CC - 07-07-2026
#1
Study Session: Health
and Safety Element
Update
Presentation
CITY OF CUPERTINO HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATECITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONJuly 7, 2026
Agenda1.Health and Safety Element Overview2.Comments and Changes3.Next Steps4.Questions and Discussion
OVERVIEW
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 4
Health and Safety Element UpdateRequired Element of General Plan.Update required after Housing Element update to ensure compliance with current State law.Addresses new statutory requirements and hazards, such as climate change, wildfire, and extreme heat.Incorporates Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.Regional CoordinationEmergency Preparedness & ResponseFire SafetyPublic SafetyGeologic & Seismic HazardsHazardous MaterialsFloodingClimate Change ResilienceNoise Topics Addressed
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 5
Health and Safety Element UpdatePlanning Commission Study Sessions July 8, 2025
March 9, 2026Public Safety Commission Study Session
July 10, 2025Public Review
February11-May 8City Council Study Sessions
May 19, 2026
July 7, 2026State Agency Review
CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry (90-120 days)
Gov Office of Emergency Services (90 days)
CA Geologic Survey (90 days)
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 6
Safety Element & Building CodeThe Health and Safety Element is consistent with the Municipal Code, other elements of the General Plan, and other applicable County, regional, and State requirements.Building CodeVery detailed, specific requirements for development activitiesIncludes the Fire Code and new Wildland-Urban Interface CodeGeneral Plan High-level policy direction to guide review of development and resource useCan address gaps in the Building Code or establish more stringent requirements
COMMENTS AND CHANGES
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 8
Summary of CommentsWe have compiled Council Member and public comments into a table with our recommended response (staff report, Attachment A).Includes new policies and strategies, revised policies and strategies, and minor edits to the background information.Key themes of comments:Emergency preparedness and outreach.Evacuation analyses and planning.Emergency access.Wildfire development standards.Groundwater contamination and hazardous materials.Extreme heat mitigation.Noise reduction.Alignment with Climate Action Plan.
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 9
Revised and New Policies and StrategiesBlock Leader Awareness (New)Block Leader Communication (New)City Facilities Retrofit (Revised)Critical Needs for Vulnerable Populations During Emergencies (New)Cumulative Hazard Mapping (New)Education and Engagement Materials (Revised)Evacuation Mapping Availability (New)Evacuation Mapping and Planning Coordination (Revised)Evacuation Route Assessment Required (New)Evacuation Route Capacity Study (New)Infrastructure Prioritization (New)Ingress and Egress Standards for New and Existing Development (New)Mitigate Evacuation Constraints (New)Emergency Preparedness City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 10
Revised and New Policies and StrategiesRegional CoordinationPFAS Contamination (New)PFAS and Environmental Review (New)Hazardous MaterialsEnvironmental Site Assessments (Revised)Hazardous Materials Storage (New)Public SafetyLaw Enforcement Response Times (Revised)General Response Times (Removed) City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 11
Revised and New Policies and StrategiesFire SafetyNew Development in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Revised)Review in High and Very High Fire Hazard Zones (Removed)Wildfire Assistance Program (New)Defensible Space (New)Private Road Repairs and Maintenance (Revised)Land Use and Zoning Changes in Very High Fire Risk Areas (Removed) City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 12
Revised and New Policies and StrategiesDual-Plumbing Water Systems (New)Water Conservation Outreach and Education (New)Heat Action Plan (Revised)Extreme Heat Vulnerable Neighborhoods (New)Extreme Heat Protections for Outdoor Workers (New)Extreme Heat Mitigation (New)Enhanced Shading for New and Existing Nonresidential and Multifamily Development (Revised)Enhanced Shading of Parking Lots (Revised)Artificial Turf (New)Decarbonization (New)Resilient Urban Forests (New)Urban Forest Management (New)Tree Replacement (New) Climate Change Resilience
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 13
Revised and New Policies and StrategiesNoiseNoise Control Techniques (New)Freeway Design and Neighborhood Noise (Revised)Freeway Soundwalls Sponsorship (New)Noise Impact Analysis (New)Street Signage (Revised)Noise Generating Garden Equipment (New)
NEXT STEPS
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 15
Next StepsCAL FIRE /Board of Forestry ReviewConduct mandatory 120-day review priorto City Council public hearing / adoption.Other State Agency reviews- Governor’s Office of Emergency Services- California Geologic SurveyEnvironmental ReviewConduct environmental review.Public HearingsPlanning Commission and City Council public hearings anticipated inFall2026.
City Council Study Session | July 7, 2026 16
Recommended actionReceive the presentation, provide input on the Public Draft of the Health and Safety Element, and direct staff to begin consultation and review with State agencies.
QUESTIONS?
CC - 07-07-2026
#12
Ballot Measure Survey
Results
Presentation
Ballot Measure Survey Results
July 7, 2026
Background
• The 2026-27 Budget 10-year forecast projects
long-term structural budget challenges
• Increased costs for public safety, reduced
sales tax revenue and the expiration of the
Utility Users Tax in 2030 impact the forecast
• To address budget challenges, Council is
considering an expansion or extension of the
Utility Users Tax
• Council is also considering efforts to further
protect parkland use
Actions to Date
• March 17 - Council authorized staff to identify
contractors to support potential ballot
measures to:
• expand or extend the Utility Users Tax (UUT)
• Increase protections for parkland use
• April 7 – Council approved budget for
contracting efforts for ballot measure
evaluation and fees for the Santa Clara
Registrar of Voters
• June 3 –17 – Godbe Research conducted a
public opinion survey of Cupertino likely voters
Survey Results
• Godbe Research will review the Survey Results
Recommended Action
• 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.
• Designate Councilmember(s) to draft primary
argument and rebuttal argument for any ballot
measure placed before the voters.
Next Steps
• If Council decides to pursue a ballot measure, staff
will:
• Engage TeamCivX and begin outreach
communication to residents
• Prepare required resolutions with ballot language
and supporting information
• Present ballot measure information and primary
and rebuttal arguments for Council approval on
July 21 to meet the County Registrar of Voter
Deadlines
• If Council decides not to pursue a ballot measure,
staff requests further direction on additional actions
Available for Questions
June 2026
City of Cupertino:
2026 UUT Renewal and Parkland Rezoning Measure Survey
July 7, 2026
June 2026
Key Take-Aways
The City of Cupertino commissioned Godbe Research to
conduct a survey of likely November 2026 voters. The key take-aways are:
A General Plan Amendment ballot measure to require
future rezoning of parks or open space be placed on a
future ballot was favored by 69.5% of voters.
A ballot measure renewing the utility users tax (UUT) at the existing rate, without increasing the tax rate, adding video services and extending the term to “until ended by voters” was favored by 66.4% voters.
Neither a UUT increase of 1 percent or an increase of 0.6 percent were viable at this time.
June 2026
Methodology Overview I
Data Collection Landline (17), cell (125), text to online (272), and email to online interviewing (20)
Universe 24,643 Likely November 2026 Voters
Fielding Dates June 3 to 17, 2026
Interview Length 25 minutes
Sample Size n=434
Margin of Error November 2026 Voters ± 4.66%
Note: The data have been stratified and weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of likely November 2026 voters in the City of Cupertino in terms of their gender, age, ethnic surname, presence of children in the household, political party type, household party type, homeownership, and geography. While another survey appears to have been conducted by an unknown sponsor at the same time and likely had an impact on the response rate, response rate itself is not part of the calculation of the survey margin of error (population size, sample size, response distribution and alpha coefficient are the components of the algorithm). This second survey may have complicated the survey environment, this is not of concern to the data accuracy given that n=434 interviews were completed (typical for a City of Cupertino’s voter population would be between 300 to 400 completed interviews) and in an actual election there will be much more “noise” in the background including but not limited to, National Congressional mid-term debate, gubernatorial campaigns, statewide ballot measures, as well as local races. Further, the survey methodology stratification and weighting noted above ensure that the final sample is representative of the likely November 2026 voters in the City of Cupertino within the stated margin of error.
June 2026
Methodology Overview II
The data have been stratified and weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of likely November 2026 voters in the City of Cupertino in terms of their gender, age, ethnic surname, presence of children in the household, education, homeownership, political party type, household party type, among other factors.
Column
N % Count ∑ or
Mean
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
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
Gender
Age
Broad Ethnic Groupings
June 2026
Methodology Overview III
Column
N % Count ∑ or
Mean
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
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
Presence of Children
Education
Veteran
Homeownership Status
Marital Status
June 2026
Methodology Overview IV
Column
N % Count ∑ or
Mean
Likely Nov 2026 Voter
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
Individual Party
Household Party Type
June 2026
Key Findings
June 2026
Favorability Rating of the Job the City of
Cupertino is Doing to Provide City Services
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Nov 2024
Survey -
Adults 18+
June 2026
Survey - Likely
November
2026 Voters
25.5%
20.0%
47.0%
48.4%
17.4%
13.5%
2.9%
5.0%
7.2%
13.0%
Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable DK/NA
68.4%
72.5%
June 2026
Favorability Rating of the Job the City of
Cupertino is Doing to Effectively Manage and
Spend Taxpayer Dollars and Public Funds
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Likely
November
2026 Voters
9.8% 40.3% 17.6% 10.5% 21.8%
Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable DK/NA
50.1%
June 2026
Initial Support for Amending the City of
Cupertino General Plan for Parkland Rezoning
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 be
adopted?
Probably No
10.0%
DK/NA
7.8%
Definitely No
12.8%
Definitely Yes
43.6%
Probably Yes
25.9%
Total Support
69.5%
June 2026
Initial Support for Measure to Increase UUT to
Maintain Essential City Services
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?
Probably No
16.2%
DK/NA
10.5%
Definitely No
29.0%
Definitely Yes
17.8%
Probably Yes
26.6%
Total Support
44.4%
June 2026
Features of the UUT Measure I
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.
Somewhat
More Likely
Somewhat
Less Likely
Much Less
Likely
-2 -1 0 1 2
D. Maintain emergency and disaster preparedness
programs
I. Maintain safe pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks
L. Maintain safe bike paths and safe routes to schools for children
P. Reduce wildfire risk by controlling flammable brush
and maintaining safe evacuation routes
F. Reduce property crime
A. Maintain and repair local streets
H. Maintain parks and open space
B. Maintain rapid 911 emergency response times
0.72 0.74
0.75 0.80
0.83 0.85
0.92 0.93
Much More
Likely
70.6%
Tier 1
62.8%
T2
63.4%
June 2026
Features of the UUT Measure II
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.
Somewhat
More Likely
Somewhat
Less Likely
Much Less
Likely
-2 -1 0 1 2
O. Maintain facilities and grounds at Blackberry Farm
K. Maintain City facilities
E. Protect community-based policing
N. Maintain trees and landscaping along city streets
J. Reduce traffic on City streets
M. Protect air quality
C. Maintain neighborhood police patrols
G. Maintain senior and youth programs
0.37 0.38
0.51 0.53
0.54 0.57
0.63 0.70
Much More
Likely
61.0%
Tier 2- Cont’d
46.3%
56.8%
Tier 3
53.1%
June 2026
Informational Statements I
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, and “No Effect” = 0. 0 1 2
P. 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…
N. 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… H. 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
D. The measure requires independent financial audits,
and yearly reports to the community to ensure that all
funds are spent as promised
C. This measure requires public disclosure of the
spending of every penny from this measure
F. Large businesses will pay their fair share, so
homeowners don't shoulder the entire cost of maintaining Cupertino city services
1.06 1.11
1.12 1.14
1.16 1.24
No Effect Somewhat
More Likely
Much More
Likely
70.7%
Tier 1
68.3%
June 2026
Informational Statements II
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, and “No Effect” = 0. 0 1 2
U. Without the measure the existing tax will expire and the City will be forced to make cuts to critical city
services
A. This measure will maintain traffic enforcement to keep drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and children traveling to school safe
S. 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 G. The measure will ensure funding to maintain local
parks and open space
I. Without the measure Cupertino streets will begin to
deteriorate creating potholes, causing damage to vehicles and reconstructing deteriorating streets will become
more expensive
0.95 0.95
0.97 0.98
1.00 No Effect Somewhat
More Likely
Much More
Likely
65.8%
Tier 2
63.3%
June 2026
Interim Support for UUT Measure to Maintain
Essential City Services
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Interim
Ballot
Initial
Ballot
21.0%
17.8%
36.4%
26.6%
18.2%
16.2%
19.9%
29.0%
4.5%
10.5%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA
44.4%
57.4%
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?
June 2026
Critical Statements
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, and “No Effect” = 0. 0 1 2
A. 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
B. The measure was passed to fund Blackberry Farm, but
it has been paid for. Why are they still continuing this tax? C. The measure is a forever tax that will never end
G. The measure could increase the average homeowner's
utility bills
F. 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.
0.99 1.00
1.00 1.02
1.03 No Effect Somewhat
More Likely
Much More
Likely
Tier 1
63.5%
61.5%
■ Entire Sample
■ Sample A
■ Sample B
June 2026
Final Support for UUT Measure to Maintain
Essential City Services
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Final
Ballot
Interim
Ballot
Initial
Ballot
16.4%
21.0%
17.8%
30.3%
36.4%
26.6%
22.4%
18.2%
16.2%
21.6%
19.9%
29.0%
9.4%
4.5%
10.5%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA
44.4%
57.4%
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?
46.6%
June 2026
Alternative UUT Measure: Increase the Rate by
0.6 Percent
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
.
Probably No
18.7%
DK/NA
5.2%
Definitely No
20.0%
Definitely Yes
22.4%
Probably Yes
33.7%
Total Support
56.1%
June 2026
Alternative UUT Measure: Renew the Tax at
the Current Rate (2.4%)
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.
Probably No
15.3%
DK/NA
2.9%
Definitely No
15.4%
Definitely Yes
33.8%
Probably Yes
32.6%
Total Support
66.4%
June 2026
Alternative UUT Measure: Renew the Tax at
the Current Rate (2.4%) for 16 Years
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.
Probably No
16.8%
DK/NA
4.7%
Definitely No
16.5%
Definitely Yes
37.1%
Probably Yes
24.8%
Total Support
61.9%
June 2026
Opinion on Future Economy
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Likely
November
2026 Voters
12.8% 30.0% 48.6% 8.6%
Better About the same Worse DK/NA
June 2026
Key Take-Aways
The City of Cupertino commissioned Godbe Research to
conduct a survey of likely November 2026 voters. The key take-aways are:
A General Plan Amendment ballot measure to require
future rezoning of parks or open space be placed on a
future ballot was favored by 69.5% of voters.
A ballot measure renewing the utility users tax at the existing rate, without increasing the tax rate, adding
video services and extending the term to “until ended by voters” was favored by 66.4% voters.
Neither a UUT increase of 1 percent or an increase of 0.6 percent were viable at this time.
June 2026
www.godberesearch.com
California and Corporate Offices
1220 Howard Avenue, Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
Nevada Office
59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309
Reno, NV 89521
CC - 07-07-2026
#13
2026 Civil Grand Jury
Report Convenience vs.
Compliance
Presentation
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Response of City of Cupertino to
Civil Grand Jury Report
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
July 7, 2026
Background
• Report entitled “Convenience vs.
Compliance: Brown Act risks in Cupertino’s
meeting practices”
• Released May 4, 2026
• City’s response due within 90 days of the
report’s release
• With Council’s recess in August, City should
respond in July
Response Required to Findings and
Recommendations
• Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05
require the City to respond to only the Civil
Grand Jury’s Findings and
Recommendations
• Four Findings pertaining to the City’s
teleconferencing practices
• Six Recommendations regarding the same
Suggested Overall Response
• The City has already implemented certain
corrective measures.
• The City disagrees with several factual
characterizations in the report.
• The City nevertheless intends to strengthen
its written procedures to promote
continued compliance with the Brown Act.
Suggested Responses to Finding 1
• Finding 1: City’s practice of ending a meeting when
a teleconference location disconnects creates
problems.
Suggested Response: City updated this process in
January 2026 to address these issues.
• Recommendation 1a: City should not end a meeting
when a teleconference location disconnects.
Suggested Response: City implemented this change
before the Civil Grand Jury issued its report.
Suggested Responses
• Recommendation 1b: Teleconferencing is optional
so City should consider whether it is consistent with
its responsibilities to constituents.
Suggested Response: City’s objective has been to
facilitate public and council participation. City will
consider the recommendation.
• Recommendation 1c: City should ensure that access
from a teleconference location is maintained for the
meeting’s duration.
Suggested Response: City cannot guarantee that
disruptions will not occur but will update its Council
Procedures Manual to address this recommendation
Suggested Responses to Finding 2
• Finding 2: City’s current process does not promote
accountability with the Brown Act.
Suggested Response: City is not aware of any
judicial determination that would indicate that its
practices violate the Brown Act.
• Recommendation 2: City should adopt formal
teleconferencing procedures to ensure compliance
with the Brown Act.
Suggested Response: City will adopt formal written
teleconferencing procedures.
Suggested Responses to Finding 3
• Finding 3: City’s practice of permitting tele-
conference locations that are not accessible is
inconsistent with the purpose of the Brown Act.
Suggested Response: The City does not believe this
reflects the City’s practice.
• Recommendation 3: City should provide written
guidance regarding appropriate teleconferencing
locations.
Suggested Response: City will adopt more formal
procedures.
Suggested Responses to Finding 4
• Finding 4: City’s practice of terminating a council meeting when a councilmember disconnects prioritizes
councilmember convenience over public participation.
• Suggested Response: The practice is designed to protect public participation.
• Recommendation 4: City should amend the Council
Procedures Manual to provide written guidance
regarding quorum requirements and that
teleconferencing is discretionary
.
• Suggested Response: The City disagrees with the
characterization but will adopt more formal procedures
.
Future City Actions
Prior to December 15, 2026, the City will undertake
the following:
• Consider whether it should continue allowing remote
participation.
• Update its Council Procedures Manual to require that
teleconference locations are maintained for the
meeting’s duration.
• Update its Council Procedures Manual to include formal teleconference procedures to ensure compliance with
the Brown Act.
• Adopt written guidance regarding appropriate
teleconferencing locations.
Thank you