NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby:
Approve the final map and authorize its recordation,
1) Accept the public roadway dedication and public easements and the abandonment of unnecessary public easements as shown on said map; and 2) Authorize the City Engineer to execute and record the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is authorized to make such non-material changes to the final map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement as are necessary to finalize them.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of July, 2026, by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
___________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_____________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
410
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
414 of 511
1 OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OWNER'S STATEMENT
RECORDER'S STATEMENT
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
” CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S
STATEMENT
411
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
415 of 511
3950-000 SHEET OF 2 7
BENEFICIARY STATEMENT
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
BENEFICIARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
412
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
416 of 511
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SCOFIELD DRIVE
BONNY DRIVE
SAICH WAY
NEW PARCEL B
25774418 O.R. S. STELLING ROAD
3 50'
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SCALE: 1" =
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
50' 0' 25' 50' 100' 200'
REFERENCES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
NOTES: BANDLEY DRIVE
413
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
417 of 511
LOT B
LOT 6
LOT 7
LOT C
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD LOT A LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3
LOT E
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD "6' ROADWAY DEDICATION IN FEE"
LOT 8
LOT D
LOT 5
LOT F
LOT 4
SHEET 5 SHEET 6
SHEET 7
4 40'
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SCALE: 1" =
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
40' 0' 20' 40' 80' 160'
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
SHEET 6
414
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
418 of 511
LOT B
LOT 6
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SEE SHEET 7 SEE SHEET 6 SEE SHEET 6 LOT A
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD "6' ROADWAY
DEDICATION IN FEE". DOC NO. ______________
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT F
5 20'
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SCALE: 1" =
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
20' 0' 10' 20' 40' 80'
REFERENCES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
NOTES:
415
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
419 of 511
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SEE SHEET 7 SEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET 5
LOT C
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD "6' ROADWAY DEDICATION IN FEE". DOC. NO. ______________________ LOT B
LOT 3
LOT E
LOT 5 LOT 4
6 20'
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SCALE: 1" =
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
20' 0' 10' 20' 40' 80'
REFERENCES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
NOTES:
416
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
420 of 511
LOT C
LOT 7
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 6
LOT 8 LOT D
LOT C
SEE SHEET 6
7 20'
TRACT NO. 10676
20840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SCALE: 1" =
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, 13 LOTS FOR 59 UNITS
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF NEW PARCEL B AS SHOWN IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED MARCH 7, 2025, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 25774418 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS. LYING ENTIRELY IN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2026
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916)788-4456
3950-000 SHEET OF 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
20' 0' 10' 20' 40' 80'
REFERENCES:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
NOTES:
PAE DETAIL
PAE DETAIL 2
417
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
421 of 511
418
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
422 of 511
419
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
423 of 511
420
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
424 of 511
421
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
425 of 511
422
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
426 of 511
423
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
427 of 511
424
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
428 of 511
425
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
429 of 511
426
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
430 of 511
427
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
431 of 511
428
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
432 of 511
429
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
433 of 511
430
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
434 of 511
431
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
435 of 511
432
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
436 of 511
433
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
437 of 511
434
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
438 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15179 Agenda Date: 7/7/2026
Agenda #: 12.
Subject: Receive a Report on Ballot Measure Survey Results and Provide Direction on Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election.
1. Receive a report on ballot measure survey results;
2. Consider whether to place a ballot measure related to the Utility Users Tax, a ballot measure related to Parkland Rezoning, both ballot measures, or neither ballot measure before the voters; and
3. Designate Councilmember(s) to draft primary argument and rebuttal argument for any ballot measure placed before the voters.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2/2026
powered by Legistar™435
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
439 of 511
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: July 7, 2026
Subject
Receive a Report on Ballot Measure Survey Results and Provide Direction on Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election Recommended Action
1. Receive a report on ballot measure survey results;
2. Consider whether to place a ballot measure related to the Utility Users Tax, a ballot measure related to Parkland Rezoning, both ballot measures, or neither ballot measure before the voters; and
3. Designate Councilmember(s) to draft primary argument and rebuttal argument for any ballot measure placed before the voters.
Background
The City’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget 10-Year Forecast identifies long-term structural budget challenges driven primarily by increasing public safety costs, reduced sales tax revenue based on a decision from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), and the anticipated expiration of the Utility Users Tax (UUT) in 2030. Considering this information, on March 17, 2026, the City Council directed staff to contract for ballot measure support services that will evaluate expanding and/or extending and modernizing the UUT and pursuing a parkland rezoning protection effort.
On April 7, Council approved a budget adjustment of $375,000 for (i) contract services with TeamCivX and Godbe Research to provide feasibility analysis, survey development, informational communication and awareness building for both potential ballot measures; and (ii) allocating funds to cover the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (“Registrar of Voters”) estimated costs for including both measures in the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election.
Since then, Godbe Research and TeamCivX have coordinated with staff to develop a public opinion survey of Cupertino residents related to each ballot measure. The survey questions related to specific ballot measures were developed in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office to determine actual ballot language that would likely be included for voter consideration. The survey was conducted between June 3 – June 17 with residents that were chosen at random and contacted by email, text message, and telephone. The survey was also available in Chinese and 436
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
440 of 511
Hindi languages to facilitate responses representative of the Cupertino community. Another unrelated survey of Cupertino residents took place concurrently with the City’s official survey.
Staff did not have the knowledge about this other survey when the City’s ballot measure survey was initiated. While having two surveys occur simultaneously may have impacted the response rate or complicated the survey environment, it did not impact the data accuracy or the margin of error. The number of responses received for the ballot measure survey were typical for the City’s voter population.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
Godbe Research, with support from TeamCivX, developed a public opinion survey that solicited opinion on the extension or expansion of the UUT and a potential parkland rezoning ballot measure. The survey first inquired on the opinion of mandating that any attempt to rezone parks, parklands, or open space to residential, commercial, or industrial requires two-thirds support from Cupertino residents. The survey then solicited opinions on whether to increase the UUT from 2.4% to either 3.4% or 3.0%, expand it to include video services, or extend the UUT until ended by voters, or extend for another 16 years. The survey solicited opinions before and after identifying what the potential uses of the additional revenue may be utilized for.
The survey collected responses from 434 likely voters in Cupertino. The responses to these survey questions are included in the Topline Report (Attachment A). The report details and reflect the survey’s diverse makeup of resident demographics. A summary of potential ballot measures that are favored are identified below.
Parkland Rezoning
Amending the general plan to require any rezoning of parks or open space was favored by 69.5% of voters.
Extending UUT
A measure renewing the Utility Users Tax at the existing rate (2.4%), modernizing to include video services, and extending the term “until ended by voters” was favored by 66.4% voters.
For each of the favored measures, voter priorities for use of the funds reflected the importance of maintaining rapid 911 emergency response times, maintaining parks and open space, maintaining and repairing local streets, reducing property crime, and reducing wildfire risks through controlling flammable brush and maintaining safe evacuation routes. The survey also indicates that a ballot measure for increasing the tax rate of the UUT is not viable at this time.
If a ballot measure shall be pursued for inclusion in the November 3 Election, Council direction is requested. If the Council proposes language for inclusion in a ballot measure, staff will review this guidance with the City Attorney’s Office and TeamCivX to ensure compliance with the Registrar of Voters before returning to the City Council on July 21 with a resolution calling for a measure election. Council is also requested to designate the Councilmember(s) that will propose a primary and rebuttal argument for any measure that will be pursued. An approved resolution with the ballot measure language is required to be submitted to the Registrar of Voters by August 7, while the primary argument is required to be submitted by August 11 and rebuttal argument is required to be submitted by August 18.
437
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
441 of 511
In addition, if the City pursues a ballot measure, TeamCivX will be immediately engaged to develop informational communication directed to residents and businesses within the City about the potential impacts of these measures. Any messaging and communication (i.e. fact sheets, informational mailer, FAQ’s, talking points, website posting, etc.) regarding a potential ballot measure are required to follow State Law AB 1234 or other laws that govern public entities in these situations. As such, the City Attorney’s Office will coordinate with the City Manager’s Office to review all messaging before distribution. Staff may assist with distributing communication, when appropriate, to ensure residents have access to this information through our typical distribution channels.
If a ballot measure is not pursued at this time, due to potential viability or other considerations, staff will not pursue further action and will terminate contract services with TeamCivX. Council direction is requested for alternative strategies to pursue in this situation.
Based on the report findings outlined above, staff is requesting Council direction as to whether to pursue a ballot measure for the November 3 Election.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
The current tax rate for the UUT is 2.4%. The revenue for UUT in FY 2024-25 was $4,214,212.
When projecting a modest growth factor, the anticipated revenue from UUT in FY 2025-26 is $4,406,688. If the UUT is expanded to include video services and remain at the tax rate of 2.4%, the anticipated revenue in FY 2027-28 is $4,857,533. If the UUT is expanded to include video services and increase to a tax rate of 3.4%, the anticipated revenue in FY 2027-28 is $6,881,505.
Fiscal Year 2027-28 would be the first full fiscal year after approval of the expanded UUT.
There would be no ongoing expense or revenue generation for pursuit of a parkland rezoning ballot measure approval.
The Registrar of Voters costs for a singular ballot measure will not exceed $100,000. The actual cost depends on the number of ballot measures pursued and any remaining appropriated funds will be returned to the General Fund. This funding was previously approved by City Council on April 7.
The TeamCivX contract supports developing and distributing internal and external communications, assisting with final ballot measure development, reviewing ballot information, and ensuring the measure qualifies with the Registrar of Voters and is at a not-to-exceed amount of $14,625, per ballot measure. Production and distribution of mailed informational brochures is at a cost of $16,500 per mailing, with two mailings proposed. Total not-to-exceed costs for TeamCivX to continue with ballot measure support is $62,250. Any appropriated funds not utilized for this support will be returned to the General Fund. This funding was previously approved by City Council on April 7.
438
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
442 of 511
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes FY 25-26, Protections for Parkland, Consider establishing protections for parkland, similar to those adopted by the cities of Sunnyvale and Milpitas.
Council Goal:
Environmental Sustainability
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Greg Card, Purchasing Manager
Reviewed by: Jonathan Orozco, Director of Finance
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Topline Report
439
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
443 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Topline Report
Up to n=434
25 minutes
Likely November 2026 Voters
Languages: Chinese, English & Hindi
Data Collection: June 3 to 17, 2026
June 21, 2026
www.godberesearch.com
Northern California and Corporate Offices
1220 Howard Avenue, Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
Nevada
59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309
Reno, NV 89521
440
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
444 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
METHODOLOGY
Sample Universe:
- 24,643 Likely November 2026 Voters
Sample Size:
n=434
Data Collection Methodology:
n=17 Landline
n=125 Cell
n=272 Online from text invitation
n=20 Online from email invitation
Margin of Error:
- Likely November 2026 Voters + 4.66%
Interview Dates: June 3 to 17, 2026
Survey Length: 25 minutes
CUPERTINO CLIMATE
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Very favorable 20.0% 87
Somewhat favorable 48.4% 210
Somewhat unfavorable 13.5% 58
Very unfavorable 5.0% 22
DK/NA 13.0% 57
Total Favorable 68.4%
Total Unfavorable 18.5%
Ratio Fav to Unfav 3.7
Very favorable 9.8% 42
Somewhat favorable 40.3% 175
Somewhat unfavorable 17.6% 76
Very unfavorable 10.5% 46
DK/NA 21.8% 95
Total Favorable 50.1%
Total Unfavorable 28.1%
Ratio Fav to Unfav 1.8
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
1. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the job the City of Cupertino is doing to provide City services?
2. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the job the City of Cupertino is doing to effectively manage and spend taxpayer dollars and public funds?
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
445 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
INITIAL BALLOT TESTS
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Definitely Yes 43.6% 189
Probably Yes 25.9% 113
Probably No 10.0% 43
Definitely No 12.8% 55
DK/NA 7.8% 34
Total Yes 69.5%
Total No 22.7%
Definitely Yes 17.8% 77
Probably Yes 26.6% 115
Probably No 16.2% 70
Definitely No 29.0% 126
DK/NA 10.5% 46
Total Yes 44.4%
Total No 45.1%
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
4. Shall the measure to maintain essential city services such as:
• public safety,
• streets,
• parks and open spaces,
• community programs, and
• other general city services,
by replacing Cupertino’s expiring 2.4% tax with a 3.4% tax on electricity, gas, and telecommunications, and adding video services, until ended by voters, providing $6,900,000 annually, maintaining senior citizens' exemptions, requiring annual audits and public spending disclosure, be adopted?
3. Shall an ordinance amending the City of Cupertino General Plan be adopted to mandate that any attempt to rezone parks, parklands or open space to residential, commercial or
industrial, or any proposal for residential, commercial or industrial development in parks, parkland or open space, must be placed before Cupertino voters and secure two-thirds support in the City’s next general election?
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
446 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
FEATURES OF THE THE MEASURE
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Much More Likely 34.6% 150 66.7%
Somewhat More Likely 32.1% 139
No Effect 20.9% 91
Somewhat Less Likely 6.0% 26
Much Less Likely 5.7% 25
DK/NA 0.7% 3
Much More Likely 38.0% 165 70.6%
Somewhat More Likely 32.6% 141
No Effect 20.5% 89
Somewhat Less Likely 1.9% 8
Much Less Likely 7.0% 30
DK/NA 0.0% 0
Much More Likely 30.5% 133 60.0%
Somewhat More Likely 29.5% 128
No Effect 21.9% 95
Somewhat Less Likely 5.4% 23
Much Less Likely 11.4% 49
DK/NA 1.3% 6
Much More Likely 27.6% 120 62.8%
Somewhat More Likely 35.2% 153
No Effect 24.2% 105
Somewhat Less Likely 4.1% 18
Much Less Likely 7.5% 32
DK/NA 1.5% 6
Much More Likely 23.2% 101 53.1%
Somewhat More Likely 29.9% 130
No Effect 27.3% 119
Somewhat Less Likely 7.0% 31
Much Less Likely 9.9% 43
DK/NA 2.7% 12
Much More Likely 36.8% 160 64.1%
Somewhat More Likely 27.3% 118
No Effect 21.7% 94
Somewhat Less Likely 4.7% 20
Much Less Likely 7.6% 33
DK/NA 2.0% 9
Much More Likely 27.5% 119 61.0%
Somewhat More Likely 33.4% 145
No Effect 24.6% 107
Somewhat Less Likely 5.7% 25
Much Less Likely 7.1% 31
DK/NA 1.6% 7
Much More Likely 32.2% 140 72.9%
Somewhat More Likely 40.7% 177
No Effect 18.6% 81
Somewhat Less Likely 3.4% 15
Much Less Likely 5.1% 22
DK/NA 0.1% 0
Much More Likely 30.2% 131 63.4%
Somewhat More Likely 33.3% 144
No Effect 23.5% 102
Somewhat Less Likely 4.0% 18
Much Less Likely 8.0% 35
DK/NA 1.1% 5
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
5i. Maintain safe pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks
5d. Maintain emergency and disaster preparedness programs 5e. Protect community-based policing
5f. Reduce property crime
5g. Maintain senior and youth programs
5h. Maintain parks and open space
5a. Maintain and repair local streets
5b. Maintain rapid 911 emergency response times
5c. Maintain neighborhood police patrols
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
447 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Much More Likely 23.8% 103 54.2%
Somewhat More Likely 30.4% 132
No Effect 25.4% 110
Somewhat Less Likely 6.9% 30
Much Less Likely 9.7% 42
DK/NA 3.7% 16
Much More Likely 16.8% 73 46.6%
Somewhat More Likely 29.9% 130
No Effect 34.2% 148
Somewhat Less Likely 8.9% 39
Much Less Likely 8.5% 37
DK/NA 1.8% 8
Much More Likely 33.0% 143 64.7%
Somewhat More Likely 31.7% 138
No Effect 21.2% 92
Somewhat Less Likely 5.2% 23
Much Less Likely 8.9% 39
DK/NA 0.0% 0
Much More Likely 29.5% 128 54.5%
Somewhat More Likely 25.0% 108
No Effect 26.8% 116
Somewhat Less Likely 6.2% 27
Much Less Likely 11.1% 48
DK/NA 1.5% 7
Much More Likely 20.3% 88 56.8%
Somewhat More Likely 36.5% 158
No Effect 27.3% 118
Somewhat Less Likely 7.2% 31
Much Less Likely 8.5% 37
DK/NA 0.2% 1
Much More Likely 20.6% 90 46.3%
Somewhat More Likely 25.7% 111
No Effect 29.7% 129
Somewhat Less Likely 9.0% 39
Much Less Likely 11.4% 49
DK/NA 3.7% 16
Much More Likely 35.2% 153 64.9%
Somewhat More Likely 29.7% 129
No Effect 21.7% 94
Somewhat Less Likely 4.6% 20
Much Less Likely 8.0% 35
DK/NA 0.8% 3
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
5n. Maintain trees and landscaping along city streets
5o. Maintain facilities and grounds at Blackberry Farm
5p. Reduce wildfire risk by controlling flammable brush and maintaining safe evacuation routes
5j. Reduce traffic on City streets
5k. Maintain City facilities
5l. Maintain safe bike paths and safe routes to schools for children
5m. Protect air quality
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
448 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
FEATURES OF THE THE MEASURE -- RANKED BY INTENSITY
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
5b. Maintain rapid 911 emergency response times 0.93
5h. Maintain parks and open space 0.92
5a. Maintain and repair local streets 0.85
5f. Reduce property crime 0.83
5p. Reduce wildfire risk by controlling flammable brush and maintaining safe evacuation routes 0.80
5l. Maintain safe bike paths and safe routes to schools for children 0.75
5i. Maintain safe pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks 0.74 5d. Maintain emergency and disaster preparedness programs 0.72 5g. Maintain senior and youth programs 0.70
5c. Maintain neighborhood police patrols 0.63
5m. Protect air quality 0.57
5j. Reduce traffic on City streets 0.54
5n. Maintain trees and landscaping along city streets 0.53 5e. Protect community-based policing 0.51
5k. Maintain City facilities 0.38
5o. Maintain facilities and grounds at Blackberry Farm 0.37 Likely Nov 2026 Voter
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
449 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
INFORMATIONAL STATEMENTS
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Much more likely to vote yes 31.3% 136 62.5%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 31.2% 135
No effect 36.0% 156
DK/NA 1.5% 6
Much more likely to vote yes 32.4% 141 58.3%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 26.0% 113
No effect 37.8% 164
DK/NA 3.9% 17
Much more likely to vote yes 40.7% 176 72.5%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 31.8% 138
No effect 25.3% 110
DK/NA 2.2% 10
Much more likely to vote yes 40.2% 174 70.1%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 29.9% 130
No effect 26.8% 117
DK/NA 3.1% 13
Much more likely to vote yes 25.7% 111 56.7%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 31.1% 135
No effect 37.5% 163
DK/NA 5.8% 25
Much more likely to vote yes 50.2% 218 70.7%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 20.5% 89
No effect 27.2% 118
DK/NA 2.2% 9
Much more likely to vote yes 29.4% 127 68.0%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 38.7% 168
No effect 30.9% 134
DK/NA 1.1% 5
Much more likely to vote yes 40.4% 175 66.9%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 26.5% 115
No effect 29.2% 127
DK/NA 3.9% 17
Much more likely to vote yes 32.6% 141 65.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 33.2% 144
No effect 32.7% 142
DK/NA 1.5% 6
Much more likely to vote yes 25.4% 110 60.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 35.4% 154
No effect 33.8% 147
DK/NA 5.4% 23
Much more likely to vote yes 25.2% 109 61.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 36.6% 159
No effect 34.8% 151
DK/NA 3.4% 15
Much more likely to vote yes 18.8% 81 41.4%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 22.6% 98
No effect 47.7% 207
DK/NA 10.9% 47
Much more likely to vote yes 29.7% 129 56.2%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 26.5% 115
No effect 41.9% 182
DK/NA 1.9% 8
Much more likely to vote yes 40.2% 174 70.3%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 30.1% 131
No effect 29.0% 126
DK/NA 0.7% 3
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
6l. The measure is a fair treatment of taxpayers regardless of which telecommunications technologies they use
6m. The measure maintains the current senior citizen
exemption
6n. In the event of a heart attack, stroke, medical emergency or accident, seconds can be the difference between life and death. This measure will help ensure a first responder is able to respond quickly to 9-1-1 emergencies
6g. The measure will ensure funding to maintain local parks and open space
6h. The measure will continue to give Cupertino local control over local funds for local needs. No funds can be taken by the state or federal governments
6i. Without the measure Cupertino streets will begin to deteriorate creating potholes, causing damage to vehicles and reconstructing deteriorating streets will become more
expensive
6j. Cupertino has made the tough choices needed to tighten their belt and balance the budget, including cutting
administration and reducing the number of employees.
6k. Funding from this measure will help Cupertino keep up with the cost of contracting with the Sheriff's Office for local police services
6b. This measure will help ensure the Sheriff can investigate and prosecute violent and non-violent criminals
6c. This measure requires public disclosure of the spending of every penny from this measure
6d. The measure requires independent financial audits, and yearly reports to the community to ensure that all funds are spent as promised
6e. If this measure fails, there will be cuts to city services 6f. Large businesses will pay their fair share, so homeowners don't shoulder the entire cost of maintaining Cupertino city services
6a. This measure will maintain traffic enforcement to keep drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and children traveling to school safe
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
450 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Much more likely to vote yes 28.4% 123 60.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 32.4% 141
No effect 36.3% 158
DK/NA 2.9% 12
Much more likely to vote yes 36.9% 160 68.3%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 31.4% 136
No effect 30.8% 134
DK/NA 0.8% 4
Much more likely to vote yes 30.8% 134 60.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 30.0% 130
No effect 36.9% 160
DK/NA 2.3% 10
Much more likely to vote yes 26.9% 117 61.8%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 34.9% 151
No effect 34.8% 151
DK/NA 3.4% 15
Much more likely to vote yes 29.9% 130 64.2%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 34.3% 149
No effect 32.5% 141
DK/NA 3.3% 14
Much more likely to vote yes 32.2% 140 59.4%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 27.2% 118
No effect 37.3% 162
DK/NA 3.3% 14
Much more likely to vote yes 29.4% 128 63.3%
Somewhat more likely to vote yes 33.9% 147
No effect 34.2% 148
DK/NA 2.5% 11
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
6q. This measure will maintain police patrols and keep our neighborhoods safe
6r. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office is increasing the cost of police services in Cupertino by 33 percent for a total of $25.5 million dollars and this measure is critical to continue police services at the level Cupertino residents expect 6s. If the measure fails, the cost of maintaining police services through the Sheriff's Office will put other vital city services such as street maintenance, park and recreation services or youth and senior programs at risk
6t. The County has dramatically increased the price of police services in Cupertino. Without this measure, Cupertino will not be able to maintain the current level of neighborhood police patrols
6u. Without the measure the existing tax will expire and the City will be forced to make cuts to critical city services 6o. The cost of providing quality public safety services in the Bay Area is increasing and this measure will maintain local funding for public safety services to keep Cupertino safe 6p. You never know when an accident, disaster or medical emergency will occur. This measure will ensure rapid 9-1-1 emergency services are ready when you need them the most _____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
451 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
INFORMATIONAL STATEMENTS -- RANKED BY INTENSITY
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
6f. Large businesses will pay their fair share, so homeowners don't shoulder the entire cost of maintaining Cupertino city services
1.24 6c. This measure requires public disclosure of the spending of every penny from this measure 1.16
6d. The measure requires independent financial audits, and yearly reports to the community to ensure that all funds are spent as promised
1.14 6h. The measure will continue to give Cupertino local control over local funds for local needs. No funds can be taken by the state or federal governments
1.12 6n. In the event of a heart attack, stroke, medical emergency or accident, seconds can be the difference between life and death. This measure will help ensure a first responder is able to respond quickly to 9-1-1 emergencies
1.11 6p. You never know when an accident, disaster or medical emergency will occur. This measure will ensure rapid 9-1-1 emergency services are ready when you need them the most
1.06 6i. Without the measure Cupertino streets will begin to deteriorate creating potholes, causing damage to vehicles and reconstructing deteriorating streets will become more
expensive
1.00 6g. The measure will ensure funding to maintain local parks and open space 0.98
6s. If the measure fails, the cost of maintaining police services through the Sheriff's Office will put other vital city services such as street maintenance, park and recreation services or youth and senior programs at risk
0.97 6a. This measure will maintain traffic enforcement to keep drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and children traveling to school safe
0.95 6u. Without the measure the existing tax will expire and the City will be forced to make cuts to critical city services 0.95 6t. The County has dramatically increased the price of police services in Cupertino. Without this measure, Cupertino will not be able to maintain the current level of neighborhood police patrols
0.95 6b. This measure will help ensure the Sheriff can investigate and prosecute violent and non-violent criminals 0.94
6q. This measure will maintain police patrols and keep our neighborhoods safe 0.94
6r. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office is increasing the cost of police services in Cupertino by 33 percent for a total of $25.5 million dollars and this measure is critical to continue police services at the level Cupertino residents expect
0.92 6o. The cost of providing quality public safety services in the Bay Area is increasing and this measure will maintain local funding for public safety services to keep Cupertino safe
0.92 Likely Nov 2026 Voter
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
452 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
6j. Cupertino has made the tough choices needed to tighten their belt and balance the budget, including cutting
administration and reducing the number of employees.
0.91 6k. Funding from this measure will help Cupertino keep up with the cost of contracting with the Sheriff's Office for local police services
0.90 6m. The measure maintains the current senior citizen exemption 0.88
6e. If this measure fails, there will be cuts to city services 0.87 6l. The measure is a fair treatment of taxpayers regardless of which telecommunications technologies they use 0.68
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
453 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
INTERIM BALLOT TEST
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Definitely Yes 21.0% 91
Probably Yes 36.4% 158
Probably No 18.2% 79
Definitely No 19.9% 86
DK/NA 4.5% 20
Total Yes 57.4%
Total No 38.1%
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
7. Shall the measure to maintain essential city services such as:
• public safety,
• streets,
• parks and open spaces,
• community programs, and
• other general city services,
by replacing Cupertino’s expiring 2.4% tax with a 3.4% tax on electricity, gas, and telecommunications, and adding video services, until ended by voters, providing $6,900,000 annually, maintaining senior citizens' exemptions, requiring annual audits and public spending disclosure, be adopted?
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
454 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
CRITICAL STATEMENTS
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Much more likely to vote no 34.9% 151 61.5%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 26.6% 116
No effect 35.6% 155
DK/NA 2.9% 12
Much more likely to vote no 35.4% 153 57.9%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 22.6% 98
No effect 35.8% 155
DK/NA 6.3% 27
Much more likely to vote no 37.5% 163 58.4%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 20.9% 91
No effect 37.4% 162
DK/NA 4.2% 18
Much more likely to vote no 24.9% 108 49.6%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 24.7% 107
No effect 42.1% 183
DK/NA 8.2% 36
Much more likely to vote no 35.5% 154 60.4%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 24.8% 108
No effect 36.4% 158
DK/NA 3.2% 14
Much more likely to vote no 35.4% 75 63.5%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 28.1% 59
No effect 32.9% 69
DK/NA 3.7% 8
Much more likely to vote no 36.8% 78 59.9%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 23.0% 49
No effect 35.3% 74
DK/NA 4.8% 10
Much more likely to vote no 30.2% 67 55.1%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 25.0% 56
No effect 41.3% 92
DK/NA 3.6% 8
Much more likely to vote no 29.3% 65 58.9%
Somewhat more likely to vote no 29.7% 66
No effect 35.9% 80
DK/NA 5.2% 12
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
8i. The measure increases taxes by 1.0 percent and will continue to increase as utility costs spiral upward
8d. If our tax dollars weren't going to high salaries, benefits and pensions for public employees, we would not need the measure
8e. People in Cupertino are paying higher county sales taxes, and paying for community college, high school and elementary school bond measures and parcel taxes. We can't afford
another tax
8f. The City imposed a utility tax in 2009 and we were promised it would sunset. This year there will be a regional
transportation tax proposal on the ballot. Now Cupertino wants another tax on top of that.
8g. The measure could increase the average homeowner's
utility bills
8h. The City has passed taxes, but they have not fixed the streets, sidewalks, and parks. We can't trust them to spend this money any better than what they already take
8a. With residents and businesses struggling with the high gas prices, increasing cost of living, inflation, tariffs, increasing grocery prices, and high mortgages, now is not the time for another tax increase
8b. The measure was passed to fund Blackberry Farm, but it has been paid for. Why are they still continuing this tax? 8c. The measure is a forever tax that will never end
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
455 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
CRITICAL STATEMENTS -- RANKED BY INTENSITY
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
8f. The City imposed a utility tax in 2009 and we were promised it would sunset. This year there will be a regional
transportation tax proposal on the ballot. Now Cupertino wants another tax on top of that.
1.03 8g. The measure could increase the average homeowner's utility bills 1.02
8c. The measure is a forever tax that will never end 1.00 8b. The measure was passed to fund Blackberry Farm, but it has been paid for. Why are they still continuing this tax? 1.00 8a. With residents and businesses struggling with the high gas prices, increasing cost of living, inflation, tariffs, increasing grocery prices, and high mortgages, now is not the time for another tax increase
0.99 8e. People in Cupertino are paying higher county sales taxes, and paying for community college, high school and elementary school bond measures and parcel taxes. We can't afford
another tax
0.99 8i. The measure increases taxes by 1.0 percent and will continue to increase as utility costs spiral upward 0.93 8h. The City has passed taxes, but they have not fixed the streets, sidewalks, and parks. We can't trust them to spend this money any better than what they already take
0.89 8d. If our tax dollars weren't going to high salaries, benefits and pensions for public employees, we would not need the measure
0.81 Likely Nov 2026 Voter
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
456 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
FINAL BALLOT TEST & THRESHOLDS
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Definitely Yes 16.4% 71
Probably Yes 30.3% 131
Probably No 22.4% 97
Definitely No 21.6% 94
DK/NA 9.4% 41
Total Yes 46.6%
Total No 44.0%
Average 2nd + 3rd Tests 52.0%
No more taxes / Higher taxes 40.9% 78
Cost of living 16.1% 31
Trusting City Administration 15.6% 30
Budget 14.8% 28
Business / Wealth tax 5.1% 10
Vanity projects 5.1% 10
Transparency 4.1% 8
Extend the current tax 2.5% 5
Funding the sheriff 2.4% 5
Forever tax 2.3% 4
Streets not repaired 2.2% 4
Can do better - general 1.4% 3
Crime 1.1% 2
Need transportation 0.9% 2
Residents first 0.8% 2
Adopt AI technology 0.7% 1
Senior citizen exemption 0.6% 1
Not enough public safety 0.4% 1
Poor design 0.3% 0
Not installed correctly 0.3% 0
Tree trimming 0.1% 0
Eliminate tax avoidance 0.0% 0
Other Mention 0.0% 0
None/Nothing 0.0% 0
DK/NA/Unsure 21.1% 40
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
10. Why is that? [IF Q9 = 3 OR 4, ASK;]
9. Shall the measure to maintain essential city services such as:
• public safety,
• streets,
• parks and open spaces,
• community programs, and
• other general city services,
by replacing Cupertino’s expiring 2.4% tax with a 3.4% tax on electricity, gas, and telecommunications, and adding video services, until ended by voters, providing $6,900,000 annually, maintaining senior citizens' exemptions, requiring annual audits and public spending disclosure, be adopted?
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
457 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Definitely Yes 22.4% 97
Probably Yes 33.7% 146
Probably No 18.7% 81
Definitely No 20.0% 87
DK/NA 5.2% 23
Total Yes 56.1%
Total No 38.7%
Definitely Yes 33.8% 147
Probably Yes 32.6% 142
Probably No 15.3% 66
Definitely No 15.4% 67
DK/NA 2.9% 13
Total Yes 66.4%
Total No 30.7%
Definitely Yes 37.1% 161
Probably Yes 24.8% 108
Probably No 16.8% 73
Definitely No 16.5% 72
DK/NA 4.7% 20
Total Yes 61.9%
Total No 33.4%
ECONOMIC FORECAST
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Better 12.8% 55
About the same 30.0% 130
Worse 48.6% 211
DK/NA 8.6% 37
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
14. Looking ahead to late next year, do you think the economy will be better than today, be about the same as today, or will it be worse than today?
11. Instead of increasing the Cupertino utility tax by one percent, to maintain essential city services such as: public safety, streets, parks and open spaces, community programs, and other general city services, another alternative would be to increase the rate by 0.6 percent until ended by voters.
12. Another alternative would be to renew the tax at the current rate without any tax increase until ended by voters in order to maintain essential city services such as: public safety, streets, parks and open spaces, community programs, and other
general city services.
13. Another alternative would be to renew the tax at the current rate without any tax increase for 16 years in order to maintain essential city services such as: public safety, streets, parks and open spaces, community programs, and other general city services.
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
458 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
DEMOGRAPHICS
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
Male 49.0% 213
Female 51.0% 221
Unknown 0.0% 0
18-29 11.6% 50
30-39 10.3% 45
40-49 12.3% 54
50-64 32.8% 142
65+ 32.9% 143
Not coded 0.1% 0
East and South Asian 56.4% 245
European 24.8% 108
Hispanic and Portuguese 3.6% 16
Likely African-American 0.0% 0
Other 5.3% 23
Unknown 9.9% 43
Inferred Married 18.1% 78
Inferred Single 1.2% 5
Married 37.4% 162
Single 16.2% 70
Unknown 27.2% 118
Yes 36.2% 157
No 52.1% 226
Unknown 11.7% 51
Did not complete high school likely 0.0% 0
Completed high school likely 4.5% 20
Attended but did not complete college
likely 0.4% 2
Completed college likely 36.2% 157
Attended vocationa/technical school
likely 0.0% 0
Completed graduate school likely 28.7% 125
Unknown 30.2% 131
Yes 1.7% 7
No 98.3% 427
Homeowner 65.2% 283
Probable Home Owner 0.0% 0
Renter 20.8% 90
Unknown 14.0% 61
$1,000-$14,999 0.5% 2
$15,000-$24,999 0.2% 1
$25,000-$34,999 0.0% 0
$35,000-$49,999 0.5% 2
$50,000-$74,999 0.8% 3
$75,000-$99,999 2.4% 10
$100,000-$124,999 0.5% 2
$125,000-$149,999 13.0% 56
$150,000-$174,999 6.5% 28
$175,000-$199,999 14.0% 61
$200,000-$249,999 25.5% 111
$250,000 and up 35.5% 154
Unknown 0.6% 2
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
E. Presence of Children
F. Education
G. Veteran
H. Homeownership Status
I. Estimated Income Range
A. Gender
B. Age
C. Broad Ethnic Groupings
D. Marital Status
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
459 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
$1000 - $24999 0.0% 0
$25000 -$49999 0.0% 0
$50000 - $74999 0.0% 0
$75000 - $99999 0.0% 0
$100000 - $124999 0.0% 0
$125000 - $149999 0.0% 0
$150000 - $174999 0.0% 0
$175000 - $199999 0.0% 0
$200000 - $224999 0.0% 0
$225000 - $249999 0.0% 0
$250000 - $274999 0.0% 0
$275000 - $299999 0.0% 0
$300000 - $349999 0.0% 0
$350000 - $399999 0.0% 0
$400000 - $449999 0.0% 0
$450000 - $499999 0.0% 0
$500000 - $749999 0.0% 0
$750000 - $999999 1.5% 6
$1000000 Plus 97.2% 422
Unknown 1.4% 6
American Independent 1.3% 6
Democratic 47.3% 205
Green 0.4% 2
Libertarian 0.4% 2
Natural Law 0.0% 0
Non-Partisan 34.9% 152
Other 0.0% 0
Peace and Freedom 0.6% 2
Reform 0.0% 0
Republican 15.0% 65
Unknown 0.0% 0
No data 0.1% 0
Dem 29.9% 130
Dem&Ind 26.5% 115
Dem&Rep 5.5% 24
Dem&Rep&Ind 4.0% 17
Ind 20.4% 89
Rep 7.5% 33
Rep&Ind 6.1% 27
No data 0.0% 0
Mixed Gender Household 71.5% 310
Female Only Household 12.8% 56
Male Only Household 9.3% 40
Cannot Determine 6.4% 28
No data 0.0% 0
2025 to present 26.7% 116
2021-2024 44.1% 191
2017-2020 14.5% 63
2013-2016 2.4% 10
2009-2012 1.9% 8
2005-2008 2.1% 9
2001-2004 2.4% 10
1997-2000 2.0% 8
1993-1996 1.2% 5
1981-1992 1.8% 8
1980 or before 1.1% 5
Not coded 0.0% 0
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
J. Home Estimated Current Value Range
K Individual Party
L. Household Party Type
M. Household Gender Composition
N. Registration Date
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
460 of 511
Godbe Research
City of Cupertino – 2026 UUT Measure Renewal Survey
Column
N % Count ∑ or Mean
0 7.4% 32
1 9.7% 42
2 10.2% 44
3 4.8% 21
4 11.8% 51
5 8.6% 37
6 9.1% 40
7 9.3% 40
8 29.1% 126
1 26.9% 117
2 33.6% 146
3 24.3% 106
4 13.6% 59
5 1.4% 6
No data 0.0% 0
District TA 1 40.5% 176
District TA 3 55.2% 240
District TA 5 3.9% 17
Unknown 0.4% 2
Yes 100.0% 434
No 0.0% 0
English 96.8% 420
Chinese 3.2% 14
Hindi 0.0% 0
see detailed crosstabs
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
O. Voting Frequency
Q. Household Voter Count
R. Fremont Union High School District
S. Likely November 2026 Voter
Language
P. Voting History
_____________________________________________
Godbe Research
_____________________________________________
6/21/2026
_____________________________________________
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
461 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15138 Agenda Date: 7/7/2026
Agenda #: 13.
Subject: Consider approval of response to the 2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled “Convenience vs. Compliance: Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s meeting practices” Approve the response to the 2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County entitled “Convenience vs.
Compliance: Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s meeting practices” CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2/2026
powered by Legistar™458
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
462 of 511
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3403
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: July 7, 2026
Subject
Consider approval of response to the 2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled “Convenience vs. Compliance: Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s meeting practices” Recommended Action
Approve the response to the 2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County entitled “Convenience vs. Compliance: Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s meeting practices” Background
On May 4, 2026, the 2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report on various aspects of the use of remote meeting participation in the City of Cupertino (Attachment A).
The topics discussed in the May 4, 2026 Grand Jury Report includes the following findings and recommendations:
Finding 1
Cupertino’s practice of ending a meeting if a teleconference participant disconnects disrupts meetings, creates needless delays, and prioritizes the convenience of council members over the public’s right to access.
Recommendation 1a
Cupertino should continue its meetings when a teleconferencing member leaves the meeting, and a quorum remains in its jurisdiction. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 1b
Because teleconferencing is optional and Cupertino interprets the requirements in a manner that promotes council members’ self-interest, Cupertino should determine whether the optional use of teleconferencing under these circumstances is consistent with its responsibilities to its constituents. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
459
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
463 of 511
Recommendation 1c
Whenever teleconferencing is utilized, Cupertino should ensure that access at the teleconference location is maintained for the duration of the meeting, regardless of the council members’ attendance. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 2
Cupertino’s process for ensuring that all policies, staff, and council members comply with the requirements for teleconferencing does not promote accountability with the Brown Act.
Recommendation 2
Cupertino should adopt formal, written teleconferencing procedures and verification processes to ensure compliance with all Brown Act requirements, including:
• Standard agenda language identifying precise teleconference location and its accessibility to the public;
• On-the-record confirmation of compliance at the start of all meetings subject to the Brown Act;
• Documented verification confirming that teleconference locations meet public access and that the agenda was posted in a timely and appropriate manner.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 3
Cupertino’s practice of permitting teleconferencing from locations that are not meaningfully accessible to the public, including private or restricted spaces, is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Brown Act.
Recommendation 3
Cupertino should provide written guidance to council members and any relevant staff about appropriate teleconferencing locations that are genuinely and meaningfully accessible to the public for the duration of the meeting. The guidance should also list prohibited locations such as private or restricted spaces, including private hotel rooms, airport lounges beyond security checkpoints, vehicles, or other locations requiring special access. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 4
Cupertino’s practice of automatically terminating city council meetings when a teleconferencing council member disconnects fundamentally prioritizes the convenience of the councilmember above the public and a mechanism to weaponize the practice for strategic gain, as was the case on December 2, 2025.
Recommendation 4
460
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
464 of 511
Cupertino should amend its City Council Procedures Manual to clarify that:
• Quorum requirements are governed by applicable law and are independent of teleconferencing participation;
• Teleconferencing is a discretionary accommodation subject to conditions that protect public rights.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(c), the City must respond to the Grand Jury Report’s findings and recommendations by December 15, 2026. A draft response for the City Council’s consideration is included as Attachment B. The proposed responses focus on the findings and recommendations made by the Grand Jury and do not evaluate the accuracy of other factual conclusions in the Grand Jury Report. Staff seeks Council input on the draft response and to the implementation of the Grand Jury’s recommendations.
Once a response is approved by the City Council, the Interim City Attorney will forward the respond to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.
Council Goal:
Public Engagement and Transparency
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
B - Draft Response to Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County 461
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
465 of 511
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Convenience vs. Compliance:
Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s
meeting practices
May 4, 2026
462
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
466 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 The Brown Act: Conducting The Public’s Business in Public.............................................. 3 Required Training and Remedies ........................................................................................... 3 Brown Act in a Digital Era....................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 4 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 5 How This Investigation Started............................................................................................... 5 Teleconferencing Rules............................................................................................................. 5 Cupertino: Frequency and Process......................................................................................... 5 What Other Governmental Entities Do.................................................................................. 7 When a Council Member Participating via Teleconferencing Leaves a Meeting............... 8 Concerns with Cupertino’s Approach .................................................................................... 9 Quorum and the Brown Act .................................................................................................... 9 Teleconferencing and the “Quorum Within the Jurisdiction” Requirement ..................... 9 How Cupertino Attempts to Solve the Problem but Creates a New One .......................... 10 Prioritizing the Public - What Cupertino Should Do .......................................................... 11 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: California Government Code Section 54953 ................................................. 17 APPENDIX B: 2025 Cupertino City Council Meetings Using Teleconferencing................. 20 APPENDIX C: New Teleconferencing Rules for 2026 in Cupertino ..................................... 21 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 22 463
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
467 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
SUMMARY
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) is California’s cornerstone open-meeting law, designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation in local government decision-making. While the Brown Act permits the use of teleconferencing by city council members, participation is subject to specific statutory safeguards intended to preserve the public’s right to observe and participate in meetings of elected officials.
During the 2025 calendar year, the City of Cupertino (Cupertino) made frequent use of teleconferencing for city council meetings. This practice, driven in part by regular travel by one council member, raised concerns about Cupertino’s use of the Brown Act’s teleconferencing requirements and its interpretation of what occurs when a council member participating via teleconferencing disconnects from a meeting.
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated Cupertino’s teleconferencing practices and assessed the practical consequences of Cupertino’s policy of terminating meetings when a teleconferencing council member leaves, even when a lawful quorum remains present within the city’s jurisdiction.
Cupertino’s current approach undermines public access, is inconsistent with the statutory framework of the Brown Act, and places the convenience of the teleconferencing council member above the rights of the public. The report concludes that Cupertino has viable alternatives available that would preserve transparency, protect public participation, and prevent the disruption or weaponization of council meetings.
464
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
468 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
BACKGROUND
The Brown Act: Conducting The Public’s Business in Public The Ralph M. Brown Act, enacted in 1953, is California’s open-meeting law for local government bodies. It requires that legislative bodies such as city councils, county boards, commissions, and committees conduct their meetings openly and transparently so the public can remain informed and participate in government decision-making. The Brown Act is codified by California Government Code sections 54950–54963.
In the early 1950s, there were growing concerns that some local officials were making decisions in secret. Assembly Member Ralph M. Brown wrote the Brown Act in response to newspaper investigationsrevealing that “backroom deals” and informal gatherings were shaping policy before public meetings occurred. The legislation established the public’s “right to know” as a cornerstone of California’s democratic governance. Government Code section 54950, in part, states:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
The Brown Act continues to promote transparency and accountability in local government, strengthen public trust, and empower residents. In an era of digital meetings and social media, its principles remain vital—balancing efficient government operations with the public’s fundamental right to observe and participate in decision-making.
Required Training and Remedies
California law requires that members of local legislative bodies receive at least two hours of ethics training, including training on the Brown Act, every two years. (AB 1234, Stats. 2005, ch. 700).
Training must be completed within one year of taking office and refreshed every two years thereafter. According to Cupertino records and as of the time of this report, Cupertino conducted the required council training for members in December 2025.
California law also lays out both civil and criminal remedies for violations of the Brown Act at Government Code sections 54959, 54960(a), 54960.1, and 54960.2. For instance, the district attorney or any interested person may seek injunctive or declaratory relief (civil), or a court order compelling compliance to stop or prevent violations of the Brown Act. Individual members of a 465
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
469 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
legislative body who intentionally deprive the public of information can be subject to misdemeanor criminal charges.
Brown Act in a Digital Era
During the COVID-19 shutdown, many local government meetings became virtual, and the State of California created emergency guidelines to enable public participation. Since then, many cities, including Cupertino, have continued to provide online links to city council meetings that the public can access, giving members of the public the ability to participate virtually. Cupertino provides several such options. In addition, Cupertino council members who are not able to be at City Hall for a scheduled meeting can participate and vote virtually using teleconferencing under the Brown Act.
Revisions to the Brown Act, which took effect in 2026, did not change teleconferencing requirements as described in this report.
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury conducted a comprehensive investigation into Cupertino’s interpretation and application of provisions of the Brown Act regarding teleconferencing by council members. The investigation included research and review of relevant provisions of the Brown Act and Government Code. Additionally, the investigation included interviews with Cupertino council members, past and present city officials; a review of all Cupertino council meeting agendas in 2025; a review of numerous emails, city and council policies, city council meetings, training materials, practices employed by other public entities in Santa Clara County; and additional documents supporting the findings and recommendations in this report.
The investigation focused on 1) Cupertino’s compliance with the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act when council members participate by teleconference, and 2) challenges created by Cupertino’s interpretation of what happens when a council member participating via teleconferencing leaves the meeting.
466
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
470 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
INVESTIGATION
How This Investigation Started
The Civil Grand Jury received complaints about a council member who traveled frequently and used teleconferencing to attend council meetings. Also, complaints were received about an alleged deliberate disruption to a city council meeting by the same member. In addition, a resident unrelated to the complaints addressed the city council at its June 3, 2025, meeting, alleging violations of the Brown Act’s teleconferencing provisions.
Teleconferencing Rules
When teleconferencing is used by a council member, the Brown Act (Appendix A) sets specific conditions:
• Each teleconference location must be open to the public and equipped for participation in real time.
• Members of the public must be able to hear, see, and address the legislative body as if all members were physically present.
• Each teleconference location must be identified in the meeting notice and agenda. • Each teleconference location must be accessible to the public. • The meeting agenda must be posted at each teleconference location 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting or 24 hours in advance of a special meeting. • All votes must be taken by roll call.
• At least a quorum of the legislative body must participate from locations within its jurisdiction.
• The teleconferenced meeting shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the body.
These rules prevent attendance via teleconferencing from undermining transparency and ensure that technological convenience does not come at the expense of the public’s right to observe and participate equally.
Cupertino: Frequency and Process
Teleconferencing is used frequently in Cupertino. This is largely because one council member travels regularly for personal business.
467
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
471 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
During 2025, teleconferencing was used at 14 regular or special Cupertino City Council meetings.
This accounts for one-third of all city council meetings that year. In one case, two council members participated using teleconferencing during the same meeting from different teleconferencing locations.
When council members in Cupertino intend to teleconference for a scheduled public meeting, they first notify the City Clerk and provide the location and address where they plan to participate.
Before the meeting, the City Clerk sends an email to the council member stating that it is required that the teleconferencing location be listed on the meeting agenda, that the agenda be posted at the location where teleconferencing participation occurs, that the location be open to members of the public, and that all votes taken will be by roll call. The email sent from the clerk’s office also advises members who are participating from a hotel to provide the hotel front desk with an agenda, information about how to contact the teleconferencing participant, and the location where the meeting will be held.
In general, Cupertino relies on the teleconferencing council members to ensure that the location from which they are participating is publicly accessible and the agenda has been appropriately posted.
City council meeting agendas in 2025 routinely provided a teleconferencing location when a council member was teleconferencing. However, the information provided was not consistent.
On 10 occasions, the agenda provided only the name and address of a hotel without any details about the precise location of the meeting. This would require members of the public at the teleconferencing location to know that they are expected to go to the hotel front desk and ask for the council member. In only three cases did the agenda provide a more specific location, such as the lobby. And in two cases, the name of a facility was not included, only an address. (Appendix B).
It is clear from City records obtained by the Civil Grand Jury that meeting attendees were directed to ask the hotel staff for a specific guest room for at least one meeting where the agenda was posted in the hotel lobby. Requiring a member of the public to go to a council member’s private room is not in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act. Further, if the hotel requires its guests to use room keys to access the elevator, as many do, private rooms are not accessible to the public as required by the Brown Act.
In two cases, the location has been an airport, raising questions about whether the public could access a departures terminal without a ticket. Further, simply stating “Terminal 3” and 468
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
472 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
“departures” would require a member of the public to wander the area looking for the council member.
Cupertino has no formal, documented process to verify that Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing have been met. Nor does it provide written guidance to council members about appropriate locations for teleconferencing.
The absence of verification creates a risk that meetings involving teleconferencing do not comply with statutory requirements under the Brown Act.
What Other Governmental Entities Do
Other governmental entities within Santa Clara County have established methods to ensure compliance with the Brown Act’s teleconferencing rules. Further, several cities include information about teleconferencing rules in their city council procedures manuals or handbooks.
Cupertino’s City Council Procedures Manual as revised in March of 2025 makes no mention of the teleconferencing rules.
By contrast, for the County of Santa Clara, agendas for the Board of Supervisors include the specific publicly accessible location from which a member is teleconferencing. For example, the agenda from the August 26, 2025, meeting, on page four, indicates that one member of the Board of Supervisors is teleconferencing from “the lounge area located on the second floor of the Hilton Minneapolis, 1001 Marquette Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55403.” This supports the intent of the Brown Act requirement that members participate from publicly accessible locations. Simply providing the name and address of a hotel is insufficient.
For the City of Los Altos, section 11.13 of the City Council Norms and Procedures (adopted 1/28/2025) details the process for teleconferencing. When council members participate by teleconference, they are asked by the mayor or vice mayor to confirm that their location was properly noticed, that the location is publicly accessible, and whether anyone is present besides the member.
For the City of Palo Alto, section 2.3 of Part I of the City Council Procedures and Protocol Handbook also provides information about standard teleconferencing procedures for council members, including requirements about posting agendas at the location and ensuring accessibility, noting that private residences and hotel rooms must remain fully open and accessible throughout the meeting, without requiring identification or registration.
City of Palo Alto council members must provide notice to the City Clerk five days prior to publication of the agenda of their intent to participate via teleconference and the address of their 469
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
473 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
location. The council member must state at the beginning of the meeting that agenda posting requirements were met, that the location is publicly accessible, and must describe the location.
Under Palo Alto rules, teleconferencing attendance is permitted no more than five times a year for full council meetings.
The City of San José website includes a page about teleconferencing requirements for city commissioners and boards. It lists the applicable Brown Act rules, making it easy for members of the public to hold government accountable, and spells out the responsibilities of city commissioners, board members, and commission secretaries.
The City of San José webpage includes an “affidavit for agenda posting for board/commission meeting” to be signed by the teleconference participant under penalty of perjury (City of San José, n.d.). The participant’s declaration includes a section detailing where and when the agenda was posted 72 hours in advance, that the participant confirmed with facility staff that the location was accessible, and that the meeting will be open to the public and have technology allowing the public to participate. The affidavit is easily downloaded and could serve as a template for other jurisdictions to adopt as needed.
When a Council Member Participating via Teleconferencing Leaves a Meeting
Cupertino has employed an interpretation of what should happen if a council member participating via teleconferencing must leave due to a scheduling conflict or technical issues, or decides to terminate their connection for any other reason. In Cupertino’s view, when this happens, the city council meeting must end.
This occurred at least three times in 2025. In two instances, the council member had to catch a plane. The third instance occurred on December 2, 2025, after the council member objected to appointing negotiators during a study session on a housing project and said the issue was not properly noticed under the Brown Act. The interim City Attorney advised that the public had been given appropriate notice and the meeting could proceed.
The council member then stated at that point, he would have to leave the meeting and the meeting would conclude. It was clear the council member understood that if he left, the council could not proceed, given Cupertino’s interpretation of the Brown Act teleconferencing rules. His decision to end his connection created controversy in the community and on the council. The council member subsequently issued an apology for leaving the meeting in protest (Melecio-Zambrano, 2025). 470
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
474 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
Concerns with Cupertino’s Approach
Cupertino’s current approach to teleconferencing participation prioritizes convenience for the teleconferencing participant over the public’s statutory rights. The meeting ends when the teleconferencing participant leaves.
As implemented, these practices fail to ensure the access, transparency, and continuity required by the Brown Act and create a structural vulnerability in the meeting process. Specifically, as demonstrated on December 2, 2025, Cupertino allows a teleconferencing member to effectively end a public meeting simply by disconnecting, thereby enabling Cupertino’s interpretation of the Brown Act to be weaponized—intentionally or not.
Quorum and the Brown Act
To understand why Cupertino’s interpretation of teleconferencing rules is flawed, it is important to first understand the notion of a required quorum.
Cupertino is a general law city governed by a five-member city council. Under California Government Code section 36810, “[a] majority of the council constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.” For a five-member council, a quorum is three members.
This quorum requirement determines whether the city council may lawfully conduct city business and is independent of whether one or more members participate via teleconferencing.
The Brown Act does not independently define quorum; instead, it relies on a definition of quorum from other applicable laws. It defines a “meeting” as “any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business” (Cal. Gov. Code §54952.2(a)).
Accordingly, for Brown Act purposes, in Cupertino, three council members meeting within the jurisdiction of Cupertino constitute a meeting.
Teleconferencing and the “Quorum Within the Jurisdiction” Requirement The Brown Act requires that all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency be open and public (Cal. Gov. Code §54953). A quorum of the legislative body is required for the transaction of business by a legislative body. The Brown Act incorporates the concept that a quorum must be present for a legislative body to take official action (Cal. Gov. Code §54952). Under the Brown Act’s teleconferencing framework, California Government Code section 54953(b)(3) requires:
“During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall 471
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
475 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction …”
This provision requires that a quorum be physically present in the geographic boundaries over which the governing body has jurisdiction when teleconferencing is used. It does not require that all members, or any specific teleconferencing member, remain connected for the duration of the meeting. Under teleconferencing rules, a quorum is satisfied as long as a quorum remains participating from within the jurisdiction.
Under the Brown Act teleconference rules, the only constraint on the quorum requirement is that a quorum exists within the geographic boundaries of the jurisdiction. If that occurs, a quorum is maintained. If a quorum is maintained, the body can conduct business. The Civil Grand Jury reviewed all 14 instances in which a Cupertino council member participated via teleconferencing and during those meetings, a quorum remained in the jurisdiction. Despite the quorum, Cupertino terminated meetings at least three times when the teleconferencing council member disconnected from the meeting. Cupertino’s practice of terminating a meeting upon the disconnection of a teleconference participant elevates teleconferencing participation above the statutory quorum requirements established by Government Code sections 36810, 54952.2(a), and 54953(b)(3), effectively creating a non-statutory condition for the continuation of a meeting.
Further, terminating a meeting without necessity may unlawfully curtail public comment, interrupt deliberation on agendized items, force delays in city business, and undermine the transparency and openness required by the Brown Act.
Allowing a single teleconferencing council member to terminate a duly convened meeting, as occurred on December 2, 2025, simply by disconnecting, effectively weaponizes the Brown Act, granting one individual unilateral control over the continuation of public business despite the presence of a lawful quorum. This practice elevates the convenience of the teleconferencing member over the public’s right to transparency and participation. It also creates a mechanism by which a member can intentionally halt discussion, block votes, or disrupt the public’s business.
Nothing in the statute requires the automatic termination of a public meeting when a teleconferencing participant voluntarily leaves the meeting.
How Cupertino Attempts to Solve the Problem but Creates a New One Putting teleconferencing aside for the moment, Cupertino provides several ways for residents to participate in its council meetings. Residents can attend in person or online via Zoom, tune in to Comcast channel 26 or AT&T channel 99, or watch a live stream on either Cupertino’s website or its YouTube channel. To speak at a council meeting, residents participating in person can submit a speaker’s card. Those attending remotely can call a specific telephone number, enter the webinar 472
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
476 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
number and follow a process to speak, or raise their hand on Zoom. No advance notice to the city is required to attend or speak at council meetings via these methods.
In fact, Cupertino’s agenda language does not require a speaker to provide advance notice to speak.
The agenda states, “Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards is voluntary, it is helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called on.” (Appendix C).
In January, in reaction to the termination of the December 2, 2025, meeting, Cupertino adjusted its council agenda language to add a new section about accessing meetings from a teleconference location. Speakers are now “required to notify the City Clerk via email … prior to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from the teleconferencing location to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment.” (Appendix C).
This new requirement is inconsistent with the practices for attending and speaking at council meetings in Cupertino.
The agenda goes on to state that if the teleconferencing device at the location malfunctions, impeding access to the meeting, the speaker can participate via other options outlined in the agenda. However, this solution creates new problems. If the teleconferencing location is not in the United States, suggesting that a member of the public log on to a livestream, register for Zoom, or call in by telephone presents other problems. It may require an international calling plan, for example, or involve paying for Wi-Fi access.
The new approach does not provide the same ease of access that members of the public experience when attending within the jurisdiction of Cupertino. In fact, it creates a two-tiered system that is not in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act, i.e., anyone who wants to speak from a teleconferencing location must provide at least five hours’ advance notice, while those who wish to speak at a city council meeting in Cupertino can simply show up. (Appendix C).
Prioritizing the Public - What Cupertino Should Do
The Brown Act does not state that teleconferencing is required when a council member is unable to attend due to personal business. Government Code section 54953(b)(1) provides that a legislative body “may use teleconferencing” in connection with a meeting. Cupertino could choose not to allow teleconferencing to accommodate council members’ personal travel.
If Cupertino is concerned that members of the public attending from a teleconferencing location may be disadvantaged if a council meeting continues after the departure of the teleconferencing council member, that concern can be addressed without terminating the meeting. 473
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
477 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
The issue could be resolved by requiring that any approved teleconferencing location remain publicly accessible and functional for the duration of the meeting, regardless of whether the participating council member is present.
Teleconferencing participation should be permitted only from locations that are genuinely accessible to the public. Public access to the meeting must not depend solely on the personal technology, equipment, or continued presence of the council member.
Accordingly, teleconferencing locations should be limited to bona fide public meeting spaces, such as hotel business centers or conference rooms, and should exclude private or restricted spaces where public access is limited, such as hotel rooms, airport lounges beyond security gates, and vehicles.
The approach that should not be available is to require that a council meeting end when the teleconferencing council member leaves.
Finally, Cupertino’s use of the teleconference exception is predominantly to accommodate a specific council member’s personal business travel. Unless teleconferencing participation is required by official city business, the cost of securing and maintaining a compliant public meeting location should be borne by the participating council member. 474
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
478 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
CONCLUSION
Cupertino’s interpretation and implementation of the Brown Act’s teleconferencing rules prioritize the convenience of the council member above the rights of the public. Cupertino relies on the teleconferencing participant to self-certify compliance with teleconferencing requirements.
Further, Cupertino provides inconsistent and sometimes vague agenda descriptions of the teleconference location. This approach diminishes and frustrates public access and permits participation from locations that are not easily accessible.
Most critically, Cupertino’s policy of ending meetings when a teleconferencing participant disconnects grants that individual disproportionate control over the continuation of public business, even when a lawful quorum remains present within Cupertino. This approach reverses the Brown Act’s intent, placing a council member’s schedule, technology, or convenience over the rights of the public.
475
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
479 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
Cupertino’s practice of ending a meeting if a teleconference participant disconnects disrupts meetings, creates needless delays, and prioritizes the convenience of council members over the public’s right to access.
Recommendation 1a
Cupertino should continue its meetings when a teleconferencing member leaves the meeting, and a quorum remains in its jurisdiction. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 1b
Because teleconferencing is optional and Cupertino interprets the requirements in a manner that promotes council members’ self-interest, Cupertino should determine whether the optional use of teleconferencing under these circumstances is consistent with its responsibilities to its constituents.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 1c
Whenever teleconferencing is utilized, Cupertino should ensure that access at the teleconference location is maintained for the duration of the meeting, regardless of the council members’ attendance. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 2
Cupertino’s process for ensuring that all policies, staff, and council members comply with the requirements for teleconferencing does not promote accountability with the Brown Act.
Recommendation 2
Cupertino should adopt formal, written teleconferencing procedures and verification processes to ensure compliance with all Brown Act requirements, including:
• Standard agenda language identifying precise teleconference location and its accessibility to the public;
476
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
480 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
• On-the-record confirmation of compliance at the start of all meetings subject to the Brown Act;
• Documented verification confirming that teleconference locations meet public access and that the agenda was posted in a timely and appropriate manner.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 3
Cupertino’s practice of permitting teleconferencing from locations that are not meaningfully accessible to the public, including private or restricted spaces, is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Brown Act.
Recommendation 3
Cupertino should provide written guidance to council members and any relevant staff about appropriate teleconferencing locations that are genuinely and meaningfully accessible to the public for the duration of the meeting. The guidance should also list prohibited locations such as private or restricted spaces, including private hotel rooms, airport lounges beyond security checkpoints, vehicles, or other locations requiring special access.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Finding 4
Cupertino’s practice of automatically terminating city council meetings when a teleconferencing council member disconnects fundamentally prioritizes the convenience of the councilmember above the public and provides a mechanism to weaponize the practice for strategic gain, as was the case on December 2, 2025.
Recommendation 4
Cupertino should amend its City Council Procedures Manual to clarify that:
• Quorum requirements are governed by applicable law and are independent of teleconferencing participation;
• Teleconferencing is a discretionary accommodation subject to conditions that protect public rights.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026. 477
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
481 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
The City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3, 4 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3, 4
478
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
482 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
APPENDIX A: California Government Code Section 54953
54953.
(a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2) Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, the legislative body of a local agency shall comply with all of the following:
(A) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. (B) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.
(C) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(D) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. (3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as expressly provided in this chapter.
(4) The teleconferencing requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to remote participation described in subdivision (c).
(c)
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a member of a legislative body with a disability from participating in any meeting of the legislative body by remote participation as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to any applicable law. 479
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
483 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
(2) A member of a legislative body participating in a meeting by remote participation pursuant to this subdivision shall do both of the following:
(A) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology, except that any member with a disability, as defined in Section 12102 of Title 42 of the United States Code, may participate only through audio technology if a physical condition related to their disability results in a need to participate off camera. (B) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any of those individuals.
(3) Remote participation under this subdivision shall be treated as in-person attendance at the physical meeting location for all purposes, including any requirement that a quorum of the legislative body participate from any particular location. The provisions of subdivision (b) and Sections 54953.8 to 54953.8.7, inclusive, shall not apply to remote participation under this subdivision.
(d)
(1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. (2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. (3)
(A) Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of either of the following during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken:
(i) A local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1. (ii) A department head or other similar administrative officer of the local agency.
(B) This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(e) For purposes of this section, both of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Disability” means a physical disability or a mental disability as those terms are defined in Section 12926 and used in Section 12926.1, or a disability as defined in Section 12102 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(2)
(A) “Teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.
480
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
484 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), “teleconference” does not include one or more members watching or listening to a meeting via webcasting or any other similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively speak, discuss, or deliberate on matters.
(3) “Remote participation” means participation in a meeting by teleconference at a location other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 534, Sec. 2) by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 4. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.)
481
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
485 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
APPENDIX B: 2025 Cupertino City Council Meetings Using
Teleconferencing
City Council Meetings in 2025 During Which Teleconferencing Was Used This table includes all days when the Cupertino City Council held special or regular meetings.
Because a portion of untelevised closed meetings include public commentary, the table also includes days when both open and closed meetings were held. Links have been added to each date for easy reference to the Cupertino meeting website.
During the year, the city council held meetings on 42 days. Of those, 14 (or one-third of the total) had at least one council member attend by teleconferencing.
Day
Council
Member
Location as Listed on Agenda
2/3/25 Wang 200 Hi Cir N, Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657
2/12/25 Wang
Newark Airport, Terminal C, Departures, 3 Brewster Road, Newark Airport, NJ, 07114
2/19/25 Wang
Leela Gurgagon National Highway 8, Ambience Island, DLF Phase 3, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana 122002, India
5/6/25 Wang
Dubai Airport 7947+MP Dubai - United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures
5/15/25 Wang
Sheraton Stockholm, Tegelbacken 6, 101 23, 101 23 Stockholm, Sweden, Hotel Lobby
5/28/25 Wang
The Wynn Hotel, Tower Suites Lobby, 3131 Las Vegas Blvd S, Las Vegas, NV 8910
6/17/25 Wang Burlington Marriott Lobby, 1 Burlington Mall Rd, Burlington, MA 01803
6/17/25 Fruen Via Nemorense 15, 00199 Roma RM, Italy
7/15/25 Wang
JW Marriott Sahar, IA Project Road, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Andheri, Mumbai, India, 400099
10/7/25 Wang Courtyard Marriott, 1803 Porter Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230 10/13/25 Wang The Venetian Hotel, 3355 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89109 11/4/25 Wang The W Hotel, 3940 S Las Vegas Blvd W, Las Vegas, NV 89119 12/1/25 Wang Wynn Resort, 3131 Las Vegas Blvd S, Las Vegas, NV 89109 12/2/25 Wang Wynn Resort, 3131 Las Vegas Blvd S, Las Vegas, NV 89109 12/16/25 Wang
Renaissance Shihlin Taipei Hotel, No. 8, Lane 470, Section 5, Zhongshan N Rd, Shilin District, Taipei City, Taiwan 11141 482
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
486 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
APPENDIX C: New Teleconferencing Rules for 2026 in Cupertino Text of Revised Teleconferencing Rules as specified in the Agenda for the January 21, 2026, meeting:
483
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
487 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
REFERENCES
Bibliography
Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.
Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.2(a).
Cal. Gov. Code § 54953.
Cal. Gov. Code § 54959.
Cal. Gov. Code § 54960(a).
Cal. Gov. Code § 54960.1.
Cal. Gov. Code § 54960.2.
City of Cupertino. “City Council Agenda, Amended Televised Special Meeting (6:45), Wednesday, February 19, 2025.” February 19, 2025.
(https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1266553&GUID=35029DA8- C9D3-42C9-893B-AA025CD62A30). Accessed November 1, 2025.
City of Cupertino. “City Council Agenda, Non-Televised Closed Session Meeting (6:15) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45), Wednesday, January 21, 2026.” January 21, 2026. (https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1361645&GUID=6129F606-C95E4472-AFC5-66887F038178). Accessed February 7, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “City Council Agenda, Non-Televised Closed Session (6:00) and Televised Open Session Regular Meeting (6:45), Tuesday, May 6, 2025.” May 6, 2025. (https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1245856&GUID=C153DD99- 48E6-4B4A-96F5-1281F9C3E758). Accessed November 1, 2025.
City of Cupertino. “City of Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual.” March 18, 2025. (https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/departments/documents/city-council/ccresolution-no.-25-021-reaffirming-amendments-to-the-cupertino-city-council-proceduresmanual.pdf). Accessed February 6, 2026. 484
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
488 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
City of Cupertino. “Cupertino City Council Meeting - January 21, 2026.” Uploaded January 22, 2026. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFWrnasCfio&t=13s). Accessed February 7, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Cupertino City Council Meeting - June 3, 2025 (Part 1).” Uploaded June 4, 2025. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nQ5KWsIWHU&t=2158s). Accessed February 6, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Cupertino City Council Meeting - December 2, 2025 (Part 2).” Uploaded December 3, 2025. (https://youtu.be/lBWv1q3hbvk?si=A6mDopWjGdJH4T7&t=10915). Accessed February 6, 2026.
City of Los Altos. “City Council Norms and Procedures.” January 28, 2025. (https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/615/City-Council-Norms-andProcedures-PDF#:~:text=11.13%20Teleconferencing.). Accessed February 6, 2026.
City of Palo Alto. “City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook.” September 9, 2024. (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/6/city-clerk/city-charterprocedures/2024- adopted-council-protocols-and-procedures-manual-10.2024.pdf). Accessed February 6, 2026.
City of San José. “Teleconferencing Requirements.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/boards-commissions/teleconferencing-requirements).
Accessed February 6, 2026.
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. “Board of Supervisors Agenda August 26, 2025 9:30AM Regular Meeting.” August 26, 2025.
(https://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=15172&Inline=True).
Accessed February 6, 2026.
Freimarck, Annalise. “Cupertino residents split on official’s lack of in-person attendance.” September 2, 2025. San José Spotlight. (https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-residentssplit-on-officials-lack-of-in-person-attendance/). Accessed September 3, 2025.
Langberg, Mike. “Cupertino mayor blocks ally from becoming vice mayor.” December 17, 2025.
San José Spotlight. (https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-mayor-blocks-ally-frombecoming-vice-mayor/). Accessed December 19, 2025. 485
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
489 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
League of California Cities. “Open & Public VI: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act.” January 2024. (https://www.calcities.org/resource/open-public-v-a-guide-to-the-ralph-m.-brownact). Accessed November 3, 2025.
Melecio-Zambrano, Luis. “South Bay city swaps vice mayor and mayor in ‘unorthodox’ move.” December 12, 2025. Mercury News.
(https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/12/12/cupertino-new-mayor-vice-mayordebate/?share=tipyeseeamh1cpwhtmer). Accessed December 15, 2025. 486
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
490 of 511
CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE
This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 4th day of May, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
487
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
491 of 511
July 2, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge (2026)
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San José, CA 95113
RE: Civil Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Emede:
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933 et seq., please find enclosed the City of Cupertino’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Convenience vs. Compliance: Brown Act Risks in Cupertino’s Meeting Practices.” The enclosed response was approved by the City Council for your review. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tina Kapoor
City Manager
Enclosure
488
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
492 of 511
RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE 2026 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
“CONVENIENCE VS. COMPLIANCE: BROWN ACT RISKS IN
CUPERTINO’S MEETING PRACTICES”
Finding 1
Cupertino’s practice of ending a meeting if a teleconference participant disconnects disrupts meetings, creates needless delays, and prioritizes the convenience of council members over the public’s right to access.
Response: Partially agree/partially disagree. Please see responses to Recommendations 1a and 1b.
Recommendation 1a
Cupertino should continue its meetings when a teleconferencing member leaves the meeting, and a quorum remains in its jurisdiction. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Response: Partially agree/partially disagree. We agree that Cupertino should no longer discontinue its meetings when a teleconferencing member leaves the meeting. This change was implemented in January 2026, when the City updated its standard agenda language. The City also asserts that whether or not a quorum of the City Council is present in person at the main meeting location is not the issue at hand, as explained below. The issue is ensuring the City’s compliance with the public participation requirements of the Brown Act.1
The traditional teleconferencing rule at play here was enacted 40 years ago, in 1988 via Assembly Bill 3191 (Cal. Gov. code § 54953(b) (“Traditional Rule”).) It was proposed by Assemblymember Frazee from San Diego County where, at the time, residents from geographically distant parts of the county had difficulty attending County Board of Supervisors meetings and hearings. The Traditional Rule responded to these concerns by authorizing local agencies to use video conferencing “for the benefit of the public and the legislative body.”2 A foundational tenet was that public comment opportunities be available from any remote location.
Thus, the Traditional Rule requires that remote meeting locations provide for public participation. If such access is disrupted, public participation from that remote location is prevented. The statute does not expressly answer what should occur if such access is disrupted. Out of concern that allowing the meeting to continue would impair the public’s 1 See Berkeley People’s Alliance v. City of Berkeley (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 984 (emphasizing the importance of complying with Brown Act provisions protecting the public’s right to participate).
2 See Assembly Committee on Local Government, AB 361, May 5, 2021 Hearing at p3. 489
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
493 of 511
statutory right to participate from the noticed teleconference location, the City interpreted these provisions to require pausing or terminating a meeting when a teleconference location could no longer provide public access. If the connection could not be reestablished, the meeting would be adjourned. Of course, adjourning the meeting also prevents members of the public at any meeting location from participating, including those attending in person at the main meeting location.
The City acknowledges the difficulty in navigating the competing interests of various groups of participants, including (1) those participating from the main meeting location, (2) those joining via a remote link published in the agenda, and (3) those joining in person from a remote meeting location. To manage this difficulty, in January 2026 the City implemented a procedure that allows the City to know, prior to a meeting, whether members of the public plan to attend the meeting from an agendized remote location. If not, it would be reasonable to continue a meeting even when a remote meeting connection is disrupted.
Today, with the implementation of Senate Bill 707, cities the size of Cupertino must provide interactive meeting connections so that individuals may participate via their personal devices from wherever internet or telephone service is available. These provisions substantially reduce the concern that prompted the City’s prior practice because Cupertino must provide members of the public alternate methods of participating remotely. The City will also incorporate a procedure requiring the City Council to make affirmative findings on the record that the public interest in continuing a meeting when a remote location’s connection fails outweighs the public interest in ensuring public participation from the remote is available, similar to the finding required by Senate Bill 707 to continue a meeting after connection to the main location fails and the connection could not be reinstated within one hour.
This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 1b
Because teleconferencing is optional and Cupertino interprets the requirements in a manner that promotes council members’ self-interest, Cupertino should determine whether the optional use of teleconferencing under these circumstances is consistent with its responsibilities to its constituents. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Response: Generally disagree. Although the Traditional Rule does not require a city council to allow remote meeting locations, it does offer cities the option to allow for remote teleconference meeting locations, which allows elected officials to continue serving their constituents while balancing professional or family obligations. The City’s objective has been to facilitate public service while complying with the Brown Act.
Nonetheless, the Cupertino City Council will consider again whether offering optional use of teleconferencing is consistent with the City Council’s responsibilities to its constituents. This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026. 490
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
494 of 511
Recommendation 1c
Whenever teleconferencing is utilized, Cupertino should ensure that access at the teleconference location is maintained for the duration of the meeting, regardless of council members’ attendance. Cupertino should adopt and incorporate this into the City Council Procedures Manual.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Response: Agree, with reservations. Because the teleconference location is controlled by the participating council member rather than the City, the City cannot monitor or independently verify continuous public access throughout the meeting. The City Council can and will incorporate into the City Council Procedures Manual the procedures that a remote council member should undertake to ensure that access to the council meeting from the teleconference location is maintained for the duration of the meeting.
Additionally, as noted earlier, pursuant to Senate Bill 707, all open City Council meetings will also be available via Zoom and telephone.
This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026.
Finding 2
Cupertino’s process for ensuring that all policies, staff, and council members comply with the requirements for teleconferencing does not promote accountability with the Brown Act.
Response: Generally disagree. The City is not aware of any court finding or determination that its teleconferencing procedures violate the Brown Act.
Recommendation 2
Cupertino should adopt formal, written teleconferencing procedures and verification processes to ensure compliance with all Brown Act requirements, including:
• Standard agenda language identifying a precise teleconference location and its accessibility to the public;
• On-the-record confirmation of compliance at the start of all meetings subject to the Brown Act;
• Documented verification confirming that teleconference locations meet public access and that the agenda was posted in a timely and appropriate manner. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Response: Agree. The City of Cupertino’s staff has implemented procedures for ensuring the City remains compliant with the Brown Act. Nonetheless, the City will formalize existing procedures through written protocols and additional documentation, including confirmation that:
• Cupertino will continue to use standard agenda language identifying the precise teleconference location;
• Cupertino will continue to require that the location meet public access requirements;
• Cupertino will continue to require that the agenda be posted at the location in a timely and appropriate manner, and
491
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
495 of 511
• Cupertino will continue to require on-the-record confirmation of compliance with the above when a remote location is activated.
This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026.
Finding 3
Cupertino’s practice of permitting teleconferencing from locations that are not meaningfully accessible to the public, including private or restricted spaces, is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Brown Act.
Response: Disagree. That is not Cupertino’s practice. Please also see response to Recommendation 3.
Recommendation 3
Cupertino should provide written guidance to council members and any relevant staff about appropriate teleconferencing locations that are genuinely and meaningfully accessible to the public for the duration of the meeting. The guidance should also list prohibited locations such as private or restricted spaces, including private hotel rooms, airport lounges beyond security checkpoints, vehicles, or other locations requiring special access. This recommendation should
be implemented by December 15, 2026.
Response: Agree. The City will provide guidance identifying appropriate and inappropriate teleconference locations and describing a council member’s responsibilities for ensuring meaningful public access throughout a meeting.
This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026.
Finding 4
Cupertino’s practice of automatically terminating City Council meetings when a teleconferencing council member disconnects fundamentally prioritizes the convenience of the councilmember above the public and provides a mechanism to weaponize the practice for strategic gain, as was the case on December 2, 2025.
Response: Disagree. The practice has protected the public’s right to participate in compliance with the Brown Act, which protects public participation. The circumstances surrounding the December 2, 2025 meeting were unusual and should not be viewed as representative of normal meeting practices.
Recommendation 4
Cupertino should amend its City Council Procedures Manual to clarify that:
• Quorum requirements are governed by applicable law and are independent of teleconferencing participation;
• Teleconferencing is a discretionary accommodation subject to conditions that protect public rights. This recommendation should be implemented by December 15, 2026.
492
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
496 of 511
Response: Partially disagree/partially agree. The City disagrees with the characterization underlying this recommendation, but agrees that clarifying the City Council Procedures Manual will provide greater certainty regarding future meetings.
This recommendation will be implemented prior to December 15, 2026. 493
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
497 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14658 Agenda Date: 7/7/2026
Agenda #: 14.
Subject: City Manager Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2/2026
powered by Legistar™494
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
498 of 511
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
A Message from the City Manager
The upcoming Independence Day is a celebration of our country, but also a reminder that strong communities are built quietly, every day, the character and care of the people who call it home.
Last month, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, reinforcing our commitment to responsible stewardship of public resources while continuing to invest in the services and infrastructure our community relies on. On Tuesday, the City's Disaster Council met to review the City's draft Emergency Operations Plan. These conversations help ensure Cupertino is ready to respond to wildfires, earthquakes, power outages, and other emergencies. Preparedness also means planning for the long-term stability of our community. Last month, the City Council approved a 12-week extension of the Sheriff's services contract, providing time to evaluate the County's proposed costs, review the findings of an ongoing audit, and ensure uninterrupted law enforcement services for residents. The City will continue to keep the community informed as negotiations move forward.
This month's newsletter also highlights the transition taking place at the former Permanente cement plant and new businesses opening in Cupertino. You'll also find wildfire preparedness resources, senior fraud prevention tips, and a reminder to celebrate responsibly by leaving fireworks to the professionals. If you're staying local this weekend, consider enjoying Cupertino's fireworks show and visiting the Cupertino America 250 Art Showcase at Quinlan Community Center. You can also check out local deals and specials happening this weekend at cupertino.gov/explorecupertino.
Wishing you a safe and happy 4th of July!
Read the full City Manager’s Newsletter July 1, 2026 and all previous editions at cupertino.gov/cmnewsletter.
Warm Regards,
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
495
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
499 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14632 Agenda Date: 7/7/2026
Agenda #: 15.
Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2/2026
powered by Legistar™496
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
500 of 511
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: July 7, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen
Report Dates: 6/9/26 to 6/29/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
Event 1. June 10, 2026 – Cupertino Pride Flag Raising Ceremony – Together with the entire city council, I attended the city’s annual flag raising in honor of Pride Month and celebrating the achievements and challenges of the local LGBTQ+ community.
Event 2. June 11, 2026 – Meeting with HOA Representatives regarding local enforcement of AB 1572 – I met with representatives of various HOAs regarding new state standards for the use of potable water to irrigate non-functional turf and discussed options for Cupertino’s enforcement of the legislation.
Event 3. June 12, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.
Event 4. June 15, 2026 – Budget Briefing with City Staff – I received a briefing on the final proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 from City Manager Tina Kapoor and her staff.
Event 5. June 18, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.
Event 6. June 22, 2026 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA Executive Committee Meeting – I attended the meeting of the CASCC Executive Committee in my capacity as 1st Vice President of the JPA. Agenda materials are available here. 497
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
501 of 511
City Council Councilmember Report
2 Event 7. June 24, 2026 – Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Science and Technology Speaker Series – I attended this final presentation of the Chamber’s Science and Technology Speaker series, this time featuring Mr. Roger Hunter of NASA.
Event 8. June 26, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.
498
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
502 of 511
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: July 7, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Report Dates: 6/9/26 to 6/29/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
6/9/26 Attended a meeting with the Fire Safety Steering Committee members representing residents and several Home Owner Associations in the high-risk fire areas in the west side of Cupertino. Councilmember Fruen also attended. We heard the group’s concerns about managing fire risk and fire prevention and the potential problems of complying with AB 1572 which focuses on vegetation mitigation and non-functional turf such as lawns.
6/10/26 In my capacity as a volunteer judge for the Helen Putnam award, I participated in the selection of the winner in the Internal Administration category. About 20 cities had applied for an award in the category, and it was challenging yet exciting to pick the best and most creative initiative to improve administrative processes. Improving the planning and building permit process was the most cited issue which the cities attempted to address. 6/10/26 Along with the entire City Council, I was honored to participate in the annual Pride Flag Raising Ceremony. This was a well-attended event of community members, city staff and elected officials. We were treated to a moving performance by the Silicon Valley Gay Men’s Chorus, and it was particularly inspiring to hear from Miss Cupertino, Naomi Castejon Wong, a community activist for transgender rights.
6/11/26 Attended the Cities Association annual dinner for elected officials. This year’s meeting focused on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery with area emergency leaders leading a panel discussion on the role of elected officials in the event of an emergency. 6/12/26 Attended the funeral services for Gary Graves, former Chief Operating Officer for Santa Clara County, and my former boss. During his 32-year tenure with the County he 499
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
503 of 511
City Council Councilmember Report
2 served as the County’s budget director, and periodically as the acting County Executive until his retirement. Hundreds of County officials and staff attended the Mass for this beloved County manager.
6/13/26 Together with Mayor Moore, I participated in the Yoga and Bollywood Dance event at Wilson Park. This was part of the mayor’s community and health wellness initiative, and hosted by the Cupertino Bhubaneswar Sister City committee. A good time was had by all, and all of us enjoyed the stretching and dance moves taught by yoga. Instructors. 6/15/26 Participated in a budget prep session organized by staff to answer questions about the annual city budget which was on the Council agenda for the next day. Preparing the annual budget is a hugely time consuming and stressful experience for City staff and I continue to be grateful for the expertise and patience of staff, particularly those in the Finance department.
6/18/26 Attended a meeting at the CUSD district office to recognize Superintendent Stacey Yao’s retirement after a 38-year tenure with the school district. Her accomplishments, leadership and vision for the school district are awe inspiring and the tributes she received were a fitting recognition for her life-long commitment to education and learning.
500
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
504 of 511
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: July 7, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 6/9/26 to 6/29/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
June 9, 2026. Legislative Action Day Sacramento. Met with Assemblymember Ahrens, Senator Becker, Finance Department personnel, City Manager Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Squarcia, Councilmember Wang, and lobbyist firm Joe Gonsalves and Sons to advocate on behalf of the city.
June 10, 2026. Cupertino hosted a Pride Flag Raising Ceremony and had choral performances by the SVGMC and speeches.
June 10, 2026. Mayor’s Monthly Chat.
June 11, 2026. Agenda Review with Staff.
June 11, 2026. Proposed Budget Format Discussion
with Staff.
June 11, 2026. Cities Association of Santa Clara
County Annual Summer Membership Event – Topic
of discussion: When a disaster strikes.
June 12, 2026. Budget prep session with Staff.
June 13. 2026. Get Moving Moore: Yoga and
Bollywood Jam in the Park. Had an excellent and
envigorating Yoga session with Bollywood jam at
Wilson Park!
June 15, 2026. Sheriff ad hoc committee meeting.
Jund 15, 2026. Closed Session, Special Meeting of the
Cupertino City Council.
501
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
505 of 511
City Council Mayor Moore Report
2 June 16, 2026. Special and Regular meetings of the Cupertino City Council.
June 18, 2026. Annual ABAG General Assembly meeting in San Francisco. Event is primarily to pass the budget. 75% of membership dues are paying for pre-2017 employee benefits. And a report for our next cycle RHNA numbers is that there are new categories and the next cycle RHNA numbers are expected to be even higher. Evacuation Routes and Fire Zones will be taken into account but no idea how that will be done, stay tuned.
June 18, 2026. Agenda review with Staff.
June 18, 2026. Recognition event for CUSD Supervisor
Stacy Yao who has retired. Wishing her well on her
future endeavors!
June 19, 2026. Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting for
BonBon Matcha! Large crowd came out for this
Cupertino/Chamber of Commerce event. Happy to see
another new business join the Cupertino Community!
June 23, 2026. Meeting with Vice Mayor and Staff
regarding upcoming agenda items.
June 24, 2026. West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting. Discussed Homelessness Task Force options.
June 24, 2026. Subcommittee Meeting RE:
Community Funding and Festivals.
June 24, 2026. 76th Korean War
Commemoration Ceremony and 36th Annual
U.S. Korean War Veterans Appreciation
Dinner. Both of my late uncles served in
Korea during this war and one received the
Purple Heart commendation. This event is
very meaningful to me to see the war veterans
and the appreciation from the Korean
American community for the support their
homeland received. The veterans are in their
90s now and it is wonderful to see them being
honored for their selfless service.
June 25, 2026. Agenda Review with Staff.
June 26, 2026. Friday Night at the Art Center Palo Alto. Arts and Culture Commission Vice Chair invited me to attend this event with their family to see the facility and art show of ceramic exhibits. The center has a huge pottery area, jewelry making, painting and drawing area, children’s classrooms for art making, and exhibit area. 502
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
506 of 511
City Council Mayor Moore Report
3 June 27, 2026. 2026 CARES Activation. With help of the CARES team I entered “Kilo 6 Kilo Papa” and made a connection with Utah during Field Day! The CARES team reaches out for and with information during an emergency.
June 28, 2026. Meeting with CM Kapoor, CA Andrews, VM Chao.
503
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
507 of 511
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14702 Agenda Date: 7/7/2026
Agenda #: 16.
Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2/2026
powered by Legistar™504
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
508 of 511
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City Council
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
Closed Session
26-15202 Subject: Closed Session per California Government Code Section ______________
Consent Calendar
26-15180 Subject: Approve Placement of a Ballot Measure for Parkland Rezoning and a Ballot Measure for Utility Users Tax in the November 3, 2026 General Election.
26-15226 Subject: Approval of Third Amendment to extend the term through October 30, 2026 of the Interim City Attorney Agreement for City Attorney services by and between the City of Cupertino and Aleshire & Wynder, LLP, with Floy Andrews as Interim City Attorney. 26-14764 Subject: Annual Evaluation Report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Community Rating System’s (CRS) Program for Public Information
26-15110 Subject: Approval of a Final Map and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for The Rise Development Project (Tract No. 10546; Applicant:
Vallco Property Owner, LLC; APN: 316-20-121 & -122)
25-14201 Subject: Adoption of Resolution No. 26-XXX authorizing the City Manager to accept $850,000 in federal grant funds from the Community Project Funding/ Congressionally Directed Spending Program, and Award a Design Professional Services Agreement to Biggs Cardoza Associates, Inc. for a total not to exceed amount of $1,247,280, for the McClellan Road Bridge Project.
25-14439 Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 25-14680 Subject: Approval of July 7, 2026 City Council meeting minutes Public Hearings
26-14918 Subject: Approval of lien assessment and collection of fees on private parcels resulting from abatement of public nuisance (weeds and/or brush) for the annual Weed and Brush Abatement Programs 25-14703 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Future Agenda Items
505
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
509 of 511
Wednesday, July 01, 2026
Action Calendar
26-15203 Subject: Consider Approval of the City Council Response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "Convenience vs.
Compliance: Brown Act Risks in Cupertino's Meeting Practices" 26-15224 Subject: Review of attendance record and consideration of an attendance policy waiver for Library Commissioner Janki Chokshi.
26-14993 Subject: Approval of a City naming, logo, donation and sponsorship policy (60 min)
Councilmember Reports
25-14633 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14659 Subject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
Ceremonial Items
26-14984 Subject: Recognition of Innovation & Technology Department (Applications, GIS, Infrastructure, Multimedia, and Administration Divisions)
Consent Calendar
26-15122 Subject: Resolution amending the City of Cupertino Conflict of Interest Code for officials and designated employees; Amended 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice
25-14681 Subject: Approval of July 21, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14449 Subject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 25-14431 Subject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for Future Agenda Items
25-14706 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
25-14162 Subject: Introduction of Amendments to Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties-Powers-Responsibilities of the Audit Committee
26-15164 Subject: Revisions to City of Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual. (Postponed on May 5, 2026)
26-15034 Subject: Receipt and Review of Baker Tilly City Council Policy Review Report; Direction to Staff
25-14521 Subject: Approval to execute a contract with Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for a five-year period 2025/26 to 2030/31
26-15227 Subject: Consider Approval of the City Council Response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
506
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
510 of 511
Wednesday, July 01, 2026
26-15233 Subject: Consider Approval of the City Council Response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II." Councilmember Reports
25-14636 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14662 Subject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Consent Calendar
25-14684 Subject: Approval of September 1, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14330 Subject: Second Reading and enactment of Amendments to Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties-Powers-Responsibilities of the Audit Committee
25-14456 Subject: Receive the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending 25-14441 Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending Public Hearings
26-15201 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the Cupertino Municipal Code
Future Agenda Items
25-14707 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
26-15228
26-14765
Subject: City Work Program item for Community Development Department permit process review (heard after Planning Commission) Subject: Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Councilmember Reports
25-14637 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14663 Subject: City Manager Report
507
CC 07-07-2026 Searchable Packet
511 of 511