
County Total Orange 0.17 3,169,873 3,175,233 3,175,427Auburn City Placer -1.27 13,457 13,286 13,286 Colfax City Placer -1.48 2,026 1,996 1,996
Lincoln City Placer 0.65 54,167 54,520 54,520
Loomis Town Placer -0.59 6,729 6,689 6,689
Rocklin City Placer 0.28 72,967 73,172 73,172
Roseville City Placer 0.76 157,304 158,494 158,494
Balance of County Placer -0.44 113,786 113,289 113,289
Incorporated Placer 0.49 306,650 308,157 308,157
County Total Placer 0.24 420,436 421,446 421,446
Portola City Plumas -0.94 2,118 2,098 2,098
Balance of County Plumas 0.62 16,684 16,787 16,787
Incorporated Plumas -0.94 2,118 2,098 2,098
County Total Plumas 0.44 18,802 18,885 18,885
Banning City Riverside -0.37 32,068 31,949 31,949
Beaumont City Riverside 1.78 58,665 59,708 59,708
Blythe City Riverside -0.95 12,593 12,473 15,400
Calimesa City Riverside -0.79 11,082 10,994 10,994
Canyon Lake City Riverside -0.74 11,086 11,004 11,004
Cathedral City Riverside -0.67 51,962 51,615 51,651
Coachella City Riverside 0.76 44,050 44,384 44,384
Corona City Riverside -0.32 159,667 159,157 159,157
Desert Hot Springs City Riverside 0.02 33,255 33,262 33,262 Eastvale City Riverside -0.68 70,274 69,799 69,799
Hemet City Riverside 0.20 91,751 91,934 91,934
Indian Wells City Riverside 0.06 4,859 4,862 4,862
Indio City Riverside -0.17 92,693 92,539 92,539
Jurupa Valley City Riverside -0.90 106,830 105,870 105,928 Lake Elsinore City Riverside 0.97 72,934 73,638 73,783
La Quinta City Riverside -0.90 39,148 38,796 38,796
Menifee City Riverside 1.30 113,837 115,316 115,316
Moreno Valley City Riverside -0.27 211,389 210,823 210,823 Murrieta City Riverside 0.44 111,299 111,789 111,789
Norco City Riverside -0.63 22,563 22,421 25,221
Palm Desert City Riverside 0.04 51,961 51,980 51,980
Palm Springs City Riverside -0.63 44,760 44,476 44,476
200
CC 06-03-2025
200 of 1012
Perris City Riverside 0.36 80,947 81,240 81,240
Rancho Mirage City Riverside -0.62 17,227 17,120 17,120 Riverside City Riverside -0.37 321,479 320,278 320,337
San Jacinto City Riverside 0.10 54,936 54,990 54,990
Temecula City Riverside 1.19 110,898 112,220 112,220
Wildomar City Riverside 0.05 37,060 37,077 37,077
Balance of County Riverside 1.53 411,338 417,646 417,901 Incorporated Riverside 0.02 2,071,273 2,071,714 2,077,739 County Total Riverside 0.27 2,482,611 2,489,360 2,495,640 Citrus Heights City Sacramento -0.43 86,655 86,280 86,280 Elk Grove City Sacramento 1.24 180,599 182,842 182,842
Folsom City Sacramento 3.69 84,416 87,532 92,577
Galt City Sacramento 1.38 25,738 26,092 26,092
Isleton City Sacramento -0.65 769 764 764
Rancho Cordova City Sacramento 3.16 82,837 85,451 85,451 Sacramento City Sacramento 0.31 526,327 527,979 527,979 Balance of County Sacramento -0.26 604,360 602,760 602,760 Incorporated Sacramento 0.97 987,341 996,940 1,001,985
County Total Sacramento 0.50 1,591,701 1,599,700 1,604,745Hollister City San Benito 0.51 43,272 43,492 43,492 San Juan Bautista City San Benito -0.81 2,095 2,078 2,078 Balance of County San Benito 0.50 21,147 21,252 21,252
Incorporated San Benito 0.45 45,367 45,570 45,570
County Total San Benito 0.46 66,514 66,822 66,822
Adelanto City San Bernardino 1.42 36,629 37,150 37,150
Apple Valley Town San Bernardino -0.11 75,339 75,255 75,262 Barstow City San Bernardino -0.55 24,634 24,498 24,811
Big Bear Lake City San Bernardino -0.48 4,977 4,953 4,953 Chino City San Bernardino 1.76 90,123 91,712 95,206Chino Hills City San Bernardino -0.18 77,452 77,314 77,314Colton City San Bernardino -0.42 53,505 53,278 53,278Fontana City San Bernardino 0.96 217,084 219,172 219,172 Grand Terrace City San Bernardino -0.51 12,868 12,803 12,803 Hesperia City San Bernardino 0.54 101,248 101,792 101,792 Highland City San Bernardino 1.16 56,436 57,088 57,088Loma Linda City San Bernardino -0.19 25,323 25,276 25,322 Montclair City San Bernardino -0.38 37,670 37,526 37,526Needles City San Bernardino -0.54 4,817 4,791 4,791Ontario City San Bernardino 0.84 182,875 184,404 184,404 Rancho Cucamonga City San Bernardino 0.44 175,227 175,992 175,992 Redlands City San Bernardino 0.10 73,416 73,488 73,488
Rialto City San Bernardino 1.09 104,426 105,565 105,565 San Bernardino City San Bernardino 0.08 221,218 221,387 222,727 Twentynine Palms City San Bernardino 7.84 14,775 15,934 24,257 201
CC 06-03-2025
201 of 1012
Upland City San Bernardino -0.23 79,326 79,140 79,140
Victorville City San Bernardino 0.49 135,981 136,652 141,013 Yucaipa City San Bernardino 0.51 54,561 54,838 54,838
Yucca Valley Town San Bernardino 0.03 22,021 22,027 22,027 Balance of County San Bernardino -0.22 290,454 289,811 297,505 Incorporated San Bernardino 0.54 1,881,931 1,892,035 1,909,919 County Total San Bernardino 0.44 2,172,385 2,181,846 2,207,424 Carlsbad City San Diego -0.24 116,652 116,368 116,368
Chula Vista City San Diego 0.19 280,590 281,137 281,401 Coronado City San Diego -0.41 17,471 17,400 22,610
Del Mar City San Diego 0.05 3,948 3,950 3,950
El Cajon City San Diego -0.47 105,429 104,932 104,932
Encinitas City San Diego 0.17 61,851 61,956 61,956
Escondido City San Diego -0.63 151,386 150,425 150,425
Imperial Beach City San Diego -0.35 26,462 26,369 26,369 La Mesa City San Diego -0.27 61,072 60,908 60,908
Lemon Grove City San Diego 0.93 27,903 28,163 28,163
National City San Diego 0.07 56,900 56,941 58,965
Oceanside City San Diego 0.44 173,569 174,340 174,340
Poway City San Diego 0.86 49,948 50,379 50,379
San Diego City San Diego 1.15 1,378,448 1,394,234 1,408,937 San Marcos City San Diego -0.14 97,261 97,123 97,123
Santee City San Diego -0.60 59,928 59,568 59,568
Solana Beach City San Diego -0.52 13,054 12,986 12,986
Vista City San Diego -0.14 101,740 101,599 101,599
Balance of County San Diego -0.19 470,041 469,135 509,160 Incorporated San Diego 0.54 2,783,612 2,798,778 2,820,979 County Total San Diego 0.44 3,253,653 3,267,913 3,330,139 San Francisco City San Francisco -0.39 844,789 841,467 842,027 Incorporated San Francisco -0.39 844,789 841,467 842,027 County Total San Francisco -0.39 844,789 841,467 842,027 Escalon City San Joaquin -1.43 7,337 7,232 7,232Lathrop City San Joaquin 4.03 37,102 38,596 38,596Lodi City San Joaquin -0.25 67,262 67,093 67,093Manteca City San Joaquin 1.76 92,116 93,733 93,733 Mountain House City San Joaquin 0.00 28,795 28,795
Ripon City San Joaquin -1.33 15,966 15,753 15,753Stockton City San Joaquin -0.77 323,325 320,847 320,877 Tracy City San Joaquin 0.73 97,501 98,215 98,215
Balance of County San Joaquin -16.29 159,392 133,422 135,562 Incorporated San Joaquin 4.63 640,609 670,264 670,294
County Total San Joaquin 0.46 800,001 803,686 805,856
Arroyo Grande City San Luis Obispo -0.64 18,025 17,910 17,910 Atascadero City San Luis Obispo -0.72 29,305 29,093 30,134 202
CC 06-03-2025
202 of 1012
El Paso de Robles City San Luis Obispo 0.24 30,988 31,061 31,061 Grover Beach City San Luis Obispo -0.35 12,455 12,411 12,411 Morro Bay City San Luis Obispo 0.00 10,404 10,404 10,404 Pismo Beach City San Luis Obispo -0.69 7,858 7,804 7,804 San Luis Obispo City San Luis Obispo 1.52 48,791 49,534 49,534 Balance of County San Luis Obispo -0.61 118,580 117,852 120,079 Incorporated San Luis Obispo 0.25 157,826 158,217 159,258 County Total San Luis Obispo -0.12 276,406 276,069 279,337 Atherton Town San Mateo -0.33 7,030 7,007 7,007
Belmont City San Mateo 3.90 27,146 28,206 28,206
Brisbane City San Mateo -0.51 4,700 4,676 4,676
Burlingame City San Mateo 2.55 30,768 31,552 31,552
Colma Town San Mateo -0.70 1,421 1,411 1,411
Daly City San Mateo -0.16 102,315 102,155 102,155
East Palo Alto City San Mateo -0.65 29,325 29,133 29,133 Foster City San Mateo -0.60 32,856 32,658 32,658
Half Moon Bay City San Mateo -0.26 11,333 11,303 11,303 Hillsborough Town San Mateo 0.38 11,211 11,254 11,254
Menlo Park City San Mateo -0.35 33,291 33,175 33,311
Millbrae City San Mateo -0.53 23,288 23,164 23,164
Pacifica City San Mateo -0.41 37,365 37,212 37,217
Portola Valley Town San Mateo -0.02 4,286 4,285 4,285
Redwood City San Mateo -0.57 82,546 82,073 82,073
San Bruno City San Mateo 0.29 42,507 42,631 42,631
San Carlos City San Mateo -0.45 29,669 29,535 29,535
San Mateo City San Mateo 0.09 104,221 104,315 104,315
South San Francisco City San Mateo 0.39 65,146 65,397 65,397 Woodside Town San Mateo 0.58 5,176 5,206 5,206
Balance of County San Mateo -0.32 62,047 61,848 61,848Incorporated San Mateo 0.11 685,600 686,348 686,489 County Total San Mateo 0.07 747,647 748,196 748,337
Buellton City Santa Barbara 2.23 4,980 5,091 5,091Carpinteria City Santa Barbara 0.09 12,723 12,735 12,735Goleta City Santa Barbara 0.45 32,601 32,747 32,747Guadalupe City Santa Barbara 1.81 8,694 8,851 8,851 Lompoc City Santa Barbara 0.05 40,518 40,538 43,424Santa Barbara City Santa Barbara 0.31 86,159 86,422 86,451Santa Maria City Santa Barbara 1.19 110,885 112,208 112,208 Solvang City Santa Barbara 0.47 5,728 5,755 5,755Balance of County Santa Barbara 0.52 136,287 136,992 139,870 Incorporated Santa Barbara 0.68 302,288 304,347 307,262 County Total Santa Barbara 0.63 438,575 441,339 447,132 Campbell City Santa Clara -0.22 43,377 43,281 43,281
Cupertino City Santa Clara -0.09 59,887 59,831 59,831
203
CC 06-03-2025
203 of 1012
Gilroy City Santa Clara 1.10 61,402 62,076 62,205
Los Altos City Santa Clara 0.62 31,523 31,720 31,720
Los Altos Hills Town Santa Clara 0.33 8,520 8,548 8,548 Los Gatos Town Santa Clara -0.43 33,500 33,355 33,355
Milpitas City Santa Clara -0.59 82,401 81,915 81,915
Monte Sereno City Santa Clara 0.66 3,613 3,637 3,637
Morgan Hill City Santa Clara 0.06 46,573 46,599 46,599
Mountain View City Santa Clara -0.19 86,674 86,513 86,513 Palo Alto City Santa Clara 0.31 68,550 68,763 68,794
San Jose City Santa Clara -0.08 980,174 979,415 979,415 Santa Clara City Santa Clara 0.57 133,829 134,587 134,587 Saratoga City Santa Clara 0.29 31,020 31,110 31,110
Sunnyvale City Santa Clara 0.46 158,948 159,673 159,673 Balance of County Santa Clara -0.21 90,602 90,412 91,076 Incorporated Santa Clara 0.06 1,829,991 1,831,023 1,831,183County Total Santa Clara 0.04 1,920,593 1,921,435 1,922,259Capitola City Santa Cruz -0.35 9,704 9,670 9,670 Santa Cruz City Santa Cruz 0.18 62,861 62,972 62,972
Scotts Valley City Santa Cruz -0.04 11,836 11,831 11,831 Watsonville City Santa Cruz 0.47 50,860 51,101 51,101
Balance of County Santa Cruz -0.04 128,130 128,079 128,136 Incorporated Santa Cruz 0.23 135,261 135,574 135,574
County Total Santa Cruz 0.10 263,391 263,653 263,710
Anderson City Shasta -0.73 11,048 10,967 10,967
Redding City Shasta 0.09 93,330 93,413 93,534
Shasta Lake City Shasta -0.74 10,209 10,133 10,133
Balance of County Shasta -0.49 65,836 65,514 65,567Incorporated Shasta -0.06 114,587 114,513 114,634 County Total Shasta -0.22 180,423 180,027 180,201
Loyalton City Sierra -0.27 732 730 730Balance of County Sierra -0.20 2,445 2,440 2,440 Incorporated Sierra -0.27 732 730 730County Total Sierra -0.22 3,177 3,170 3,170 Dorris City Siskiyou -0.84 837 830 830
Dunsmuir City Siskiyou -0.91 1,643 1,628 1,628
Etna City Siskiyou -0.75 667 662 662
Fort Jones City Siskiyou -0.75 668 663 663
Montague City Siskiyou -0.42 1,200 1,195 1,195Mount Shasta City Siskiyou -0.72 3,202 3,179 3,179Tulelake City Siskiyou -0.82 858 851 851Weed City Siskiyou 0.30 2,708 2,716 2,716Yreka City Siskiyou 0.64 7,829 7,879 7,879Balance of County Siskiyou -0.49 23,772 23,656 23,708 Incorporated Siskiyou -0.05 19,612 19,603 19,603
204
CC 06-03-2025
204 of 1012
County Total Siskiyou -0.29 43,384 43,259 43,311
Benicia City Solano -0.58 26,347 26,195 26,195
Dixon City Solano 2.89 19,608 20,174 20,174
Fairfield City Solano -0.07 116,199 116,112 120,720
Rio Vista City Solano 1.78 10,157 10,338 10,338
Suisun City Solano -0.13 29,074 29,036 29,036
Vacaville City Solano 0.04 97,347 97,382 103,181Vallejo City Solano -0.48 122,791 122,207 122,207 Balance of County Solano -0.27 17,285 17,238 17,988
Incorporated Solano -0.02 421,523 421,444 431,851
County Total Solano -0.03 438,808 438,682 449,839
Cloverdale City Sonoma -0.97 8,763 8,678 8,678
Cotati City Sonoma -0.86 7,353 7,290 7,290
Healdsburg City Sonoma -0.35 11,010 10,972 10,972
Petaluma City Sonoma 0.40 58,858 59,094 59,094
Rohnert Park City Sonoma -0.06 44,089 44,062 44,062
Santa Rosa City Sonoma 0.80 177,043 178,452 178,452
Sebastopol City Sonoma 0.40 7,338 7,367 7,367
Sonoma City Sonoma -0.83 10,595 10,507 10,507
Windsor Town Sonoma -0.17 25,669 25,625 25,625
Balance of County Sonoma -0.46 130,591 129,985 130,801
Incorporated Sonoma 0.38 350,718 352,047 352,047
County Total Sonoma 0.15 481,309 482,032 482,848
Ceres City Stanislaus -0.35 49,480 49,305 49,305
Hughson City Stanislaus 2.26 7,801 7,977 7,977
Modesto City Stanislaus 0.03 219,705 219,765 219,765
Newman City Stanislaus 1.05 12,260 12,389 12,389
Oakdale City Stanislaus 0.28 23,167 23,231 23,231Patterson City Stanislaus 3.57 24,977 25,868 25,868Riverbank City Stanislaus 3.16 25,290 26,090 26,090Turlock City Stanislaus 0.31 71,997 72,219 72,219Waterford City Stanislaus 0.09 9,161 9,169 9,169 Balance of County Stanislaus -0.02 109,776 109,752 109,752 Incorporated Stanislaus 0.49 443,838 446,013 446,013
County Total Stanislaus 0.39 553,614 555,765 555,765
Live Oak City Sutter 0.58 9,602 9,658 9,658
Yuba City Sutter 0.96 69,781 70,453 70,453
Balance of County Sutter 0.49 20,048 20,146 20,146Incorporated Sutter 0.92 79,383 80,111 80,111County Total Sutter 0.83 99,431 100,257 100,257Corning City Tehama 1.30 8,162 8,268 8,268 Red Bluff City Tehama 0.11 14,450 14,466 14,466Tehama City Tehama 0.23 427 428 428Balance of County Tehama -0.41 41,702 41,532 41,665 205
CC 06-03-2025
205 of 1012
Incorporated Tehama 0.53 23,039 23,162 23,162
County Total Tehama -0.07 64,741 64,694 64,827
Balance of County Trinity -0.16 15,850 15,825 15,884
County Total Trinity -0.16 15,850 15,825 15,884
Dinuba City Tulare 0.67 25,852 26,025 26,025
Exeter City Tulare -0.19 10,252 10,233 10,233
Farmersville City Tulare -0.29 10,422 10,392 10,392
Lindsay City Tulare -0.07 12,734 12,725 12,725
Porterville City Tulare 0.04 63,427 63,455 63,622
Tulare City Tulare 2.02 71,557 73,002 73,002
Visalia City Tulare 0.69 145,714 146,722 146,978
Woodlake City Tulare 2.72 7,793 8,005 8,005
Balance of County Tulare 0.54 135,452 136,180 136,227
Incorporated Tulare 0.81 347,751 350,559 350,982
County Total Tulare 0.73 483,203 486,739 487,209
Sonora City Tuolumne -0.74 5,154 5,116 5,116
Balance of County Tuolumne -0.27 46,963 46,836 49,241
Incorporated Tuolumne -0.74 5,154 5,116 5,116
County Total Tuolumne -0.32 52,117 51,952 54,357
Camarillo City Ventura -0.78 69,467 68,927 68,927
Fillmore City Ventura -0.35 17,095 17,035 17,035
Moorpark City Ventura -0.77 35,023 34,754 34,754
Ojai City Ventura 0.04 7,556 7,559 7,559
Oxnard City Ventura 0.18 198,384 198,733 198,733
Port Hueneme City Ventura -0.81 19,024 18,870 20,838
San Buenaventura (Ventura) City Ventura 0.58 108,304 108,930 108,985 Santa Paula City Ventura 0.47 31,511 31,658 31,658
Simi Valley City Ventura 0.00 124,640 124,645 124,815
Thousand Oaks City Ventura -0.73 123,372 122,468 122,468 Balance of County Ventura 1.49 90,070 91,416 93,233Incorporated Ventura -0.11 734,376 733,579 735,772 County Total Ventura 0.07 824,446 824,995 829,005
Davis City Yolo -0.43 65,708 65,423 65,423
West Sacramento City Yolo 0.85 54,938 55,403 55,403Winters City Yolo 4.14 7,702 8,021 8,021 Woodland City Yolo 0.35 61,406 61,623 61,623
Balance of County Yolo 1.83 34,334 34,963 34,963Incorporated Yolo 0.38 189,754 190,470 190,470 County Total Yolo 0.60 224,088 225,433 225,433
Marysville City Yuba -0.84 12,825 12,717 12,717Wheatland City Yuba 2.29 3,922 4,012 4,012Balance of County Yuba 0.57 65,454 65,828 68,294Incorporated Yuba -0.11 16,747 16,729 16,729County Total Yuba 0.43 82,201 82,557 85,023 206
CC 06-03-2025
206 of 1012
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
207
CC 06-03-2025
207 of 1012
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 and Total Population January 1, 2025 City County
Percent Change
24-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-24
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Total Population
1-1-25
Incorporated Alameda 0.37 1,507,666 1,513,172 1,514,836 County Total Alameda 0.31 1,655,644 1,660,751 1,662,482 County Total Alpine -0.42 1,181 1,176 1,177
Incorporated Amador -0.88 13,964 13,841 17,715
County Total Amador -1.34 36,131 35,646 39,563
Incorporated Butte 2.67 149,856 153,863 153,863
County Total Butte -0.17 207,873 207,525 207,525
Incorporated Calaveras -0.42 3,585 3,570 3,570
County Total Calaveras -0.23 44,768 44,666 44,722
Incorporated Colusa -0.32 12,164 12,125 12,125
County Total Colusa -0.30 22,093 22,026 22,026
Incorporated Contra Costa 0.03 981,987 982,308 982,308
County Total Contra Costa 0.00 1,158,165 1,158,141 1,158,225 Incorporated Del Norte -0.69 4,064 4,036 6,056
County Total Del Norte -1.32 24,802 24,475 26,544
Incorporated El Dorado 0.01 31,650 31,654 31,664
County Total El Dorado 0.08 190,512 190,663 190,770
Incorporated Fresno 0.97 863,943 872,318 876,849
County Total Fresno 0.84 1,022,826 1,031,466 1,037,053
Incorporated Glenn 1.36 14,975 15,179 15,179
County Total Glenn 1.35 28,979 29,369 29,369
Incorporated Humboldt 0.36 62,966 63,191 63,346
County Total Humboldt -0.22 133,591 133,298 133,817
Incorporated Imperial 1.06 147,725 149,297 151,728
County Total Imperial 0.98 179,096 180,854 186,499
Incorporated Inyo -0.10 3,854 3,850 3,850
County Total Inyo -0.27 18,792 18,742 18,800
Incorporated Kern 1.09 598,320 604,862 617,253
County Total Kern 0.74 902,508 909,213 923,961
Incorporated Kings 1.98 109,956 112,128 123,857
County Total Kings 1.88 135,091 137,628 154,015
Incorporated Lake 0.57 21,436 21,559 21,559
County Total Lake -0.24 67,325 67,166 67,254
Incorporated Lassen 1.90 9,199 9,374 12,270
County Total Lassen 1.82 24,001 24,438 28,716
Incorporated Los Angeles 0.31 8,834,429 8,861,693 8,872,321 County Total Los Angeles 0.30 9,836,291 9,865,367 9,876,811 Incorporated Madera -0.98 80,742 79,947 85,185
County Total Madera 0.58 156,460 157,361 162,599
Incorporated Marin 0.09 187,756 187,922 188,136
County Total Marin 0.14 251,013 251,363 254,550
208
CC 06-03-2025
208 of 1012
County Total Mariposa -0.21 16,897 16,861 16,917
Incorporated Mendocino 0.29 28,719 28,802 28,802
County Total Mendocino 0.03 89,750 89,777 89,827
Incorporated Merced 2.75 199,486 204,971 204,971
County Total Merced 0.43 290,587 291,832 293,080
Incorporated Modoc -0.19 2,662 2,657 2,657
County Total Modoc -0.21 8,509 8,491 8,491
Incorporated Mono -1.47 7,145 7,040 7,040
County Total Mono -1.59 12,792 12,588 12,684
Incorporated Monterey 0.25 317,631 318,425 333,735
County Total Monterey 0.15 422,742 423,387 438,831
Incorporated Napa 0.73 111,870 112,686 113,279
County Total Napa 0.56 133,710 134,461 136,124
Incorporated Nevada -0.36 33,749 33,628 33,628
County Total Nevada -0.54 100,841 100,295 100,354
Incorporated Orange 0.15 3,037,560 3,042,210 3,042,394
County Total Orange 0.17 3,169,873 3,175,233 3,175,427
Incorporated Placer 0.49 306,650 308,157 308,157
County Total Placer 0.24 420,436 421,446 421,446
Incorporated Plumas -0.94 2,118 2,098 2,098
County Total Plumas 0.44 18,802 18,885 18,885
Incorporated Riverside 0.02 2,071,273 2,071,714 2,077,739 County Total Riverside 0.27 2,482,611 2,489,360 2,495,640 Incorporated Sacramento 0.97 987,341 996,940 1,001,985
County Total Sacramento 0.50 1,591,701 1,599,700 1,604,745 Incorporated San Benito 0.45 45,367 45,570 45,570
County Total San Benito 0.46 66,514 66,822 66,822
Incorporated San Bernardino 0.54 1,881,931 1,892,035 1,909,919 County Total San Bernardino 0.44 2,172,385 2,181,846 2,207,424 Incorporated San Diego 0.54 2,783,612 2,798,778 2,820,979 County Total San Diego 0.44 3,253,653 3,267,913 3,330,139 Incorporated San Francisco -0.39 844,789 841,467 842,027 County Total San Francisco -0.39 844,789 841,467 842,027 Incorporated San Joaquin 4.63 640,609 670,264 670,294
County Total San Joaquin 0.46 800,001 803,686 805,856
Incorporated San Luis Obispo 0.25 157,826 158,217 159,258 County Total San Luis Obispo -0.12 276,406 276,069 279,337 Incorporated San Mateo 0.11 685,600 686,348 686,489
County Total San Mateo 0.07 747,647 748,196 748,337
Incorporated Santa Barbara 0.68 302,288 304,347 307,262 County Total Santa Barbara 0.63 438,575 441,339 447,132 Incorporated Santa Clara 0.06 1,829,991 1,831,023 1,831,183 County Total Santa Clara 0.04 1,920,593 1,921,435 1,922,259 Incorporated Santa Cruz 0.23 135,261 135,574 135,574
County Total Santa Cruz 0.10 263,391 263,653 263,710
Incorporated Shasta -0.06 114,587 114,513 114,634
County Total Shasta -0.22 180,423 180,027 180,201
209
CC 06-03-2025
209 of 1012
Incorporated Sierra -0.27 732 730 730
County Total Sierra -0.22 3,177 3,170 3,170
Incorporated Siskiyou -0.05 19,612 19,603 19,603
County Total Siskiyou -0.29 43,384 43,259 43,311
Incorporated Solano -0.02 421,523 421,444 431,851
County Total Solano -0.03 438,808 438,682 449,839
Incorporated Sonoma 0.38 350,718 352,047 352,047
County Total Sonoma 0.15 481,309 482,032 482,848
Incorporated Stanislaus 0.49 443,838 446,013 446,013
County Total Stanislaus 0.39 553,614 555,765 555,765
Incorporated Sutter 0.92 79,383 80,111 80,111
County Total Sutter 0.83 99,431 100,257 100,257
Incorporated Tehama 0.53 23,039 23,162 23,162
County Total Tehama -0.07 64,741 64,694 64,827
County Total Trinity -0.16 15,850 15,825 15,884
Incorporated Tulare 0.81 347,751 350,559 350,982
County Total Tulare 0.73 483,203 486,739 487,209
Incorporated Tuolumne -0.74 5,154 5,116 5,116
County Total Tuolumne -0.32 52,117 51,952 54,357
Incorporated Ventura -0.11 734,376 733,579 735,772
County Total Ventura 0.07 824,446 824,995 829,005
Incorporated Yolo 0.38 189,754 190,470 190,470
County Total Yolo 0.60 224,088 225,433 225,433
Incorporated Yuba -0.11 16,747 16,729 16,729
County Total Yuba 0.43 82,201 82,557 85,023
210
CC 06-03-2025
210 of 1012
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 3, 2025

Subject
Staff responses to questions received from Councilmembers during Proposed Budget Study Session.

Recommended Action
Receive staff responses to questions received from Councilmembers during Proposed Budget Study Session.

Background:

Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.

Q1. As mentioned, Transfers in does not match transfers out Staff response: Transfers In and Transfers Out in the Financial Overview by Fund (page 58) should net to zero, as they represent internal movements of funds. However, Transfers In total $14,109,653 while Transfers Out total $12,609,653, resulting in a $1,500,000 variance.

This discrepancy is due to two incorrect entries:
- $500,000 in Fund 580 – Recreation Program (Enterprise Fund) - $1,000,000 in Fund 610 – Innovation & Technology (Internal Service Fund) Both funds had sufficient fund balance and should not have received transfers In.

The corrected Financial Overview by Fund reduces Transfers In for the Enterprise Funds(A) by $500,000 and for the Internal Service Funds(B) . This increases the use of fund balance for these two fund types and raises the total use of fund balance across all funds from $843,062 to $2,343,062. With these adjustments, Transfers In and Out now balance(C).

There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of this correction. 211
CC 06-03-2025
211 of 1012
2 Q2. General Fund Transfers out is exactly $1M higher than the total shown on p. 93 – which is correct? The correct number $10,594,653.

Staff response: The discrepancy on page 93 is due to two errors in the table. First, the list omits a $2 million transfer to Fund 429 – CIP Reserve, which represents the annual General Fund contribution reinstated as part of the Mid-Year Financial Report. Second, the table incorrectly lists the transfer to Fund 270 – Transportation Fund as $2.5 million instead of the correct amount of $1.5 million.

Q3. Both amounts were correctly updated in the budget system but were inadvertently not reflected in the published table. The $1.5 million transfer satisfies the City's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement for street and sidewalk maintenance. In prior years, this program was funded at $2.5 million, but the amount was reduced to MOE minimum as a budget balancing measure.

Enterprise Funds “Other Financing Uses” is shown as “Transfers Out” on p. 64 – should it be moved up to the Transfers Out line on p 58? This is $222,567 and appears to have been copied to the wrong category line.

Revenue Categories General Fund Special
Revenue Fund
Debt Service
Fund
Capital Project
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
Internal Service
Funds
All Funds
Sales Tax 11,983,958 - - - - - 11,983,958
Property Tax 35,413,310 - - - - - 35,413,310
Transient Occupancy 7,500,000 - - - - - 7,500,000
Utility Tax 4,206,907 - - - - - 4,206,907
Franchise Fees 4,394,563 - - - - - 4,394,563
Other Taxes 1,736,718 4,637,703 - - - - 6,374,421
Licenses & Permits 4,261,859 - - - - - 4,261,859
Use of Money & Property 6,538,880 749,830 - - 531,450 99,701 7,919,861 Intergovernmental 3,569,332 5,351,721 - - 14,812 - 8,935,865 Charges for Services 15,162,032 1,504,373 - - 5,044,822 5,331,124 27,042,351 Fines & Forfeitures 410,760 10,000 - - - - 420,760
Miscellaneous 1,668,815 1,519 - - - - 1,670,334
Other Financing Sources 367,000 - - - - 553,531 920,531 Transfers In 15,000 2,067,000 2,676,600 4,000,000 1,235,000 2,616,053 12,609,653 TOTAL REVENUES $ 97,229,134 $ 14,322,146 $ 2,676,600 $ 4,000,000 $ 6,826,084 $ 8,600,409 $ 133,654,373 Appropriation Categories General Fund Special
Revenue Fund
Debt Service
Fund
Capital Project
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
Internal Service
Funds
All Funds
Employee Compensation 24,182,741 1,602,256 - - 2,010,726 1,720,661 29,516,384 Employee Benefits 10,595,638 797,878 - - 746,937 2,347,371 14,487,824 Materials 6,174,481 1,013,894 - - 758,663 1,297,849 9,244,887 Contract Services 31,496,502 692,575 - 225,000 3,578,026 1,730,697 37,722,800 Cost Allocation 11,993,327 2,197,032 - - 1,676,251 949,737 16,816,347 Capital Outlays 274,433 1,583,075 - 2,000,000 - - 3,857,508 Special Projects 2,694,000 2,908,412 - - 160,000 1,039,000 6,801,412 Contingencies 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Debt Service - - 2,676,600 - - - 2,676,600
Transfers Out 10,594,653 15,000 - 2,000,000 - - 12,609,653 Other Financing Uses 1,065,000 - - - 222,567 926,453 2,214,020 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 99,120,775 $ 10,810,122 $ 2,676,600 $ 4,225,000 $ 9,153,170 $ 10,011,768 $ 135,997,435

CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCE/ $ (1,891,641) $ 3,512,024 $ - $ (225,000) $ (2,327,086) $ (1,411,359) $ (2,343,062) 2025-26 Proposed Budget
2025-26 Proposed Budget
A B
C
C
212
CC 06-03-2025
212 of 1012
3 Staff Response: That is correct. The amounts should have been in Other Financing Uses. The table has been updated to reflect the change. In addition, we added the Other Financing Uses and broken out prior year transfers out and other financing uses separately. See table below.

Q4: Exploring a citywide traffic study; requested an informational memorandum evaluating process to collect data such as traffic counts, flow, and speed surveys, along with proposed scope and cost.

Staff response: Information memorandum will be provided by Public Works staff in June.

Q5: Requested historical data on the City's vacancy rates.

Staff response: Over the last 10 years, the City’s vacancy rate has averaged 11% including years when the City had added positions at Mid-Year or had been in a soft hiring freeze, when removing these anomalies the City’s salary savings has average 6%. The City’s long-term financial forecast has been updated to increase the vacancy rate to 6% in the first two years of the forecast but has kept 4% vacancy savings in the remaining years. The table below shows historical salary savings.

EXPENDITURE USES 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed
Employee Compensation 1,612,325 1,742,135 1,922,348 2,010,726 Employee Benefits (54,532) 1,020,726 839,347 746,937
Materials 412,827 363,986 691,338 758,663
Contract Services 4,736,292 3,870,517 3,661,846 3,578,026 Contingencies - - 54,339 -
Cost Allocation 789,939 939,358 1,577,430 1,676,251
Special Projects 297,015 286,326 362,733 160,000
Transfers Out 103,119 20,000 - -
Other Financing Uses 161,840 185,989 161,841 222,567
Total Expenditure Uses $ 8,058,825 $ 8,429,036 $ 9,271,222 $ 9,153,170 213
CC 06-03-2025
213 of 1012
4 The following table shows historical vacancy rates.
2014-15
Amended
Budget Q4
2014-15
Actual
2015-16
Amended
Budget Q4
2015-16
Actual
2016-17
Amended
Budget Q4
2016-17
Actual
2017-18
Amended
Budget Q4
2017-18
Actual
2018-19
Amended
Budget Q4
2018-19
Actual
Employee
Compensation 16,649,412 16,084,209 18,898,886 17,046,311 20,906,746 12,950,812 22,349,844 21,125,390 23,326,442 21,439,003 Employee
Benefits 7,962,846 7,641,603 8,830,262 7,750,646 9,412,024 9,579,239 10,168,849 10,015,266 10,708,420 9,744,962 Total 24,612,258 23,725,812 27,729,148 24,796,956 30,318,770 22,530,051 32,518,693 31,140,656 34,034,862 31,183,966 Budget vs
Actuals 886,446 2,932,192 7,788,719 1,378,037 2,850,896 Salary Savings 4% 11% 26% 4% 8%
2019-20
Amended
Budget Q4
2019-20
Actual
2020-21
Amended
Budget Q4
2020-21
Actual
2021-22
Amended
Budget Q4
2021-22
Actual
2022-23
Amended
Budget Q4
2022-23
Actual
2023-24
Amended
Budget Q4
2023-24
Actual
Employee
Compensation 24,713,544 22,794,896 25,264,213 23,003,729 27,694,272 24,412,868 31,681,411 27,087,509 30,293,262 26,716,216 Employee
Benefits 10,922,818 11,191,891 12,156,039 11,412,966 13,923,946 12,023,510 15,437,830 11,561,176 14,884,120 13,795,206 Total 35,636,362 33,986,787 37,420,252 34,416,694 41,618,218 36,436,378 47,119,241 38,648,685 45,177,382 40,511,422 Budget vs
Actuals 1,649,575 3,003,558 5,181,840 8,470,556 4,665,960 Salary Savings 5% 8% 12% 18% 10%
Average 11%
Source: OpenGov
214
CC 06-03-2025
214 of 1012
5 Q6: Requested information about staffing trends, historical vs. current staffing levels.

Staff response: See ten-year staffing chart below.

Q7: Look into discontinuing the remaining $100k in funding for Rise engagement project Work Program item.

Staff response: Will be discussed as part of the special projects item at theJune 3rd City Council meeting.

Q8: Requested clearer accounting on Sister City Program, facility use, and free use of City facilities; also requested review of agreements governing use of City property.

Staff response: Staff will provide an informational memo on all of these items.

Q9: Requested consideration of adding a "Nonprofit Support" section in the budget to show the actual costs associated with each supported nonprofit.

Staff response: Nonprofit support details can be added to the budget, as follows:

Community Fee Waivers Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Community Funding
Community Funding information can be found here
215
CC 06-03-2025
215 of 1012
6 Applicant Award
Amount
No Time to Waste $5,000
ElderAid $5,000
Active Circle $2,000
Special Olympics Northern California $5,000
AINAK $4,000
Cupertino Symphonic Band $3,000
Remember the ToothFairy $1,000
Friends of Deer Hollow Farm $2,000
iTalented $900
Via Rehabilitation Services $1,000
Rotary Club of Cupertino $1,600
West Valley Community Services $2,000
$32,500
Sister Cities
A Sister City relationship is a long-term, formal agreement that may include cultural, educational, business, and technical exchanges. Cupertino has four established Sister City relationships:
• Copertino, Italy, formalized in 1963
• Toyokawa, Japan, formalized in 1978
• Hsinchu, Taiwan, formalized in 2007
• Bhubaneswar, India, formalized in 2012
The support the City of Cupertino gives Sister Cities is as follows:

City of Cupertino Responsibilities (With regard to City supported Sister City Committees):

Coordinated through the City Manager’s Office, the City will serve as a support for programs and activities by:
• Providing for set-up and complimentary access to a large City facility for three community events per Sister City per fiscal year. All cost of food, drinks, and materials are the responsibility of the Sister City Committee.
216
CC 06-03-2025
216 of 1012
7 • The City shall accept gifts from the Sister City, which will be considered the property of the City and may be displayed at a City facility or offered to the Sister City Committee at City’s discretion.
• The City will establish and maintain a written record of said gifts, regardless of actual or perceived monetary value. The written gift log will include: donation City, gift date, gift occasion (if applicable), and whether they are being offered to the Sister City Committee. • Providing up to $2,500 per year for a Sister City with a student exchange program of 4 to 9 student delegates and up to $5,000 per year for a Sister City with a student exchange program of 10 or more student delegates.

Coordinated through the City Manager's Office, the City will serve as a support for Sister City programs and activities by:
• Providing access to postage, fax, copying and printing equipment to Sister City Committee members for support of Sister City events in which the City is participating. City staff is not responsible for preparing mailings or printed materials. • Providing the use of meeting room space (up to 18 per calendar year) at no cost to the Sister City Committee for related activities. Meeting room space does not include Cupertino Community Hall or the Quinlan Community Center’s Cupertino Room. • Providing City promotional gift items, when budget allows, typically given at community events to government representatives and student delegations from visiting countries. These include but are not limited to: branded t-shirts, pens, reusable bags, and lapel pins. The cost of each promotional gift or gift bag shall not exceed $25. Additional gifts presented to members of a Sister City delegation are the responsibility of the Sister City Committee. • Facilitating participation of City officials.

City of Cupertino Responsibilities (With regard to non-City supported Sister City Committees):
• The City shall maintain registration with the Sister Cities International organization. • Provide the use of meeting room space (up to 4 per calendar year) at no cost to the Sister City Committee for related activities. For additional meeting room uses, non-City supported Sister City Committees shall be charged the facility use resident rate on the rental of any City facility. Meeting room space does not include Cupertino Community Hall or the Quinlan Community Center’s Cupertino Room
The full agreement for Sister Cities and Friendship Cities can be found here Fees for facility rentals can be found here.
217
CC 06-03-2025
217 of 1012
8 Sister City Festival Fee Waivers
Festival Date Organizati
on
Waived
Fees
City Paid
Expenses
Totals
Bhubanes
war Sister
City
City
Initiative
(CBSCI)
Saturda
y,
Septemb
er 20,
2025
Cupertino
Bhubanes
war Sister
City
$12,200 $3,720 $15,920
Cherry
Blossom
Sat.-
Sun.,
April
25-26,
2026
Toyokawa
Sister City
$39,282 $11,780 $51,06
TOTAL $66,982
Friendship Cities
All proposed Friendship City relationships must have Councilmember or community sponsorship and be approved by the City Council. The Friendship City will submit a Friendship City application to the City of Cupertino, which requires sponsorship from a Council Member and a citizen's committee to ensure the new affiliation is successful. If approved, the City will issue a signed Letter of Intent establishing the Friendship City relationship. A Friendship City affiliation will be effective for two years and may be renewed administratively every two years.

Friendship City Committee Responsibilities:
• Identify, manage, coordinate, and implement all activities related to the Friendship City program.
• Maintain communication with the affiliate Friendship City, ensuring the counterpart is equally committed.
• Work with City staff at least one month in advance in arranging official promotional gifts and meetings for foreign delegations. For local groups traveling abroad and bringing city gifts, similar notice is required, unless waived by the City Manager.

City of Cupertino Responsibilities:

Coordinated through the City Manager’s Office, the City will:
• Issue a signed Letter of Intent establishing a new Friendship City relationship in an effort to assist international delegation visits from the Friendship City. • Provide City promotional items typically given at community events to government representatives from visiting countries as the budget allows. These may include, but are not 218
CC 06-03-2025
218 of 1012
9 limited to: City t-shirts, pens, reusable bags, and lapel pins, to the extent there remains a budgeted amount to purchase such gifts and promotional items. • Facilitate meetings with City officials.
• Conduct tours of city facilities.

Chamber of Commerce
Services Include, but not limited to, the following:

1. Technical Assistance

2. Marketing & Promotion/Information Dissemination

3. Events/Meetings

4. Other Provisions
Payment of up to $52,000 a year for work designated in the agreement.

Full agreement can be found here
Chamber Festival Fee Waivers
Festival Date Organizati
on
Waived
Fees
City Paid
Expenses
Totals
Diwali
Festival
Saturday,
October
11, 2025
Cupertino
Chamber
of
Commerce
$10,946 $4,805 $15,751
Holi Date TBD
for 25/26
Cupertino
Chamber
of
Commerce
$6,081 $3,410 $9,491
TOTAL $25,242
Cupertino Historical Society
City Council approved a license agreement and $40,000 a year grant for the Cupertino Historical Society on October 4, 2022.
• License agreement is for the Museum space at Quinlan Community Center Full agreement can be found here
219
CC 06-03-2025
219 of 1012
10 Rotary Club of Cupertino
Funding of $1,600 through the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Community Funding program.

Rotary Club Festival Fee Waiver
Festival Date Organizat
ion
Waived
Fees
City Paid
Expenses
Totals
Day N
Night Fun
Fest
Saturday,
Septembe
r 13, 2025
Rotary
Club of
Cupertino
$15,942 $4,495 $20,437
TOTAL $20,437
Friends of the Cupertino Library
Three weekend book sales per year. Funding Approximately $5,880. This is an ongoing permanent fee waiver.

Approved at City Council Meeting Monday, July 8, 2019
Pacific Coast Farmer’s Market Association
License agreement to use the Creekside Park North Parking Lot for the Friday Farmer’s Market, for most Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., unless otherwise notified by the City.

Full agreement and amendments can be found here
Regents of the University of California - Rolling Hills 4-H Club Lease agreement for space at the McClellan Ranch Preserve, including but not limited to a four-pen pole barn with corrals, a three-pen pole barn with corrals, a three-run chicken coop, and a tack room. Also includes space for monthly club meetings at either the Environmental Education Center and Monta Vista Recreation Center at no additional charge. In exchange, 4- H will leave tours for school youth groups and community groups/classes, as discussed and agreed to by Recreation Staff.

Approved at City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 21, 2024
Full agreement can be found here
Regents of the University of California – UCCE Master Gardener Program
Five garden beds, including water, receptables for trash, recyclables, and compostable waste, and community space for gardening classes, workshops, or meetings up to 12 times per calendar year. In exchange, UCCE will offer no fewer than four gardening classes or workshops annually, including a Cupertino Community Garden 101 orientation and no fewer than four hours per week, thirty-two weeks per year of Master Gardener office hours to answer questions from participants and Cupertino residents.

Full agreement can be found here
220
CC 06-03-2025
220 of 1012
11 Other organization Festival Fee Waivers
Festival application process can be found here
Festival Date Organization Waived
Fees
City Paid
Expenses
Totals
Kids N Fun
Festival
Saturday,
August23,
2025
Taiwanese Cultural and
Sports Association
$10,485 $4,495 $14,980
Ikebana Sat. October
18 and Sun.

October 19
WAFU Ikebana Society $28,475 $28,475
Veteran’s
Day
November 11,
2025
Veteran’s Memorial $1,312 $1,500 $2,812
Dilli Haat Saturday,
June 6, 2026
Empower Uplift Inc. $9,200 $4,030 $13,230
TOTAL $59,497
Q10: Requested clearer distinctions between resident and non-resident benefits in the fee schedule; requested a report/informational memo on the fee schedule’s history and structure, with comparisons.

Staff response: In general, resident fees are about 20% lower than non-resident fees. Staff will provide an informational memo on the fee schedule’s history and structure, with comparisons at a future date.

Q11: Requested information on Blackberry Farm Pool summer staffing for potential reopening for July 4 and impacts of decreased part-time staffing; and whether the staffing shortage is due to reduced summer programs.

Staff response: The City previously had multiple staff run camps and two pools with lifeguards (one at a high school and one at Blackberry Farm), we now have 3 staff run camps and one pool with lifeguards.

Fewer staff run camps and one less pool means we are hiring less part-time staff each summer. The staff run camps were seeing low enrollment, so they were changed to more specialized contractor run camps that are more popular with our customers.

The staffing shortage is due to a reduction in staff run programs due to enrollment. Programs were replaced in summer offerings, but they were replaced with more specialized contractor run programs.

Q12: Requested an update on Active Transportation Plan (ATP) progress and expenditures; provide spending data and bring back to Council for an update.

Staff response: Staff anticipates providing City Council an update on the ATP in September. 221
CC 06-03-2025
221 of 1012
12 Q13: Requested information on how to discontinue outdated work program items; review policies, including carryover policy, to evaluate ongoing project funding.

Staff response: Staff surveyed Santa Clara County agencies and received direct responses, or online research was conducted by staff. Staff surveyed 11 comparable cities, with most cities ‘carrying over encumbrances to the next fiscal year with out City Council approval and unencumbered carryovers requiring Council approval. The following cities did not provide a response, Saratoga, Campbell, and Los Altos and no information was available online. Staff may consider a change in policy as part of broader policy work. Direction from Council is needed.
222
CC 06-03-2025
222 of 1012
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

CUPERTINO FINDING THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2025 - 2026 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF

CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino' s Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) guides the funding and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over the coming Fiscal Year. The current CIP recommendations have been updated for the Fiscal Year ( FY) 2025- 2026 time period for City Council review and consideration; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65401 requires that City' s Planning Commission make a determination that the annual CIP is in conformance with the City' s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino does hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it, including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.

Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby exercises its independent judgment and determines that the action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061( b)( 3). CEQA Guidelines section 15061( b)( 3) states that a project is exempt from CEQA if " it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." The action is a determination of consistency with the General Plan and therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action may have a significant effect on the environment.
223
CC 06-03-2025
223 of 1012
Resolution No. 2025- 07