City Council - Regular Meeting

is 546, the July 7th, 2026 special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is called to order. Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Ferran?

Here.

Council Member Mohan? Here. Council Member Wong?

Here.

Vice Mayor Chau? Here. Mayor Moore?

Here. Thank you. We're going to begin with item one. It is a study session on the health and safety element update. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation?

Thank you, Mayor. This study session is a follow-up to a council study session that was held on May 19th. The goal of today's meeting is to provide a brief overview of the health and safety element update process and describe how the councils and the public comments that were raised in earlier study sessions have been addressed. The next step in the update process is for the element to be submitted to and reviewed by state agencies such as CAL FIRE and the Department of Forestry. Placeworks Senior Associate Eli Crispy will be presenting this item and community development staff are also in attendance to respond to questions.

Good evening, Council. Mayor Moore, Eli will be presenting on the draft health and safety element that has been updated since the last meeting, as the city manager mentioned. And with that, I'll turn it over to Eli.

Good evening, Mayor Moore, Council Members, Eli Crispy with Placeworks. So today I will be giving a brief overview, as you heard, on the health and safety element. We'll be focusing today's discussion on the comments that we've received from the Planning Commission and from the City Council and the changes that we have made to the health and safety element in response to those comments. We'll then talk about the next steps for the element and wrap up with any questions or discussion items that you may have. So to recap the health and safety element, it is a required component of the city's general plan. Every city and county in California must have a health or safety element or something equivalent. And recent changes to state law require that the health and safety element be updated every time that the housing element is updated. So with that recent revision to Cupertino's housing element, it has prompted an update to the health and safety element. In this recent update, we have been focusing primarily on new state laws that have come into effect that are now mandating a lot more information be included in the health and safety element, primarily issues related to climate change and climate resilience and adaptation. But there have also been some statutory language that we now have to comply with around wildfire and extreme heat. We are also revising the health and safety element to better incorporate the most recent version of the countywide multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan that not only helps ensure that the health and safety element is concurrent with Cupertino's and the region's other safety related plans, but incorporating the hazard mitigation plan also makes a city potentially more eligible for increased grant funding and disaster relief funding from the state if that becomes necessary. There have been a handful of meetings already with city agencies regarding the Health and Safety Element update. There have been two study sessions with the Planning Commission, one last year and one earlier this year. There was a meeting last year, a study session with the Public Safety Commission, and then there was a public review period for the draft Health and Safety Element that began in February of early this year and concluded back in May. There was also, as you may recall, been a previous study session with this council in March, or excuse me, in May, and now we are here for a second one. Following tonight's study session, there will be, as you heard, a series of review periods for various state agencies. Because the topic has come up at previous sessions, we just wanted to be clear about the distinction between the city's general plan, which includes the health and safety element and the city's building code. So the health and safety element is really meant to be, of course, consistent with the building code and other aspects of Cupertino's municipal code, as well as other elements of the general plan and all other applicable plans and regulations. BUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN IS REALLY MEANT TO BE A HIGH LEVEL POLICY DIRECTION THAT GUIDES REVIEW AND GUIDES CITY POLICIES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE USE. IT CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS GAPS IN THE BUILDING CODE OR TO ESTABLISH MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT IS NOT TYPICALLY WHERE VERY DETAILED FOCUS REQUIREMENTS LIVE. THAT IS GENERALLY RESERVED FOR THE BUILDING CODE WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE THE VERY DETAILED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WHICH DOES ALSO INTEGRATE SOME NEW STATE CHANGES TO THE FIRE CODE AND THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE CODE WHICH IS BRAND NEW FOR THE CURRENT STATE BUILDING CODE. SO WITH THAT OVERVIEW WE CAN NOW MOVE INTO DISCUSSING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND CHANGES THAT WE HAVE MADE IN RESPONSE. We have compiled the comments from the council members and other public comments that we have received into a table which is attached to your staff report as attachment A. That also includes staff's recommended response to each of those items. The recommended response varies. In some cases, we are proposing entirely new policies or strategies. In other cases, we are suggesting revisions to existing policies and strategies. And then there are other places where we felt the appropriate response was to revise some of the background information and the context that is included in the health and safety element. The comments generally fell into about eight buckets that you see here under the key themes, emergency preparedness and outreach, evacuation analysis and planning, emergency access, wildfire development, groundwater contamination and hazardous materials, extreme heat mitigation, noise reduction, and alignment with the city's climate action plan. On the emergency preparedness side of things, there have been several new policies we have added to better address the comments that you all and other officials and members of the public have raised regarding this topic. You can see the issues covered by those policies and strategies here. There are also a few places where we felt it was more appropriate simply to revise an existing policy to better address the comment that we've received. So you will see on these slides a couple places where we have indicated revise, and that simply means that we have adjusted something that was already in the draft element. There were quite a few on that topic. Some of the other topics, the revisions have been a little more limited on regional coordination, on hazardous materials, and on public safety. There were generally only a handful of policy revisions or new policies or strategies that we felt were necessary to best respond to the council and to other official and public comments. There were a few more on the fire safety side of things, primarily related to development standards. As you can see, a mix of both new policies and strategies and revisions to existing ones. With the city's climate action plan, there have been several things added to the health and safety element or revised as well. I should point out that for most of these policies and strategies, the ones that are indicated new are only new for the health and safety element. They are largely to be in alignment with the policies and strategies that are already in the city's adopted climate action plan. So these are not necessarily new policies for the city. They're simply new in the general plan. And that means that we are more effectively syncing up with the city's adopted climate action plan. And then there have also been a handful of new and revised policies and strategies on noise as well in response to those comments. So with that, we can discuss the next steps. As you heard, there are a handful of state agencies that by law must be allowed to review and provide comments if they desire on the health and safety element. I would say that the most stringent review is likely to come from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as CAL FIRE and the Board of Forestry. They have a mandatory 120 day review period prior to the city council taking any action on adopting the health and safety element update. Concurrent with that CAL FIRE review, we will also be conducting statutorily required reviews with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and with the California Geological Survey. These are all opportunities for these agencies to review the draft element and to provide comments, but these agencies do not formally approve or certify the health and safety element. It is not like, for example, the housing element. WHERE HPD HAS A FORMAL REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO SEE THE DRAFT ELEMENT AND TO PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE STATE AGENCY REVIEW, THERE WILL ALSO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. And after the review process we'll be bringing the health and safety element back to the city for public hearings with the Planning Commission and then back with the City Council and we are currently expecting those hearings to be in the fall of this year. So that concludes our presentation this evening. Staff's recommendation to you all to receive the presentation, to provide input on the public draft health and safety element, and to direct staff to begin the consultation and review process with the required state agencies. So thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Eli, for the presentation. Do we have at this time any clarifying questions from the council prior to public comments? Council Member Fruin.

Just really quickly, you noted that the update of the housing element triggers an update of the health and safety element. We are currently in the process of amending the housing element for additional sites. So will we have to do additional amendment of the health and safety element after that process concludes?

I do not believe you'll be required to do that. The state law requires that the health and safety element be reviewed at least once every eight years upon updates to the housing element or the local hazard mitigation plan. So if the health and safety element remains very current and up to date when those other documents are updated, there shouldn't be a need to make revisions. Okay, thanks.

Vice Mayor? Hello. Hi. Thank you for the presentation. So you mentioned the countywide multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan. I don't believe that's included in the agenda packet. Could you give us a little more detail and maybe share that plan with us later?

Yes. It is not in the agenda packet. There is a link to it in the health and safety element itself. It is certainly available on the county's website and potentially the city's. Very briefly, it is a detailed five-year plan that the county does in coordination with all of the incorporated communities, and it identifies short-term actions for the county and local governments to take to better protect against natural hazards.

So what kind of hazard is included?

It's looking at many of the similar hazards that are in the health and safety element, wildfire, floods, droughts, severe weather, earthquakes, very, very similar topics.

So just curious, we have state requirement and then what would the multi-jurisdiction plan do that in addition that would require multi-jurisdiction coordination?

It allows the cities and the counties to better sync up with what the state does. The state has their own hazard mitigation plan. They're directed to do so by the federal government. So having a city and a county one just better aligns with the state's efforts. There are also some increased funding opportunities that become available from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. so having an up-to-date hazard mitigation plan makes the city and the county more eligible for that increased funding and it's also just good good planning practice to have a county-wide safety plan to address these hazards

I guess, for example, we have found some hazard material from the dry cleaners in some of the city sites, and then initially the developer would like to mitigate it themselves, monitor themselves, but then we got have the county agency got involved so would this kind of process be more um an easier for would that be part of the multi-jurisdiction plan so it's more standardized still later so um I think the local the multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan doesn't necessarily cover soils mitigation it covers hazards that are natural hazards or

other items that, events that might occur, and what the city's response and the county's response would be to that.

Oh, so like earthquake?

Like an earthquake, like a solar flare, like an extreme heat event, things like that. But the soils mitigation, which is environmental cleanup stuff, that is not necessarily covered under that.

I see, so not collusion, the hazard does not include it.

Right, that is my understanding, correct.

Okay, thank you.

So I just have kind of a basic question here regarding the red lines that we see in the agenda packet. Can you explain what those are with regards to the health and safety element that we were shown in May?

So the draft health and safety element that was presented in may had red lines in them and the packet that is that has been provided tonight includes yellow highlights for the additional changes that were made since.

Okay, and is that mentioned in the staff report about the yellow highlights? I believe so. Because I missed that part, but that's really important to catch that. Okay. It's at the top of page three, I think. Okay. So I'm not, well, Vice Mayor, your hand is still raised? Okay. Are there any further questions from the council before we go out for public comment? Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Mayor, at this time, I don't see any requests here in person in community hall. I do have one hand raised virtually. OK. So at this time, we will go ahead and welcome Jennifer Griffin.

Can you all hear me OK? We can hear you. Good. Thank you. Welcome. Glad that everyone is talking about this. I'll tell you, I attended, I've been hearing about this update, went to the meetings, and I'm very, very pleased that everyone is taking this very, very responsibly. I will tell you that I have heard a lot of extremely tight, I'm sorry, trite responses about CEQA. Some of the housing bills, some people, not Cupertino, but other comments. And I don't think people understand how important environmental concerns, safety concerns, fire, evacuations, et cetera, are, especially in California. With the two large earthquakes in Venezuela recently, I have a girlfriend who is from Chile and she said she went through a 9.5 earthquake in 1960 as a 10 year old. So you can understand, and that had tsunamis. And there was a 3.7 and a 2.6 in St. Helena an hour ago. I have a stepsister up there. So yes, these are things that happen repeatedly in California, but people who oftentimes are not from the area don't have a good grip on what it is to live in California. So I am very, very pleased that the staff and everyone has taken these updates extremely responsibly, especially with the type of dynamic things that are going on in the state. I'm very pleased to see that everyone is taking a very, very realistic approach and having a multifaceted, multijurisdictional response to fire, environmental issues, landslides, bad storms, contamination issues, water problems, and earthquakes, et cetera, is very, very hopeful. And I'm hoping that as we proceed forward, that we keep this in mind and act rationally, because I have seen a lot of, I'll just call it hysteria about various things. trying to get back to basics and try to deal with things as they occur set up potential emergency responses making sure that if you know that schools businesses the city fire department emergency services are all in this together because anything can happen at any time and i hope that in the future if we do have um things happen that we're not you know that we're of course that we are prepared for them so thank you very much

Mayor, there are no more requests to speak virtually, so that concludes the request to speak on this item.

All right, thank you very much. Looking at page 64 of the report, the evacuation route assessment requirement, with this change, for instance, the review of the Linda Vista project in the future, and it says require new subdivisions or developments of five or more lots, or units to prepare and to submit to the city for review and evacuation route assessment if they are located in at least one of these areas. An area with evacuation constraints as shown in figure HS3, evacuation constrained residential areas, a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, which that it would qualify for, and an area with a slope of 30% or more. I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT.

THE POLICY CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT IF ANOTHER PROJECT WERE TO BE PROPOSED, THEN YES, IT WOULD APPLY. ONCE THE CITY ADOPTS THIS ELEMENT.

OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE ANY, COUNCILMEMBER WONG?

I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO APPLY SOMETHING RETROACTIVELY BEFORE SOMETHING IS BUILT?

That would be in state law under SB 330. The city can only apply policies, guidelines, regulations that are in effect when a project applies for either their SB 330 preliminary application or their complete formal application.

Okay, so the state has destined these people to a fire sentence. Okay, good to know. Thank you.

Do I have any further questions or do I have a motion on this? Actually, what are we looking for? Receive the presentation and provide input. I suppose we could do a straw poll. Do I hear any further revisions which members of the council would like to make at this time? Suggestions on those? Council Member Fruin, followed by Council Member Mohan, followed by the Vice Mayor.

I don't have any additions that I'm proposing at present. I did want to thank staff, though. The documents that are part of the packet are extremely comprehensive. It's really easy to find where a policy has been altered in response to either a public suggestion or something that one of us made or something that a planning commissioner made. I think it makes it really easy to track how you've altered things. It's very helpful. Thank you.

Just really quick, with regards to law enforcement response times, ensure that law enforcement emergency response times consistently meet the standards of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department. May we have a copy of what those standards are? That could come as an informational memo to the council. I think that that would help. All right, next is Councilmember Mohan.

I had a question about the city facilities retrofit. Is that new? I can't find it right here in this document, but it stated that there was nothing new to add. And I wasn't sure what that meant. Was it already in the health and safety element? Yes, there was already a policy in the health and safety element related to the... Oh, because I think the word that confused me was it's not required and required in quotes.

That was... Yeah, so we basically amended an existing policy to address the comment.

Okay, but it is required, right? That the city facilities be seismically

I will have to look to you lie about that in general I think it is good policy to have a facility that is that can respond to the residents needs in the event of an emergency so that the city is prepared to provide the services that residents need and so there was an existing policy in the health and safety element that was amended to specifically also address the comment that was made.

OK so it is required.

Yes, in the draft it is required, correct.

If I could, one question about the evacuation routes. The last time this discussion came up relative to development, there was some uncertainty about where these evacuation routes are. Do we have evacuation routes for every neighborhood, or is that something that we are proposing to have? because I don't know in my neighborhood if we have one, and I've lived in the same neighborhood for years.

My understanding is that the Office of Emergency Services works with the Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department to identify the emergency access routes, and that there are maps that are on the emergency services side of things that identify the emergency routes. But with this updated draft, we do have a policy in here so that we can make those emergency access routes also available on our GIS system. So there will be some more updates to the city's mapping systems on our end to make sure that everything's available to everyone.

Okay, that's really good to hear because I did look at the map in this document and it was very, the evacuation routes leading to the freeways was very clearly marked but not so the sort of neighborhood routes.

Right, and because emergencies are not necessarily defined in terms of where those emergencies are, those routes could have to be moved based on the best available information at the time that the sheriff's department or the fire department have, and which is why they direct people to pay specific attention to, I believe it's called Genesis Protect, is the system that they use, and that's what they essentially use to get the information out to people. I think the messaging really is follow all directions that you get from the departments or the agency that'll be assisting residents in getting out in a safe manner.

So when the emergency happens, not before?

Because you don't know where the emergency is. Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Um, so, um, sorry, did I share the, let me re-share, I think I shared the entire screen. Where is this, stop share. Okay, here. First I'd like to point out some of the things that's included in this draft and then I have a question. So I see here that you have included for new development there will be standard for interior noise standards and post-construction monitoring. so thank you for that and then i see that there is a new policy on freeway sound walls because we have some neighborhood that the sound world is not continuous so we will support the evaluation installation of that i'm sorry jump the and then uh freeway sound wall sponsorship policy and then we will have a noise impact analysis from this freeway some sound wall And then I see in here we have a new policy on the leaf blower noise. But then I have a question about the truck noise. It seems we already have a policy on reduction of noise from trucking operation. And then that already says that we should carry out noise mitigation measures and include a regulation thing of truck speed, volume of truck activity and trucking activity. And so my question is what have we done in this area since this policy is already in the general plan?

I'm not sure I have the specifics of what the city has done. We'd have to discuss that with the Public Works Department as well and with...

So supposedly this should be in the annual progress report?

I'll have to find out more about that, I'm not familiar with that.

Okay, yeah, it's good to know we have this policy, but I'm curious, how is our progress in implementing it?

I do know there are regular meetings between staff community development public works and the county on this issue. So we are in touch we have coordinated when there have been noise complaints. I think one of the 2 quarries has been more problematic than the other because it predates even use permit restrictions so that has created a good. even for the county to be able to enforce the noise. But we do have regular standing meetings with county staff on this issue.

Thank you. And the policy does talk about carry out noise mitigation measures. So I'm curious what noise mitigation measures have been considered in the past. Are they working or not? You can get back to us later. Another question is regarding the street signage. it talks about signage for the quarry related trucks and i'm just curious this says consider where weather restrictions on movement of trucks such Stevens Creek and Foothill Boulevard can be implemented and install signage to help enforce adopted regulation. So we are saying consider whether restrictions on the movement. Is it because we are not sure at this point we can restrict the movement?

Right, because as Luke mentioned, the use permit predates use permit requirements for quarries. So to that extent, whether we can enforce conditions or any restrict movement of the trucks to the quarries. So I believe one, I think Stevens Creek Boulevard is also a state route of some sort, and I'm not 100% what kind of route it is. So the city might have limitations on what the city can do to restrict movement of the truck. So we have to find out more. This policy will give the city the ability to go ahead and possibly review what options we have and adopt those as municipal code regulations. And once, I believe there is, Title 11 is what, you know,

implements any regulations that we can implement on the streets once we update title chapters certain chapters in title 11 then those signs can be installed and enforced essentially yeah i'm i think there is there appears to be dispute on whether the use permit for mining is um since they don't mind they don't they have stopped mining in but now they have a new operation that does not predate the use permit. So there is a dispute on whether that use permit from the old days still apply. So maybe that's something we can talk with the county about. So another policy is 8.8. I think that's our policy. already, it's a new policy, but it was already in the last versions. But I thought it's good to point out that this talks about noise generating uses, including public and private recreational uses at adjacent to residential area. So I think this is a good policy that we should include. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing up the rock crushing. I would want to somehow have it added in to review the vested rights of Lehigh, or Heidelberg materials for the rock crushing that they've been conducting there because they apparently had a 10 year lapse where they were not conducting that and now they have allegedly given those rights over to Vulcan materials and they brought in temporary rock crushing material equipment so it's being done outdoors and I'd like to know if that is something that can be regulated whether or not Volcan Materials is allowed to be conducting their commercial activity at that location because they are selling off the crushed rock to other companies, like I believe Star Concrete, and those trucks will drive up and then purchase from that location. It seems almost like they're running a commercial operation. Now it's not simply that they're crushing rock, it's that they're having purchasers come up very early in the morning. So I'm not sure quite how to get that Into into this reduction of noise from trucking operations item the policy HS 8.7 but I do think it needs to be addressed and that as a single council member that I Would need the support of the other council members in order to direct our city attorney to be looking into this because it will take a considerable amount of time I would assume in order to look into that. So, with working with the county, I think this is an important question to get answered. Did they lose their vested rights when they didn't operate for 10 years? So, that I would like to see looked into. Going back to the sound wall requirements, HS 8.2.3, I would like to see, I'm wondering if that applies to other nuisance noise, such as sports courts. Because it says exercise discretion in requiring sound walls. So what is the definition of a sound wall? I would think that having sound attenuating materials could perhaps fall into that definition. So I think that this area, the noise element, should... should address that. What's the definition of a sound wall? And what it's saying is to exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other measures of noise control have been explored before permitting or installation of a sound wall. And that if the installation is permitted, ensure the sound wall is architecturally enhanced with veneer or other decorative cladding. Maintained at the expense of the sponsors of the sound wall so some of this if if the definition of a sound wall fits with us with a sports Noise nuisance some of this other language here is too prescriptive and

If I may this really applies to private development this particular policy is not necessarily pertain to freeway sound walls or other sound walls that could be utilized for other purposes such as public.

Okay, so is there anything in this policy section that would apply to nuisance noise from, we'll just make up a new game that's going to come to Cupertino and create a lot of noise?

No, no, this is meant for development, for private development.

Okay, so how would we address a change of use within the city on city property?

That would be up to the, that's at the city council's discretion for design or any of those other things. So that doesn't necessarily apply. This policy does not apply to that requirement.

Okay, vice mayor? Yeah.

So first I'd like to point out some other good policy, new policy introduced. So this policy enhance for new residential, non-residential multifamily, we would require enhance the shading. I think that's really important given the weather we have that would provide cooling and shading features. and then enhance the shading for the existing non-residential and multi-family development. Especially given 1572, that I think there will be requirement to not use potable water for turf material, but maybe communities can consider adding more trees instead. But I do have a question about, I'm not sure if it's applicable to here, but I need to share again. Okay, here. So I've been wondering, and I hope that we, I don't like to see more concrete Pavement for parking lots. So this is a kind of parking lots. I've seen that in in China in Taiwan so turf the parking lot or driveways So if we would like to encourage more of this green livable on permeable driveway or parking lot is this appropriate place or we could there are other venue for um because i see shading is part of the this element so that reminds me maybe this could be a health element

So we're actually ahead of the game on this one because we do have these kinds of parking lots at Blackberry Farm. So we do do the grasscrete pavers at Blackberry Farm in the parking lot. But with that said, I would think that this would probably be a little bit better suited for water conservation and the environmental sustainability of it. I think there might even be policies in there to that effect. for permeability, for increased permeability in development and parking lots.

Yeah, maybe for new development, they can consider also install things to collect rainwater with this kind of parking lot, rather than a large.

We'll look into seeing what's there and how we can maybe possibly tie it into this element as well. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for sharing those images. One concern that I would have here in California is that we don't get enough adequate natural rainfall in order to have them look as tidy and green as they're showing up in those photos, and there has been kind of a struggle at Blackberry Farm to keep that area really looking sharp, and it does need some renovation at this time, including adding more trees. I am curious about this policy HS 8.8, noise generating uses. and what it's considered applicable to. So prior to approving noise generating uses, including public or private recreational uses, so that to me covers the sports areas, parks.

Even if it's on your private property, if it's a use that is noise generating, we already do regulate that through our noise control ordinance. So this just kind of covers that, covers all the regulations that we have in the ordinance already.

So before it gets approved... ensure the proposed noise generating use includes adequate noise mitigation measures including but not limited to posted rules and regulations which limit hours of operation to meet the city's adopted noise standards so this was um i do see this as a red line and it's not redlined and highlighted so it was already there it was there okay But in the prior edition, the prior version of the health and safety element, we didn't have this in there.

No, we just went ahead and implemented our noise ordinance. We just didn't have this policy in the general plan.

Okay, but this sits pretty much within the municipal code, which how much noise can be generated. Correct. All right. Vice Mayor, your hand is still up.

I just want to clarify about the turf, the parking area. I think the idea is it doesn't have to be green all year. So in the winter, it could be brown. And then in the summer, some areas it could be green. And I've seen areas where you even have this low growing pollinating flowering plants some part of the year so it's just it's i think even it doesn't it's not green all the year round it looks better than on pavement yeah so just something to consider thank you

City Manager? Mayor, yes, just I wanted to confirm and provide a little bit of feedback here on the Stevens Creek Quarry and Lehigh noise issue. I wanted to make sure that council was aware that this is currently a TBD item that's also on consent. So it's item 14 on the TBDs, the study session on Stevens Creek Quarry and Lehigh noise concerns and outdoor rock crushing plant operated by Vulcan Materials. So that's currently on the TBD.

Okay, great. Are there any further comments from the council at this time? So we've submitted our comments, and the Lehigh rock crushing has been addressed, and no further hands raised. Thank you so much for the report, Eli and Pew, and we look forward to you coming back after you've had the reviews from the outside agencies. One quick question, who actually conducts the environmental review?

Placeworks will prepare, we will work with the city to prepare the necessary environmental documents and then coordinate with city staff on appropriate revisions.

Okay, and so will that be coming to the council? It'll be presented to council, yes. Okay, all right. Thank you so much. And with that, this special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is adjourned.

so so

do

do do do Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

you

. . . you

Testing.

Meaning?

If everyone can take your seats, the mayor's gonna start the meeting.

Good evening, it is 6.46 and I call this July 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Freund.

Here.

Council Member Mohan. Here. Council Member Wong.

Here.

Vice Mayor Chau.

Here. Mayor Moore? Here. Madam City Attorney, do we have any closed session reports?

Good evening, Mayor. There was no closed session. We have no closed session report. Thank you.

All right. This evening we have three ceremonial items, and our first is the recognition of the Parks and Recreation Department, administration, community events, facilities, youth and teen recreation, outdoor recreation, senior wellness and recreation, sports, fitness, and recreation divisions in conjunction with July as Parks and Recreation Month. Our Parks and Recreation Department works tirelessly to provide vital, healthy, and fun activities for our entire community. They do this beautifully while constantly balancing a sea of competing interests from every direction. We are incredibly proud of Director Rachelle Sander and her exceptional team. We saw their brilliance firsthand during our recent fabulous 4th of July America 250 celebration. We had terrific crowds enjoy flawless all-day events. A massive undertaking like this takes months of intense preparation. When it happens seamlessly, you know it is run by true professionals coordinating interdepartmentally. Our deepest gratitude goes to the Parks and Recreation Department, our support staff from other departments, first responders, and the army of volunteers who showed up en masse. Thank you for your seamless coordination and dedication to our city. Since July is Parks and Recreation Month, here are some of the free activities that we have going on through our Parks and Rec Department. Please head out for the free concert series at Memorial Park every Thursday evening with an excellent variety of pop, R&B, classical, salsa, and other music continuing well into August. The Environmental Education Center has free open houses for nature education Saturday, July 11th, 18th, and 25th. The fun, locally unique, and very affordable Cupertino Camp Out is July 18th and 19th. There's a free blacksmith demo and Shakespeare in the Park free shows. July 25th and Shakespeare in the Park continues with free shows on the 26th and well into August when Movies in the Park returns with Goat, A Bug's Life, Freakier Friday, and Superman. That's not including all of the parks, sports center, fitness and recreation classes that are provided year round. With much gratitude, please join me in recognizing Director Sander and the entire Parks and Recreation team. Now we'll have some words from our City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. Well said. As we recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month, I'd also like to thank our Parks and Rec staff for their dedication to serving the Cupertino community year-round. In addition to everything that the Mayor already said, I will sum it up by saying that our Parks and Rec Department offers more than 3,000 classes and events each year to the community, creating a positive, healthy, and connected community for our residents. i especially want to recognize everyone in the department who worked over the fourth of july this past weekend that would be close to if not the entire department making the flag raising parade concert and fireworks celebration such a huge success thank you also to council for recognizing these efforts thanks again to parks and rec's team for their hard work and commitment to our community i will now ask director sander and park staff in attendance to please come up to the stage to accept this honor and take a photo with council

Okay, so if you're within these lines, I can see you. There's a line there somewhere too.

Okay, no, I don't want to. I'm gonna take a few pictures. Three, two, one. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have the privilege of recognizing the Monta Vista High School Science Olympiad team for achieving first place in the National Science Olympiad competition. Please join me in congratulating the brilliant, unstoppable Monta Vista High School Science Olympiad team, the newly crowned national champions. Okay, hold on. To the students seated with us today, you didn't just win a trophy, you proved what is possible when brilliant minds refuse to back down. We know the road to the University of Southern California wasn't easy. We know about the fierce rivalries. And yes, the entire city heard about the legendary camp out in classroom B102 where you practically moved into your school for two weeks straight to perfect your build events, study your data, and sharpen your skills. That relentless work ethic is exactly why you're seated here today as the absolute best in the nation. Out of thousands of schools across the United States, Cupertino's own Monta Vista brought home the gold. You have made your families proud, your school proud, and you have put our entire city in the national spotlight. As we present these certificates of recognition, we're honoring more than just a first place finish. We are honoring your late nights, your resilience, your teamwork, and the bright futures ahead of each and every one of you. You are the future innovators, scientists, and leaders who will shape our world. So without further ado, Madam City Manager, would you like to add some words?

I think, Mayor, you covered it, and I would just like to say that we're so proud of all of you for achieving what you have. And congratulations to the students and your families, because this is definitely teamwork. And with that, I would love to join the Mayor in recognizing you. Thank you.

Please join us on the dais to receive your well-deserved recognition.

Thank you.

Could we please move in here so you see the tape on the carpet?

Could we please gather around? Or we might have to come around.

Let's rotate. Are we left side? Yes, perfect, thank you so much.

Yes, okay guys, thanks so much. I'm gonna take some pictures. Three, two, one. And then I'm gonna try group. I'm gonna try group. Congratulations.

Oh, that was sweet.

All right. Thank you, everyone. So last but not least is item three, recognition of Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad team for their performance on the National Science Olympiad competition. It's an absolute honor to be here today to celebrate the brilliant minds of Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad team. This year, you went up against the absolute best young scientific minds in the entire country. You brought home an incredible fourth place finish at the national tournament. Let's think about that for a moment. Out of thousands of schools across the nation, our own Kennedy Middle School is in the top four. You also dominated at home, capturing first place at both the regionals and the Northern California State Tournament. You have proven that Cupertino is a powerhouse of talent, curiosity, and hard work. Just a moment ago, I had the privilege of honoring the high school team for Monta Vista for their incredible first place national finish. Looking at all of you today, we see the exact same spark, the exact same dedication. I know without a doubt where the future champions of that high school division are sitting right now. They're sitting right here in these seats. Congratulations to our competitors, your coaches, and your families. Cupertino is so proud of you. Keep reaching for the stars. Madam City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. I would also like to commend the students and families for their hard work and this well-earned recognition. Thank you for representing Cupertino. We are proud of you and congratulations.

Please join us on the dais.

Kennedy Pre-Grade School.

One more picture.

Thank you all. To our award recipients, you are certainly welcome to attend the entire council meeting, but if you would like to head out and get some dinner perhaps, we can take a five minute break and let you go do just that.

Five minute break.

Why not stay here?

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. So we have reconvened. Next, it is postponements and orders of the day. Madam City Clerk, do we have any postponements or requests to change the orders of the day?

We have no requests at this time, Mayor. Right. Thank you.

Then we next move on to oral communications. Madam City Clerk, how many speaker cards do we have?

Mayor, at this time I am seeing four requests to speak here in Community Hall for oral communications and currently one hand raised virtually.

All right. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Will you please provide the instructions for members of the public and conduct oral communications?

Certainly. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the council and not on the agenda for discussion. Oral communication shall be limited to 30 minutes. Additional speakers wishing to comment on non-agenda items may be given time to speak at the end of the agenda after the city manager's report. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes. As necessary, the mayor may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first-come, first-served basis with priority given to students. In most cases, state law will prohibit the council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A council member may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A council member may ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future agenda in response to public comment. So at this time, we will welcome the request to speak here in Community Hall. So we welcome Richard Adler, followed by Charlene Lee, followed by Brady, followed by Linda Starkey. Welcome, Richard.

Good evening. Is that working now? Good. Good evening. My name is Richard Adler, and I've been a resident of the Oak Valley neighborhood of Cupertino for the past 26 years. I'm here this evening with several of my neighbors who are just here to represent it. Becky Priel and Linda Starkey. We're all residents of Oak Valley, and we're here to express our interest in what is going to happen to the Maryknoll Residence property on Cristo Rey Drive, which has just been purchased by a new owner. This building, these buildings were opened in 1926, exactly 100 years ago. They originally served as a seminary for students who were preparing to become priests in the Maryknoll Order, who were dedicated to doing missionary work in places like Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And then in the mid-1970s, the seminary was converted into a residence for retired Maryknoll brothers, and it was that until last year. Over this past hundred years, this complex has played an important role in the spiritual and social life of our community. Also, the buildings themselves are historically significant. One description states, the building is a notable architectural landmark, easily visible from Highway 280, which means that people who really have never visited it or are probably not residents of Cupertino are aware of its presence, mainly because of its distinctive architecture, particularly its Chinese-influenced tower and roof, which was inspired by the first marinal mission to China in 1918. As you probably know, the residence was closed last year as the number of older residents declined, and the property was put on the market. And you may have seen the news that the property has now been sold. The reports do not yet provide any information about what the new owner, however, intends to do with this property. We understand that this 29-acre parcel on Cristo Rey, which has been on unincorporated county land, will be annexed, if it is to be developed, to the city of Cupertino, which means that ultimately the responsibility for reviewing and approving any development plans is going to come to you. will be your responsibility. And we just want to say tonight, as neighbors, that we are very interested in what will happen to this property. In particular, we're concerned that the architectural integrity of these historically significant buildings will be maintained and protected. We are looking forward to learning more about what's in store for this Maryknoll property. And just to let you know, we intend to stay actively involved in following its story as it comes to your attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. Next, we will welcome Charlene Lee, followed by Becky, followed by Linda. Welcome, Charlene.

We have written to President Trump for many letters, and I talked to the president, John, of Lutheran Church, of several, and everyone know high school student, Lai Yu-ming, that $500 million high schooler be injected poison to death. But shameless Google CEO Sanda Pichai conspired with Google employee to lie he fall 10 floor to death. They hire at a straight time to lie grandpa die on late April. But he said April 27 is his death day of grandpa. But judge say April 23. And Taipei Times say March 2023. So this high school photo can be found at RottenMangoPodcast.com episode 392. This high school student didn't fall 10 floors to death. Sanda Pichai is a liar, killer, and criminal. That time we talk on June 2nd, election day, and Sanda Pichai said that day is a dark day and no regular Cupertino City Council meeting. This high school owns 30 properties. on January 5, 2023. His grandpa died on April 27, 2023. Six days later, he was killed. He was injected with poison to death, and his neck was strangled up. But Thunder Peter did it all, too. made by Taiwanese channel, TV channel with Taiwanese wisdom. And here is a high school student. We want all people to know this, we cannot celebrate 250 year of America because America support this kind of murder in a murder cover up in Taiwan. How come Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, they support this kind of murder? The killer, he married same sex. Thank you, Charlene. That is your time.

Thank you, Charlene. As a reminder to members of the public wishing to speak under oral communications to submit a requested speak card or raise your hand virtually within the next two minutes and 45 seconds. Next, we will go ahead and welcome Becky followed by Linda. Welcome, Becky.

We're just here to support Richard Adler and Barry Knowles.

Okay, so Becky and Linda, you do not wish to speak under this item? Okay. Perfect, so Mayor that can. Thank you Charlene, Charlene that is your time. Charlene that is your time. Mayor we will move to the request to speak virtually.

I'm sorry Ms. Lee you're disrupting the meeting. ms lee you are disturbing the meeting

Madam City Clerk. Thank you, Mayor. So we will move to the request to speak virtually under oral communications. We have three hands raised. We will first welcome call-in user two, followed by Peggy Griffin, followed by call-in user one. Welcome call-in user two. Call-in user two, you are muted.

Yes.

Hello. Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chen, council members, and also residents, guests. And this represents the, we believe to be the longest continuous prosecution, prosecution after achieved a severe, extreme city prosecution. and taking our property and belongings. The action continued. Rather than ending, they expanded into ongoing deprivation of our rights, causing escalating harm over the time, not just extensive in relation to the financial loss. The duration and the persecution of this treatment are, in many people's view, historically unprecedented. And during all those years, first that was 2016, then 2019, and 2021, despite numerous requests over an extended period, we have received no response from the city manager or city attorney for the last couple of years. And even after these matters were brought to the attention and the forward through the public channels, this continued failure to respond. And regarding this, basically, it raises serious concern regarding the accountability in the public service. If they are willing to remember to perform their duties and address issues, and we request the managing attorney's resignation so that competent leadership may properly serve the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will move to Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Jennifer.

Thank you. Can you all hear me okay? We can hear you. Thank you. I'm glad that the previous residents of Oak Valley, excuse me, still getting over this cold. I'm so glad that the residents of Oak Valley brought up the issues of Maryknoll. I have been looking at that beautiful building since I was a child. Every time, especially then after 280 was put in, we had a better view of it whenever you're going up and down, north or south. I have known various people over the years that have worked there. My brother was considering becoming a youth pastor when he was younger, and he had a church friend who actually worked in the cafeteria there and learned how to become a chef. So the building, as the residents of Oak Valley said, is very, very unique to the area. It's sort of an iconic type of a building. It is beautiful. It has a history. It has something that we need to pay attention to. This type of history shows how far ranging an area such as 1918 extremely rural santa clara county which was basically that area had cattle grazing on it it had a history of a spanish land grant and then it um it never had the apricot orchards but it was in the area there are lots of farming areas up there. We have eucalyptus, et cetera. But yet it was set up for that time and place to become something that was so far reaching going to other parts of the world, for good or bad. But it is an iconic, beautiful building, which I do hope, I had read about the purchase of the property, and I am really, really hopeful that it is going to go into a transition where the existing buildings can be used and maintained and revered for the beautiful, iconic architecture that they are. The building does need to be maintained in an ongoing, because it's an older structure. But I'm very, very hopeful that no one is going to go in there and bulldoze it and that it will be protected by the county. And if it comes in, if it, I believe it is, I think the water tanks up there are actually in the county, but if it is annexed to Cupertino, Cupertino will be able to preserve it as a intact historical architectural building. I will tell you last week, I spent four days in Williamsburg in Virginia, right before the 250. And that area is maintained. I'm hoping Cupertino can save and maintain this building. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Mayor, call-in user one dropped off. So that concludes the request to speak under oral communications.

All right. Thank you very much for that. I would like to have an informational memo regarding the Maryknoll Seminary and the information that we heard from members of the public. I DID A QUICK SEARCH AND I DID FIND A HISTORICAL AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY FROM 1981 REGARDING THE BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES IT CONSIDERED A HISTORICAL LANDMARK OR SINCE IT IS APPARENTLY IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, WHAT WOULD BE THE STEPS TO HAVE IT DESIGNATED AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK? DOES IT QUALIFY? Looking at the HABS building survey of 1981, I would say it seems to. But I'd like to hear some more information about that and what you know about any future annexation that would happen. And do I need a second for that? No, okay. Okay, so we've finished oral communications. Next, we are moving on to the consent calendar, items four through 11. Madam City Clerk, do we have any requests to pull any of the items?

I believe there is a request to pull an item.

Okay, Vice Mayor?

Yeah, I'd like to pull the item, I think item four about the purchase of the Finch property because it's beyond our adopted budget, so I think it deserves to be.

At this point, maybe the Mayor needs to speak?

Okay, if you're pulling this item, I'll be stepping away from the dais and out of community hall for this first item, item four, I own a home that's approximately 530 feet from the real estate, from the real estate being considered under the item, the Finch item, However, I do want to say there are four houses in a school between my home and the property, meaning that I would have to travel over 1,500 feet to actually access the property. Regardless, I sought FPPC formal guidance, and the State's Fair Political Practices Commission indicated this creates a financial conflict of interest for me, which prevents me from voting on the item and requires that I am absent during discussion. I have recused on this matter in the past and will continue to do so. The Vice Mayor will chair the meeting in my absence. When the item is complete, the clerk will let and I will return to the dais at that time for the balance of the consent calendar and the rest of tonight's agenda.

Wait, Mayor, I believe we will first vote on, because when we pull the item, we don't need a vote, but the item will be at the end of the agenda, and so I'm hoping to consider it right after consent, which would require a vote. So maybe you'll recuse for only that vote, then we will approve the rest of the consent item first. Then we will consider the item.

During the time that you're considering the order of the balance of the agenda and where the bench item lies in that order, the mayor should not be present in the room. And then when we get to actually the merits of that item, the mayor again should recuse and not be present in the room. So... since at this moment we're not going to be voting on the order of the main calendar i believe it is appropriate for the mayor to remain with and we just will not be voting now on the consent calendar and because i mean on the finch item included in the consent calendar because it has been pulled

So, Madam City Attorney, are we then moving through to items five through 11? Okay, so are any of these items five through 11, have they been pulled from consent?

No, Mayor.

All right, and are there any members of the public who would like to speak to items five through 11?

Not for five over 11.

Okay. Do any members of the council wish to speak to items 5 through 11? Or do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar items 5 through 11? Yes?

I apologize. I have one request. I have one hand virtually. I'm guessing this is for 5 through 11. all right yes sorry apologies to public comment no worries um so uh jennifer griffin we will welcome you if you plan to speak on any of the consent items five through eleven welcome um as usual i'm confused about how we're doing this is like seven years so do we speak okay i understand five through seven are being voted on now now for four do we talk about that later after the rest of the other that's that's correct jennifer um right now we have public comment for um items 5 through 11 on the consent calendar and then when the council gets to item number four on the consent calendar they uh the council will reopen um for public comments under that item

Will that be after the rest of the body of the rest of the meeting, or do you do it now?

They're going to vote on the order of the rest of the agenda after this public comment period and after they vote on the consent items 5 through 11.

Okay, and then when are they doing 4?

They're gonna we don't know yet.

They have to complete this. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize to be so dumb about this. But I you're not. I just can't get this. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Yes, this was a little bit more complicated than than ordinary. So we have items five through 11. Do I have a motion to move consent items?

I'd like to make a motion to move consent items number five through 11. Please.

And do I have a second? Second. A second from Council Member Fruin. Do we have any comments? If you don't want to speak right now, please lower your hand. Council Member Mohan? No. Okay. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the vote panels and we will vote.

No, sorry, I pressed the wrong button.

Can you reset the vote panels please, Madam City Clerk? So we're ready to vote now?

Yes, now you're ready to vote. All right, thank you.

Thank you, and I apologize.

No worries. The motion carries unanimously.

Okay. So there was an item that was pulled from consent, and there was an interest in voting on the order of that item. And at this time, I'm... GOING TO GO THROUGH THE RECUSAL PARAGRAPH AGAIN. SO AS WE MOVE ON TO CONSENT ITEM 4, I'LL BE STEPPING AWAY FROM THE DIAS OUT OF COMMUNITY HALL FOR THIS ITEM. I OWN A HOME APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET FROM THE REAL ESTATE BEING CONSIDERED UNDER THE ITEM. AND I'M GOING TO ABBREVIATE THIS. REGARDLESS, I SAW FPPC FORMAL and the state's Fair Political Practices Commission indicated that this creates a financial conflict of interest for me which prevents me from voting on the item and requires that I'm absent during discussion. I've recused on this matter a number of times now and I will continue to do so. Vice Mayor will chair the meeting in my absence. When the item is complete, the clerk will let me know and I'll return to the dais at that time for the balance of the consent calendar and the rest of tonight's agenda.

Okay. So I pull the item because in principle I have... Oh, okay. Let's wait until she leaves the building.

I can't discuss it yet.

Because in principle, I have thought that any major bar palace, any major budget item that's beyond the adopted city budget should not be on consent so that we have a full discussion about it. And this... and then according to the council procedures menu, any item pulled will be considered at the end of the meeting, but I hope to get a vote, so we consider this item right now.

Can I make a motion to have this item before item number 12?

Yeah.

Second.

Okay, so let's vote.

I apologize because Mayor Moore is not on the dais, so we're going to scratch that and we're going to do a voice vote. Apologies. Council Member Fruin?

Aye.

Council Member Mohan? Aye. Council Member Wong?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau? Aye. Motion carries with Moore recused.

Okay, so now we can consider the item four, which is approval of the exchange agreement for 10-480 Finch Avenue, so-called the Finch property, right next to the Cupertino High, and allocation of $10.4 million for acquisition of the Finch property, and find the action to qualify for categorical exemption for CEQA review. Do we have a staff short report?

I'll provide the short report, Vice Mayor. So in July of this year, the council voted to have the city manager and I negotiate terms for a potential purchase of the Finch property with the CUSD. and we were able to come to a potential agreement at the price of $10.4 million, and we have worked with CUSD folks to get an exchange agreement drafted up that both parties have preliminarily, staff for the city has approved, and CUSD has also approved the document. And so at this time, it's really up to the council to decide whether they would like to move forward with the purchase of that property.

Okay. So thank you for the report. Any question about this before we go to public comment?

No.

So I do have a question about the funding for the $10.4 million. So which fund does that come from?

That's called the Parkland Dedication Fund.

And what's the source of this fund? I know the answer, but I think I would like the public to know it from the staff.

Yeah, so this is an in-loof fund that when we have new developments, there's a fund, the park in-loof fees that go into this fund.

Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. And what's our the balance of the pop in Luffy? I'm glad you asked approximate.

Yeah, because we did we issued and desk item to clarify the balance. So the current balance is about 21 million and this is after accounting for 5.8 million in budgeted appropriation for Lawrence MIDI Park and trail project and and approximately 500,000 in projected interest earnings. The estimated available fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2526 is approximately 15.6 million.

Thank you. And I believe in the general plan, we have a policy that's per Queen Bee Act, there should be three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. And I think the city has done some assessment a few years The parkland on the east side of Cupertino is significantly lower than the three acre. So the general plan has a policy of trying to mitigate that deficiency in the general plan. Is my understanding correct?

I believe so, Vice Mayor, and I did mention in the staff report as well that this property was being considered for acquisition to create a new city park in a neighborhood that is currently underserved by Parkland.

Okay, so any other question from fellow council members?

Yeah, I was going to say, I know you can't see the request to speak. Just to get some additional clarity on what has to happen with these fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, under the Quimby Act, these aren't fees that we can hold on to forever. We have to either justify keeping them or return them within a certain span of time, correct?

I believe that to be the case.

Yeah. So it's not like we can just leave this there and use it for whatever we want. It's supposed to go to the purpose for which the fees were paid. And I think it would be a shame if, you know, while we have the opportunity to acquire parkland in a part of the city that was previously unincorporated and therefore because the county didn't build parks for its areas that were developed that we have now the chance to actually do that, that we would then be giving the money back to the developers who provided it to us in the first place. That seems kind of silly to me. So I'm happy to see a new park rising in a place that hasn't had enough of them.

Yeah. Any other questions? Council Member Mohan.

Yeah, I had a quick question. Is the parkland dedication fund, is that exclusively for acquisition of parkland or can it be used for maintenance of parks?

I don't believe it's used for maintenance. It could be for the creation of, so acquisition and then if we want to create a park, but not, go ahead, Chad, you want to come up and clarify that?

AB 1359 allows you to do that.

Let's get an official answer.

Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works. Quimby Act park fees can be used for park acquisition or park improvements that enhance users, the number of users. So you could do improvements at a park that would serve a larger number of residents. They're not for maintenance.

Yeah.

If I could just follow up. So now we have this vacant site. So to make it into something resembling a park, we can use these funds.

That would be correct, yes.

But just ongoing maintenance, we would not be able to.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay, I do have a question. So we have approved a few projects along Stevens Creek, the Everledge Court. So I have the parkland fee for those newly approved projects being paid or there's more will be coming? Do we have an estimate of how much more might be coming from the approved project?

We know that there's going to be more funds coming to the city as projects are getting approved. I don't know if I have the exact number. I'm looking at Jonathan if he's doing something else, but I can provide that information, but we will have more coming as projects get approved.

I know, but then even with just those we have already approved, not all of them have paid the parkland fee, right? So...

Our director of finance is gonna come up and clarify that.

Apologies, can you say that one more time?

So we have approved a few projects recently along Stevens Creek and the Average project and then some, so have all these projects paid their parkland fee or we might see the balance increase even just among the already approved project?

So it depends, you know what, this is actually a question for the Director of Public Works.

Sorry, I don't necessarily have an answer for all of that. Not all of those projects along Stevens Creek have hit the point where they would pay park fees. Tonight, with the approval of the final map of the Summer Hills project, we can expect that those fees will be coming in relatively soon. So we're kind of getting to the point where those fees will be coming in, but we don't have all of them yet. I can't tell you the exact amount off the top of my head.

And that's okay. I just want to understand there might be more coming even from those already approved projects.

That is correct, yes.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, let's go to public comment. Okay, any public comment?

Yes, Vice Mayor, I have one request to speak in person and at this time I have one hand raised virtually. As a reminder, members of the public wishing to speak regarding this item, item number four, shall submit a request to speak or raise their hand virtually within the first nine minutes of the start of public comment or before the public comment period is closed, whichever comes first. So at this time we will go ahead and welcome Lisa Warren.

Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor, you're killing me. I appreciate that you are trying to get information out to the public. It's necessary. I get it. But I have been waiting for this for over a decade, actually, before it even has been talked about. So I'm getting a vibe that we're going to have enough votes to say okay with this now that you have to do this separately. So let's get on with it. And there's neighbors there waiting for this to happen and to help. And a gentleman is paying attention to this that you need to speak to after you say yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa. We will move to the request to speak virtually. We have one hand raised. So we will welcome Jennifer Griffin.

Thank you. Can you all hear me? We can hear you. Good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa, for coming up. And I think that it's very important that this land, which we've are so aware of and been working with for such a long time, has an exceedingly tall, valuable redwood tree on it, which is already there. It's probably 80 to 100 years old. And it's a very, very valuable piece of land that it's next to an elementary school. It's landlocked in the middle of a park deficit neighborhood that had been in the county and eventually wound up in the city. And we are so grateful that you all are considering purchasing it. for the Eastern areas, but to me, it is going to be so beneficial for everyone. Like when they come to the 4th of July fireworks show, they can sit in the park and watch it. You can have benches in there, all sorts of activities. It's I think an acre and a half, it's flat. Also, if you weren't aware, we're supposed to have an eight story apartment building on the corner of Finch and Stevens Creek Boulevard from one of the SB 330s. And yes, park fees may be coming in from that project whenever it's submitted, but that means you're going to have another 300 people that are going to be living on that corner. Children are going to be going. This park is in Tri-City area. It's Hyde-Cupertino High School, Hyde Junior High, and Sedgwick Elementary. It's a tri-school, very, very... compacted roads back in there. It is such a joy to know that there will be a park smack dab in the middle of a landlocked neighborhood, which is where parks should be. If we have so many other people coming to live along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the future, especially this project that is projected for either townhouse or apartments, eight stories currently at Finch and Stevens Creek Boulevard, those people will have access to a new park. we have people in that area that already need parkland and then we're starting to have other people coming in that will need parkland so yes the fees are being paid but the land is hard to get and i i've been like lisa i think this lisa's known of this longer but i was so glad that this piece of property in no man's land is going to have a forever use because, as we know, parks are forever. So please, please purchase it. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Vice Mayor, that concludes the request to speak on item four.

Okay, great. So I'd like to make a motion for the recommended action. Second. To adopt resolution number... to be decided the exchange agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Cupertino Union School District for the Finch property and authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement and related documents approving a location of 10.4 million from the parkland dedication fee for the acquisition of the property and find the acquisition is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. And also I'd like to add one more action is that we rezone this land to parkland. So that's my motion.

Second.

Okay, anyone would like to comment? I do have a question. I think we did receive comment. Another reason for pulling the item is we did receive comment that people are wondering why are we spending so much money to purchase. residential property that is actually it was a single-family home but now because of state law it can be developed into multi-family units so the city has to pay a higher price but I don't know how much we can reveal because most of the negotiation has been done in closed session so I and maybe the city attorney, is there something we, I don't know how much we can say about the price or?

Do you feel that it's important that the details of the negotiation be made public?

It's probably... Because people did wonder, are we paying a higher price? Because it can be developed for multifamily unit.

Vice Mayor, why don't you allow me to look into that? And if so, we can create an info memo for the public.

Yeah. Vice Mayor, I just wanted to add if it's helpful that the $10.4 million is the price is supported by the appraisal of the property that was concluded that the value is about the same amount.

So it's supported by the appraisal report. We are not paying higher than market value, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions? One question in clarification and just a quick comment. So you had added to the motion a request to rezone the property. I'm assuming that that is direction to the city manager to bring back at a future point a rezoning of the property because we can't do that here.

Yeah.

So if anyone was getting excited that it's rezoned, it's not. There's a process for that. The other thing I just wanted to underscore for everyone is that this is not money just going to some random private party. It's money that is going to Cupertino Union School District. My understanding is that their intention is to put it into a 1031 style exchange. It will produce ongoing income for them. It will keep its character as land so that if they need to acquire land in the future, they are well positioned to do so. This is something that will continue to help us in this community because it is our school district. So I don't want us to lose sight of that. This isn't money just going to random rich party. It's going to one of our most important public entities.

Yeah, thank you for mentioning that. I believe the COSD Board has decided that this money is not just going into their general fund and they will spend it. They will reinvest it so it will become a reoccurring income for the district in some way, that they have a consultant helping them to make that possible. So Council Member Wang?

Yeah, just a quick comment. The outer east side of Cupertino historically faced a significant deficit in park space compared to western areas. I think this is important, meeting the Quimby Act, as people have mentioned. This parkland dedication fund with a fund balance of $15.6 million is important. It's part of a recreational master plan, and the money is going back to our schools, which means it is back in the community, as Council Member Fruin mentioned. I think it's an important piece of purchase. It's what the Quimby Act was designed for, and I fully support this.

Yeah, thank you. So as Council Member Fuller mentioned, the rezoning of parkland will likely come with, I think we are rezone, clarifying other parkland designation. Maybe that could be part of that action, or it could be a separate action. I think the staff will take appropriate action. I do have a question about, in terms of the development of this specific park, Would that come back to the council? Would we get a staff recommendation on that later?

Yes, that will have to be a future discussion. Okay, thank you.

So any other comment? And that's a vote.

Okay, so we'll do a voice vote again. Just to confirm, you are approving the staff recommendation with an amendment to rezone the land to parkland, is that correct?

Yes, plus the rezoning. The staff would take actions to rezone the property for parkland.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Ferran.

Aye.

Council Member Mohan. Aye. Council Member Wong?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau? Aye. Motion carries with Moore recused.

Okay, so now the mayor can come back.

Can someone get the mayor?

Okay, next item, public hearings. We have none. Then we move on to the action calendar. Item 12, to receive a report and provide direction on the potential ballot measures. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation?

Thank you, Mayor. With this item, staff is requesting direction from council on whether to pursue a ballot measure for the extension of the current utility users tax or for new parkland rezoning restrictions. In April, council directed staff to pursue a survey of Cupertino voters on these potential measures, and Godby Research conducted that survey in June. A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO ON THIS ITEM WAS PROVIDED YESTERDAY AND TO PRESENT THIS ITEM TODAY WE HAVE GREG CARD OUR PURCHASING MANAGER AND BRIAN GODBY FROM GODBY RESEARCH ALSO AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY AND IDENTIFY NEXT STEPS. WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO GREG TO TAKE US INTO THE PRESENTATION.

Thank you city manager Tina Kapoor. Welcome honorable mayor and council members. Thanks for having me. So I'm Greg Carr the purchasing manager here with the city and alongside me I have Jonathan Orozco the director of finance. Also online as Tina mentioned we have Brian Godby from Godby Research who'll be presenting the survey results when we get there. All right, so start with some background. So as we're aware, the 2026-27 budget identified, the 10-year forecast identified some long-term structural budget challenges that we're aware of. Those are largely due to increased costs that we're likely to see for public safety, reduced sales tax revenue, and the expiration of the utilities user tax in 2030. So those all have an impact. To address these budget challenges, council is currently considering an expansion or an extension of the utility users tax. In addition, council is also considering efforts to further protect parkland use. So to recap some actions to date, March 17th, council authorized staff to identify contractors that would be able to help support looking into potential ballot measures. And those two were, again, expanding or extending the utility users tax and also increasing protections for parkland use. on april 7th council approved budget for contracting efforts so that we could evaluate those ballot measures and also approve fees if we move forward with either one that would be required by the santa clara county register of voters between june 3rd and june 17th goddard research did conduct a public opinion survey of cupertino likely voters on those items So with that, I'd like to introduce Brian Godby from Godby Research so that he can review the survey results with you. So with that video team, can I ask you to allow or share Brian's screen?

Can everybody see that, the presentation?

Yes.

Great. Thank you, Greg. Madam Mayor, members of the Council, I'm pleased to be here this evening to present the results of the survey that Greg just described. And let me jump into the key takeaways of the survey are really two. One, that a general plan amendment ballot measure that would require of any future rezoning of parks to be placed on a future ballot received nearly 70% support from the voters. Secondly, a ballot measure renewing the existing utility users tax at the current rate Without increasing the tax rate and adding video services and extending the term until ended by voters was favored by 66% of the voters. However, neither a UUT increase of 1% or a 0.6% is viable at this time. In terms of the methodology of the survey, that it was an online and phone survey, meaning landline and cell calls were made to do interviews on phone. Text invitations and email invitations were sent out. You can see the breakdown there and it's become the reality in the last 10 years. The online survey accounts for the majority of the responses. The universe was likely November 20, 26 voters. We were in the field from June 3rd to June 17th. The average survey on the phone, which is our metric for measuring the length of a survey, was 25 minutes. We completed 434 interviews. And again, among the November 26 voters, that is a margin of error plus or minus 4.66%. Just a little note on the methodology in terms of the stratification. The sample is stratified on the front end. Before we start the interviewing, we make sure that we adhere to that stratification and then we weight the data on the back end so that it is representative of the likely November 2026 voters. Now, that's different than the population or even all voters in the city of Cupertino. And the chart you see below is the final data breakdown by demographics. So you see gender, age, ethnic groupings. Moving on to the next slide, marital status, presence of children, education, veteran status, homeownership. And finally, individual party and household party type. All of those demographics are representative of the likely voter universe. And again, the data is stratified and then weighted to those various details to make sure that the sample is representative of the universe that we're looking at. Jumping into the data, the first question is, do you perceive that the city has done a favorable or unfavorable job of providing city services? The first bar is the current survey. Again, it's likely November 2026 voters. And when you add the very and somewhat favorables together, you see we're at 68% have a favorable view. And then when we compare that with this resident satisfaction survey that we did in November of 24, that was among a different universe. That was among adults 18 plus. So not just registered voters, but the entire population over 18. And that was slightly higher at 72.5%. Statistically speaking, since their margin of error on both surveys, there's no statistical difference. The next question was just in this bigger survey. We don't have comparable data in the previous survey. Here we ask people if the city is doing an effective job managing taxpayer dollars. Again, adding the very and somewhat favorable together, you see we're at 50%. Again, that's a good place to be as well. There is notably 22% or nearly 22% that don't have an opinion because they just don't follow your budget. At that point in the survey, we switched gears and we turned to specific ballot measures, as I noted at the outset. The first one is you see the wording on the right hand side of the slide. This is the general plan amendment that would require any attempt at rezoning parks or park lands or open space. to residential in the future would have to appear on a future ballot as well. And again, adding the definitely and probably together here, you see we're at almost 70%. And that support is pretty strong because the definitely is that 43.6. The probably yes, or likely to vote yes, but not definite at this stage. The ratio is much higher in the definitely yes category. The next question turns to the utility user tax measure. And again, you see the wording on the right-hand side of the slide. This meets all the statewide legal requirements for this kind of measure. It has a tax rate. In this particular case, we are increasing it or proposing to increase it from 2.4% to 3.4%, so a 1% increase on electricity, gas, telecommunications, and adding video services. The term would be until ended by voters, and it would provide $6.9 million annually. The rest of the wording is largely ours to work with within those constraints required by the state. Here, again, adding the definitely and probablys together, you see we're at 44%. This measure requires a simple majority to be successful, so we're obviously not reaching that threshold. There's, again, that round approximately 5% margin of error. So this could be 39%. It could be 49% given the error rate, but neither of those get to that simple majority threshold. So the next set of questions is a list of things that we might spend the money that would come from the UUT renewal. uh and here you see the ranking in terms of the voters response in the survey these all all of these items were asked in a random order But again, we've ranked them here. And the way we've ranked them is we've assigned numeric values to each of the response categories. So a much more likely gets a 2, a somewhat more likely a 1, a somewhat less likely a minus 1, and a much less likely a minus 2. That creates this scale you see, 0.93, 0.92, et cetera. And the reason we do that is it's just a better way to rank these items, taking into account all of the various response categories, an example of the challenge and the reason for this is you could have something that's 40% much more likely and 20% somewhat more likely, that's 60%, but you could have the reverse. It could be 20% much more likely and 40% somewhat more likely, still 60%, but clearly not the same 60%. So that's why we use this intensity scale, which eliminates that potential bias. However, we still do look at the total when we add the much more likely and somewhat more likely together, and that's useful to put it in a real-world context. Finally, in terms of the methodology, we group these into what we call tiers. And basically, within each tier, while there are numeric differences, all of the items are statistically tied. And again, if you think of the margin of error that we talked about earlier, plus or minus 5%, you can see 71 to 63 is within that range. And so that's why these items fall into that category. We're actually using the intensity scale for the margin of error, but that's a good example of what's going on. So in our top tier here, we have maintain rapid 911 emergency response times, maintain park and open space, maintain and repair local streets, reduce property crime, reduce wildfire risk by controlling flammable brush, maintain safe bike paths and safe routes to schools, and maintain safe pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks. The second tier, which is another, is still important and still in the low 60s, starts with maintaining emergency disaster preparedness programs. The key takeaway here is that if you think back to the actual wording that we had for the UUT, this suggests we might tweak some of those bullets to improve the chances of success and more align with what the voters' priorities are. The next slide in this particular question set continues. These are still all important civic goods, but they're just not that high a priority for the voters vis-a-vis a potential UUT renewal or increase. The next set of questions, the methodology is largely the same, although the scale is slightly truncated. So that still works the same way. But you just can't compare a 1.24 here with the previous scores. But you can compare the percentages where we're much more likely or somewhat more likely added together. These are essentially positive arguments. They're informational statements, factually correct. And at the top of this list, we have large businesses will pay their fair share. So homeowners don't shoulder the entire cost of maintaining city services. The measure requires public disclosure of the spending of every penny for this measure and accountability provision, which is always important. The measure requires independent financial audits and yearly reports and other accountability provision. The measure will continue to give Cupertino local control over local funds and can't be taken by the state or federal governments. And then more about why we're doing this, and that speaks to the 911 component. In the event of a heart attack, stroke, or medical emergency, seconds can be the difference between life and death. Measure helps ensure those services are available. And then the last item, in a similar vein, you never know when an accident, disaster, or medical emergency will occur, and rapid 911 response is critical. All of these are in Tier 1, and obviously they range from 71% to 68%, so they're very important to the voters' decision. The next slide continues this same question set. Again, all positive items, but just not as important to the voters as those on the previous slide. So at this point in the survey, we have introduced the utility tax measure. We've talked about what we would spend the money on. We've talked about the information that might be available to voters. And we come back to the ballot question a second time. So the initial test was the very first version. The interim test is the current one. after they've heard additional information. And you see the support has gone from 44 to 57%. And that's certainly a good thing. It's above the simple majority threshold. However, again, with that 5% margin of error, 57 could easily be 52. So there isn't much of a cushion over the simple majority threshold. So after we've tested the ballot question a second time, after all the positive side of the story, we come back to the other side of the coin, which is the negatives. And these are potential arguments against the measure that you would see in just about every community. There are some that are unique to Cupertino, but it does. sort of make a campaign environment happen. We've got positives and negatives. Methodology here is the same as the informational statements. We don't put a minus sign in front of the numbers to make them seem bad. The higher they are, the worse they are. So at the top of this list, we have 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 and now Cupertino wants another tax on top of that. At 1.03, that's 63.5%, at least somewhat more likely to vote no. So that's a substantial negative. The measure could increase the average homeowner's utility bills. at virtually the same level. The measure is a forever tax that will never end. You'll remember in the ballot question, we said until ended by voters, which has been vetted by California courts as a legal term, but this is the way the opponents talk about that very same thing. The measure was passed to fund Blackberry Farms, but it has been paid for. Now they still want to continue this tax. And finally, with residents, businesses struggling with high gas prices, increased cost of living, inflation, tariffs, grocery prices, mortgages, now is not the time for another tax. All of these range from 64 to 62 percent, at least somewhat more likely to vote no on the measure. So now, again, the structure of the survey is we had an initial test where people didn't have a lot of information. We presented the positive and we saw how high we go. Now we've just gone through the negatives. And so we asked the ballot question a third time. And you can see here where we started at 44. After the positives, we were at 57. And now after the negatives, we're at 47. And the survey is very intentional to see how high we go up and how low we go up. Of course, the real world in a campaign is not quite as structured. So another way to look at this is average the second, the interim test, and the final test. And that would give us 52%. When people hear both sides of the coin, the problem there is, again, with the margin of error of 5%, 52% could be 47. It could also be 57, but there is not much cushion there, even when we're averaging the second and third tests. Now, we didn't know where we were going to find... wind up on this particular measure. So we had some alternatives. And the first fallback was instead of increasing the tax by 1%, what if the increase was just 0.6 or six tenths of a percent? And still until ended by voters. There you see we get a little bit of a bump. We're up to 56%. But again, the measure requires a simple majority. 5% margin of error could be 51, could be 61. But there's not much cushion there on the downside. The next question was another alternative, and this one was to renew the tax at the current rate without any tax increase until ended by voters. So this is a flat renewal at the current rate, and you see here when we add the definitely and probably together, we've got a bump up to 66%. And that's why at the key takeaway at the very beginning of the presentation, we said that there is support for a renewal at the existing rate without increasing the tax rate and still changing the term until ended by voters. And then the final question was yet another fallback version, and this was renew the existing tax at the current rate. Instead of until ended by voters, it would be for 16 years. So until ended by voters is in perpetuity, although there is the built-in message that voters could repeal it, which they certainly could. But when you set it in stone at 16 years, the support goes down 62 percent. It's still above the simple majority threshold, but doesn't have the cushion that the until ended by voters version of this does. And then the final question in the survey asked people what their opinion on the future of the economy was. And the big burgundy section of the bar there is the people who think it's going to be worse in the future, and that's 49%. The golden portion of it at 30% is those that think it's about the same. However, while we didn't turn this into a focus group and ask, you know, what that means about the same, I think, you know, the price of gas, groceries, et cetera, suggests that, you know, 30% is not about the same is not a good place to be. So again, to summarize at a high level, the general plan amendment to require any zoning, future rezoning of parks to be voted on by the voters gets 70% and a ballot measure renewing the utility users tax at the existing rate without increasing it until and including video services until ended by voters is favored by two thirds and certainly covers the margin of error as well as provide a cushion.

Thank you, Brian. Video team, can you put the staff presentation back up? So just to wrap up here, again, council, we have a couple of recommended actions before you. First, consider whether to place a ballot measure related to the utility user's tax, a ballot measure related to parkland rezoning, both ballot measures or neither ballot measure before the voters. Also, if we decide to proceed with either or both ballot measures, we're also asking council to designate a council member to draft both the primary and rebuttal argument for any ballot measure that we do move forward with. So some next steps. If council does decide to pursue a ballot measure, staff is going to first engage Team CivX and begin outreach communications to residents. That'll be communication that we both work through our communications office within the city manager's team, as well as vetting through our city attorney's office to ensure that it meets all the legal standards. We'll also prepare the required resolutions with the ballot language and supporting information that's required. We will present the ballot measure information and both the primary and rebuttal arguments before council for their approval. And all of this will occur at the July 21st meeting so that we can meet the county Santa Clara register of voters deadlines for providing this on the November election. If council does not decide to pursue a ballot measure at this time, staff is requesting direction on what the additional actions should be. And with that, we're available for questions.

All right, thank you very much, Greg, Brian, and also Jonathan for these reports. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council at this time?

Vice Mayor. May I just jump in quickly and say that we also have Anita Luck, a partner with Alshar and Winder available on Zoom if there are any specific legal questions.

All right, thank you.

Wonderful, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, thank you. So the resolution, this will come back on the 21st with a proposed ballot language and arguments for the ballot measure. But for the rebuttal arguments, shouldn't we see arguments against first before we do rebuttal? then what would be the deadline for that? Or are you suggesting we develop rebuttal argument now?

Yeah, good question. I think I'll defer to Anita Luck to help us provide some clarity on that matter.

Sure. I think what we're asking now is to designate someone to draft the argument for the council. And then if the council does receive an argument against, then the council will be able to draft a rebuttal argument and the person who you authorised to draft the argument will be authorised to draft the rebuttal argument.

I guess my question is more with the deadline. So I think on July 1st, July 21st, when we approve the ballot language, we can approve the arguments for. But for rebuttal arguments, likely it will be early August when we don't have any council meeting. So whoever drafting the rebuttal likely will not go through council meeting. approval and they will just draft and submit? I just want to clarify that.

Yes, you will designate someone who will be able to draft and submit the rebuttal if there's a rebuttal is needed, yes.

And without council approval? The way we authorize them to do that without additional council approval?

Yes, you can designate someone.

And if I may add, the council has the ability to assign multiple council members. So you can have two members work together to develop both the argument in favor and the rebuttal.

Through the mayor, just a little, to add on to everything that's already been said, in terms of timing, we are gonna run up very close to the deadlines here if there is desire to place something on the ballot in order for us to have um the language on the 21st in if Council designates someone today working backwards it would be ideal to get the suggested language when the agenda publishes next Wednesday if we need more time we could do a supplemental the Monday before the 21st so you need it by the 14th you're saying Ideally, but if council needs or council designee needs more time, we could do a supplemental on the Monday, but ideally we can issue it with the agenda.

Okay, if needed. All right. Vice Mayor, you still have your hand raised. Are you set? Okay. Council Member Fruin followed by Council Member Wong.

In the course of the surveys, I didn't see that there was a separate examination of a pure renewal without adding the video streaming services. Is that accurate? Yes, that's accurate. Okay. All right.

You're adding the video services.

Okay. Would I'm assuming here that it's safe to assume that if we didn't add the video streaming services that we'd probably see a higher degree of support? Is that reasonable? I think so.

Yeah, I think so. The question is, to what degree? You know, we're at 66% for the renewal, including the video services, without increasing the rate. You know, if we got 1% or 2%, that would probably be as much as you're going to get.

for that what is really a nuance um in the ballot question wording okay and then to staff i know that i had during your briefing thank you very much again uh asked you know if we have any indication from those jurisdictions that do include video streaming services as to how the video streaming services try to pass that cost on to the end consumer. So I know you've got a desk item, but if you could highlight that for us, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you. So I reached out to Santa Barbara who currently has a UT on streaming services and their director of finance informed me that Hulu or Disney plus has a separate line on their bill. So if you have a $15 bill you'll see an additional 50 cents on that bill for the UT or local tax.

Okay, but not every streaming service is currently passing that cost along. Is that true?

He is unsure as they are still working with all the streaming providers to have them come into compliance. But from what they've seen from Disney+, it is a separate line. So they are not, in short, the streaming service provider is not absorbing the local tax, at least from Disney. We don't know what a Netflix would look like or, a Paramount or HBO, any of the other streaming services, how they would address this.

Got it. Okay.

Thank you. Council Member Wang, followed by Council Member Mohan.

I've got two questions for Brian Godbey, and then I've got a question back on the utility tax collection methodology with Netflix, just a comment. Question one, Brian, given your polling over the past six months, is this one of the most anti-tax environments you've seen?

Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. We've seen a lot of measures that we did tracking surveys in the last two months that were pretty optimistic when we were looking at them last summer of 2025, and they've just, the floor has fallen out. But the numbers here are pretty good for a renewal. Obviously, for an increase, they fall into that category.

And given your experience, you have polled many cities over the last 40 years. Does it help sometimes to wait two years later to maybe hope that the climate's a little bit better for taxation? And does it do better during a presidential year versus a non-presidential election year?

I think in a normal political environment, that's true.

uh but i i can't looking ahead to 2028 i think it's hard to say that that will be a normal political environment okay thank you uh and then just a comment to um our director of finance netflix supports local utility tax uts by automatically calculating collecting and remitting those taxes directly to the municipality just for you i remember seeing this somewhere thank you councilmember mohan

So just a clarification, so the tax would apply to every single video service, if we included video services, to video provider. So if I had Netflix and Prime Video and something else, it would be... let's just say with the existing rate, for example, 2.4 to each of these, is that how it works?

That's correct. So if you had a HBO, let's say they charge $10, and let's say Disney also charges $10, you see a 24 cent additional tax on each bill, so you'd be paying $10.24 for each one. Correct.

Okay, and my question was for Brian. I know you had a category saying interim ballot and then a final ballot, and the final ballot was based on the pros and cons that developed closer to the election date. Is that how you get to the final ballot?

yeah the final ballot is it's not really the election date it's the final ballot test in the survey after the pro is it discussed and then we have a ballot test and then we have the negatives discussed and then we have that final ballot test so that's what the final represents it's them hearing everything but there is a context built into it because we look to see how high we go up with the positives and then how low we go down with the negatives. So that's why it's important to average the interim and the final test to see what might happen in the real world on Election Day after people have debated both pro and con. And that was, again, 52 percent. It's exceeds the margin of error. I'm sorry, exceeds the simple majority threshold, but not with the margin of error. because we could be plus or minus 5%. So that 52 could be 47. It could also be 57. But in my experience, it's not typical that we're working with the upside. We're usually worried about the downside.

Can I quickly ask for a clarification on on page 16 of your presentation? Where you've said interim support for UUT measure to maintain essential city services.

Right.

Okay, so that's this. Yeah, go ahead.

So the ballot question is the same on all three times, the initial test and the interim test. The interim is after all that positive discussion. So it reflects what happens if people just hear the positive side of the discussion, there is an increase from 44 to 57%.

Okay, so this is somewhat one-sided then.

The interim test is yes, that's why we do that final test after the negatives, because then we're balancing it out and people have heard both sides of the issue.

Okay, great, thank you, I understand it now. I got my hopes up when I saw this, page 16. Vice Mayor?

Yeah, I just want to clarify. So you are saying it's easier to get this kind of text major pass in a presidential election year when there are more voters voting?

in a typical presidential election year. I think that's true. But to back to the council members question earlier, I don't think the 2026 election is a typical election, and that's why this is the most anti-tax environment that we've seen because of the state of the economy and the state of the politics in the nation, the war in the Middle East, which started shooting again today. I just don't think, and this is purely conjecture, I don't think we know that 2028 will be normal.

Okay. So just trying to understand, so what do you consider typical? For example, is 2024 a typical year or 2020? Are they typical in your survey environment?

Yeah, I think in, well, in the actual election results, if you look at the tax measures in California that were on the ballot, 2024 was more typical. And I can think of one school district, without getting into names, that passed a measure in 2024, but we have now told them that they can't do one in 2026, and I don't know where we'll be in 2028. But I... I think that the support for the renewal at the current rate is sufficient for the city of Cupertino that you should be considering 26. I don't see any reason to put it off and potentially lose the existing tax. And then you'd have to be in a different situation. You're not renewing an existing tax. You're basically imposing a new tax.

Oh, if we don't get it passed before it expires, we will be facing a more difficult situation because we will be adding attacks.

And that school district I'm thinking about is in exactly that situation in a very difficult economic environment, which has become much more anti-tax.

So even though this year is the most anti-tax year you have seen, given that environment, the polling result of Cupertino UUT tax at the existing rate is actually pretty good.

That's right. At the existing rate, and that's important.

Okay, great. Thank you. And I have a question about it. I'm not sure about the streaming. So right now we have the tax on telecommunication, cell phone, gas, and electricity. So for streaming, I'm wondering about like Amazon Prime. It's a streaming service, but it's also the fee also covers like shipping. So how would that be calculated?

My assumption that it would be strictly on the streaming services, they wouldn't be inclusive of the let's say the Amazon prime portion so Amazon would be forced to bifurcate their their bills and this apply the UT to what would be considered the the stream so that the service.

So they have to give an estimate of how much is. for the streaming service.

Correct.

Okay. I have a question about, it's a very comprehensive survey with all kinds of services that city provide. It's interesting to see what people care about. I see that the top one is maintain 911 response time. However- Our 911 is, I think, serviced by the fire department, which I don't think they have a contract even with the city, so it's paid by 7% of our property tax, which goes to the fire department. So in reality, with the UT tax, actually,

affect 911 response time i can answer that um so the the 911 response times can be a combination of your fire department and your police right so as you know sheriff we contract with the sheriffs and for the fire department uh that's that is part of your property taxes but that's closer to 15 if i remember correctly So the UUT would be arguably more focused towards the sheriff's contract, right? And so if you have the UUTs, you can apply some of those revenues towards your sheriffs, and you can increase the number of officers to be able to respond to those 911 calls.

Oh, I was thinking more of a medical 911 call, but it could be public safety 911 call. I see, okay. And then one question was whether the large business should pay their fair share. So for the UDOT, it's just based on the rate, how much they pay for electricity and gas. We don't have a different rate for business, right?

That is correct.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

So I was curious about there was a statement made by someone in the survey talking about how the UT originated with with Blackberry farm and so I pulled up ordinance 1534 from 1990 and the measure T ballot measure from November 6 1990 and THE ORDINANCE IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE FOR WHAT THE MONEY COULD BE SPENT ON, AND THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE, IT'S ALLOWING FURTHER SPENDING. LET ME GET BACK TO THAT. SO THE PURPOSE, AND THIS WAS THE SAME PURPOSE BACK IN 1990 is to impose a utility users excise tax as a revenue measure necessary to pay the usual and current expenses of conducting the municipal government of the city the proceeds of which shall be paid into the general fund of the city this chapter shall be known and may be cited as the utility users excise tax ordinance but then when you look at measure t uh back in the day, they are referring to trying to get that pulled back up. They refer to Blackberry Farm but also other open space areas. Is there anything in this language that you see that today that the argument can be made that oh, this money was supposed to be for Blackberry Farm and now you're wanting to use it for paying the sheriff's contracts? What do you say to that argument?

I think we're talking about how the city or council members may want to propose the positives. One of the things that we've talked about with Brian and Anita can probably clarify this a little bit too is we're focusing on what the benefits are for how the city can use the funds. The intention I think moving forward for even exploring the additional or extension of the UT was to consider How do we make up potential revenue shortfalls that we're looking at in the future? And so one of the benefits that we saw polled was the reality that residents do appreciate the response times of 911. For us, that could be the reality of the County of Santa Clara responding to those events. So I think the items that the survey has and the respondents have identified could be really relevant and probably resonate well. WITH THE RESIDENTS WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING HOW WE WOULD PROPOSE THIS. WITH REGARD TO A REBUTTAL, I WOULDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU WOULD REBUTT HOW THE FUNDS ARE BEING USED OTHER THAN, AGAIN, POTENTIALLY JUST HIGHLIGHTING WHAT WE DO INTEND TO USE THEM FOR.

THANK YOU.

AND ANITA, WOULD YOU ADD ANYTHING TO THAT?

Sure, just that the 1990 ordinance seemed to say that it was for general municipal services and this is a general tax, so it's only going to be required to get a 50% plus one vote to be a majority vote. And so essentially the city can use it for any city purpose. It might likely use it for what it intends to budget for. And that's kind of... So when you say maybe 911 service, well, that is maybe your intent... to use it for that, but there's no absolute requirement to use it for that in the future. But you also don't want to mislead in what you provide to the voters. So if it's something you think you're going to use it for, it's okay to put it in there together with other general city services.

Okay, thank you. I hope that helps. And then, so I do have the language for Measure T, which I believe was before, I think it's Prop 218, which made some rule changes, which you can remind us what those were, but this was in order to authorize ONE, THE ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF BLACKBURY FARM AS OPEN SPACE, THE ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF OTHER OPEN SPACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION AND PUBLIC USE OF THE OPEN SPACE, AND TWO, THE IMPOSITION OF AN ELECTRIC GAS AND TELEPHONE UTILITY USERS' EXCISE TAX AT RATES NOT TO EXCEED TWO AND 40 HUNDREDS PERCENT. So when you go then to the municipal code that we currently have, the purpose is not specifically for what it was originally in 1990, so it's become general. And I'd just like to understand THAT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SAYING THIS WAS FOR BLACKBERRY FARM, WE'VE PAID BLACKBERRY FARM OFF, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THIS UUT? I LOOK AT IT AS WE'VE HAD THIS AMAZINGLY HUGE SHORTFALL FROM OUR REVENUE SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT, AND WE HAVE THE SHERIFF'S CONTRACT NOW GOING UP TO 25.5 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE 18.6. So that's enough on that topic. Council Member Fruin.

Thank you. To what extent and in what way does the number of other tax or bond measures or propositions on the ballot influence the likelihood of success of any one of those measures?

I can address that, at least in the context of the survey. That's why we have the negatives, and that's why we reference the transportation tax to see how big a negative that was. And then, of course, we have that final test after people have heard those negatives that as well as others. And certainly it was one of the highest ranked negatives. So it was, in fact, the highest rank. It wasn't just about the transportation measure, but it was also about the measure is promised to sunset. So that combined argument is pretty powerful for sure. And I think that's why in that final test, we're at 47 percent and why We think that an increase is not viable in this election environment with those competing measures as well as the economic headwinds and why a renewal at the existing rate so we can say we're not increasing the tax rate is important. Got it.

But just as a general proposition, does the presence of a lot of things that voters are asked to weigh in on tend to change their view of any one of those things? Like, are they more predisposed to just vote no when they're asked way too many questions?

Not necessarily. In, again, a typical election, we've had a city measure, a school district measure, and a county measure, and we've seen them all be successful. But I think the economic headwinds that we currently have present a huge obstacle for that kind of scenario. Okay.

Do you have an example of, or just as a matter of theoretical examination of a public agency that sees its tax measure fail in one election and then subsequently puts substantially the same tax measure on the immediately following election? And if so, what sort of outcome have you seen? Has that influenced that outcome?

We have not had that much experience with that because we've had a 95% win track record. So I don't have a lot of losses. do that analysis, to be quite honest. I fear that I'm going to be doing more of that analysis in this election. So I can't really forecast what that is going to be. But I think that if it's separated by two years, and you can explain why what you heard in election A is when you're reformulating a measure in election B and be able to credibly say, you know, we learned that the voters wouldn't accept this, and so that's why we've changed the measure. I think that's the norm where you have to do two measures. Again, you know, we don't have a lot of experience in exactly that, but that would be our counsel. And Charles Heath may have an opinion on that as well.

Got it. To Ms. Luck, is there any legal impediment to us putting a general tax like this on a primary ballot or on a special ballot?

There's no legal impediment for you to put the tax on this ballot, no.

Got it. And then back to you, Mr. Godby, if this sort of measure were on a special election ballot or on a primary election ballot, do you think it would fare differently? And if so, how?

Well, I think the turnout is different. And again, the economic headwinds are going to be the important thing. I do think, and I don't mean to disagree with Anita, but general taxes have to be on the same ballot with the city council standing for elections. So a special election would become a two-thirds measure, in my experience. And that obviously, you know, our best case is 66%. That's great when we're looking at a simple majority measure. If we're looking at two-thirds, then we're on the bubble again.

And just to clarify, I agree with Mr. Godfrey, and I refer to this election, but if it were at a special election, you would either need a declaration of fiscal emergency or you would need it for a general text to take place at a special election. But for a general today... takes to take place at this coming election or at the election, the presidential election, when you have council members up, then that's fine. You don't need a fiscal emergency declaration.

Got it. Thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah. I see that the question for the question for the parkland, let me share that. Because initially I thought this has to do with the sale or lease of park land because there was similar major in Sunnyvale for public land, park land. But I see that the question here in the survey is about rezoning of parks and parkland open space or any proposal for residential commercial industrial in parks, parkland or open space. So it seems this is modeled after the Milpitas one that's not about sale. So I'm just curious in case of any sale of parkland, I'm guessing if the city sell any parkland, if a private party wants to develop, they still have to rezone, so that would cover that potential issue, right? So we would require voter approval for that.

I'LL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THAT AND THEN I'LL ASK ANITA TO WEIGH IN AS WELL. SO THE INTENTION I BELIEVE IS TO TAKE EXISTING ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE PARKS AND PARKLANDS AND THEN RAISE IT TO THE THRESHOLD THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING VOTERS TO REQUIRE SO WE WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO REZONE EXISTING ZONED SPACES THAT ARE PARKS, PARKLANDS OR OPEN SPACE. SO TO CHANGE THOSE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE. But Anita's working on the language. Anita, is there anything you'd like to add in that regard?

Sure. We can insert a provision that the city can't sell any parkland. We could put in some sort of provision like that as well. The rezoning provision really covers keeping the... the land as parkland and then if you wanted to actually put in some provisions related to not selling them we could look at the Sunnyvale provisions. I think I did put a provision in kind of a draft ordinance regarding selling parkland to discuss with the city staff so you know if that is something you are interested in we can certainly explore that.

But I'm guessing this already kind of covered that because whoever buys it, if they are keeping it at Parkland, fine, right? But then another question is about those BQ zone, city property, so this does not cover, say, the service center that the city currently zone. If it's rezone to other use, this does not cover.

At the moment, this would cover just all the city property right now that is zoned as parks and recreation or open space. If you want to, yeah.

To add to that, I know community development is currently working on rezoning some of the existing facilities or properties within city. to be either parks, park lands, or open space. So they would fall under this protection at a later date once re-zoned.

Yeah, but then there are still city properties we owned that are not parks and park land. They are the quasi-government zone, right? Yeah, okay.

Thank you. Council Member Wong.

Thank you. Two more questions. One for Anita. The question is really about when we change items, when do we require a separate measurement requirement to Alshar? So when we change the tax rate, does that invoke a separate measure requirement? And when we add streaming services, does that invoke a separate measure requirement?

That is a very good question. We would treat it as a one-measure requirement that you're extending your current tax rate and including video services. So we would treat it as a one-measure requirement. It's all to do with the...

But would a rebuttal not do that? Some would say that unless we're keeping it the same, if we've changed it by adding a service, does that substantially change this? I don't know what the test is.

I mean, are you just talking about the ballot question?

Yeah, the ballot question. If we add video streaming services, does that make that a different UUT?

Yeah. No, we're going to treat it as the same UUT and bring it all into one subject line. Yeah.

Okay, and then the question for staff is, will we still have the special senior 65 exemption for Cupertino utility tax exemption that we have today under this rule? Yes, that will remain. So seniors over the age of 65 will be able to file for exemption from these taxes? That's correct. Okay, thank you.

At this time, Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this item?

Mayor, I don't have any requests to speak in person, but I do have one. You have one, I think. Okay, so we have one now request to speak in person and currently I see one hand raised virtually. As a reminder, members of the public wishing to speak on this item shall submit a request to speak card or raise their hand virtually within the nine minutes of the start of the public comment period or before the public comment period is closed, whichever comes first. So welcome Rhoda.

Hi, good evening. I just wanted to thank the mayor for bringing up the history of the tax bout, the UUT tax. It was intended to purchase and improve property. It also, in a way, ties into this park idea, which I am very much in favor of, because at some point, there was talk about putting housing at the Blackberry Farm property, and that was property that we taxpayers taxed ourselves on to purchase as open space. That's what the vote said. And it troubled me to hear that there would be a change in use, potential change in use. So I really appreciate this park ballot measure moving forward on that. So we will remember that history. And There are a lot of other cities who do these UUTs, and they are allocated for operational uses. So it is a change from what we do, but not substantively different from what other cities do. uh... the other thing about it another thing that comes to mind is you know it's all about where where we put money i mean we could even say that we were we raising money to buy the finch property we we can use any reason this is for just using it too to raise money another thing that i've heard floated in the past and i certainly do not want this to happen is there been talk about selling the Monta Vista Water Works to San Jose Water. The city of Cupertino actually owns some of its own water system. It was the old Monta Vista Water Works. And again, in that instance, we the taxpayers uh voted for that we we we tax ourselves it was in the in the in the 1950s so to say oh yeah well we want to sell it when we've chosen to tax ourselves on it it it it just that doesn't make sense and i've heard that come up a number of times and so i'm asking y'all let's all be very careful about how we choose to raise raise our money and um that's it so good night thank you Thank you, Rhonda.

Next, we will move to the request to speak virtually. We will welcome Jennifer Griffin, followed by Santa Rell. Welcome, Jennifer.

Thank you. Can you all hear me? We can hear you. Good. Thank you. I'm very glad that the city used excellent statistical measures. I'm very, very proud to see statistical measures used all over the city screen. especially when we have the Monta Vista teams and our junior high, I believe, that are going into science areas, statistical measures, math analysis, decide how we proceed in the future. On that note, I'm very, very pleased with the response about the the park initiative. I think it's very, very important. And I'm glad to see that there was so much interest in it. I'm very scared about something like the future of the Presidio, et cetera, et cetera, as an example. So I'm hoping that we can do everything possible to protect our park land in the future to make sure that we don't lose it. It's very, very hard to get it now. As we know, land is very precious There's a great deal of potential use that people see for it, but we need to have areas of recreation. This is where people go is downtime. It's where our children go. happy or sad, they can go to places and learn how to survive and help them as adults in the future. I'm glad that you all explained about the utility tax. I had heard of essentially when my grandmother lived in Cupertino and we were very happy at the time that Blackberry Farm was being purchased. We were very proud of the people of Cupertino. foreseeing having foresight to purchase the property. I've learned more about this tax and if the land is paid off now, bonds or whatever they were doing, I can see that we have another future with this money. And I think that as the statistics showed, keeping the tax at the rate it is now, but just keeping it going. I think that's a really, really good plan. Yes, we are in extremely unusual economic, political dynamics. It's similar to something from the 1960s, as far as I can tell. But I think that keeping something as familiar as the tax at the same rate is comforting to people. We're already paying it now, so let's just have it go forward. Thank you for explaining what the, I'm gonna call it the internet, the portion, I may have the wrong word there, but the IT or the World Wide Web part of this, I really didn't understand what that was, but I think it's good. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Next, we will welcome Sanrao.

Good evening, Mayor Moore and council members. I'm speaking on behalf of myself only as a resident, but I am a current planning commissioner for the city. I'm speaking in favor of the Parkland ballot measure. I want to thank council members, Ray Wong, Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Mayor Kitty Moore for your foresight in putting this on the ballot. We should never forget that in 2023, the prior council attempted to put the Cupertino Sports Center on a public private partnership to lead a little bit into a high density housing and into a city hall with the promise that the tennis courts would not be impacted. I'm actually making this public comment from the Cupertino Sports Center, vibrant and thriving right now. And I started to think what it could have been. It could have been a rubble of concrete, and demolition and maybe 20 years of no construction and no development at the vibrant corner of Stelling and Stevens Creek. So let us never let that happen again. Please vote to approve the Parkland ballot measure and let Cupertino residents vote for any change of land use on Parkland. Please also confirm explicitly that the Cupertino Sports Center will be protected as a part of this ballot measure. I believe it is zoned PR. And let's confirm that all of the sports center is PR and all of the sports center will be protected so that we do not have any corner cases where one part of the building is not and therefore somebody can go after it. If possible, please also look at the buildings at Monta Vista Park. There's the Monta Vista Recreation Center and at the Creekside Park as well. And let's try to protect the entire park, including the buildings. Thank you for your effort and your vision. And I hope this sparkling ballot measure is passed and residents are aware that the prior council majority attempted to change views on the crown jewel, which is the Cupertino Sports Center. Please protect the Sports Center. Thank you.

Thank you, Sam. Mayor, that concludes the request to speak on this item.

All right, thank you. I would kind of like to divide up these items and handle them separately. So the recommended action, we have three parts here. The first part is to receive a report on the ballot measure survey results. And I feel like right now we could take a vote on that and say, you know, I move that we received the ballot measure survey results. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. It was second, I believe, by Council Member Fruin. And do we have any comments on this item? Otherwise, we can vote probably pretty quickly on item one and move it through. okay i am seeing one one hand still raised but i think it's from before oh it's just simple comment i thought it was really well done so i'm done okay that's great um so with that um madam city clerk yes vice mayor do we even need to vote to receive a report uh that's a recommended action part one i'm just gonna go buy the book on the list

Okay.

All right. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting lights and we will vote on item one. All right, thank you.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right. Okay, so item two, I'd like to divide into two parts. First, do we have a motion that we place the parkland rezoning on the ballot?

So moved.

Council Member Fruin moved. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second. Council Member Wong seconded that item. Do we have any requests to speak on this item at this time? Vice Mayor.

Just want to clarify, so are we using the exact language that's in the survey modeled after Milpitas? Yes. So we don't want to address any, I don't think we need to. to address the sale of the property or anything, just want to clarify that.

Right, I'm personally concerned about going down the road of Sunnyvale since they didn't succeed, so I would rather follow the one that did.

I think this covers it, so yeah.

Very good. Council Member Wong.

I just wanted to ask the clarification that one of the public members had asked about whether, I believe it is true, I just wanted to double check, Cupertino Sports Center is included in the Park Lands measure?

It is zoned PR currently.

Okay, just wanted that clarification verbally. Thank you. Okay.

All right. So please lower your hands if you don't need to comment further on this item. All right. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting lights and we will be voting on the parkland ballot measure.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right, thank you. Council members, we have the user utility tax to speak about next. I do have a question, though, because item three is to designate council members to draft the primary argument and rebuttal argument. for any ballot measure placed before the voters. You could, depending on what happens with the UUT, you could decide that it would be a different set of council members that would be creating the primary and rebuttal argument for parkland. versus the UUT. So would you like to move to select to designate the council members at this time and then just decide amongst ourselves who that would be for Parkland?

Through the mayor, can I ask some questions? Sure. Just so I know and as well as the public, we're writing the for and the against as well?

Just the for.

Just the for, right? Okay, I want to make sure.

But then I guess the pay, oh sorry, mayor. Well, you're going to have a for, you're going to have arguments against. And then you're going to have a rebuttal to the arguments against. So they're always, both sets will be four, but the second set will be addressing the new arguments you've heard.

Correct. So the likely two, the pair that's selected will draft the battle language and primary arguments for by next week. And then likely, in case there is a rebuttal, is the arguments against, they will draft a rebuttal argument in August. We would authorize them to draft that without council approval, right?

They'll be authorized at this time, I believe, to do that. Is the timeline accurate, this August rebuttal?

I believe that the timeline is accurate. We'll ask Anita, I think, to weigh in on that. I think that if you have been designated to write the argument, it's not necessary to bring it back to be approved by the council. I mean, it's certainly something that the council could do, but it's not necessary, which is why if you designate somebody to do the rebuttal and there isn't a council meeting between the time that it's due, it would be okay.

further question and there was the mention of drafting the actual ballot language is that that doesn't that's not actually included in this item 3 recommended action correct that will be drafted by the experts that the city has hired okay all right so vice mayor

No that's all. So I would I guess suggest maybe for the Parkland Major maybe the Mayor and Councilmember Mohan can draft be the pair.

Yeah, okay. Do we have a second?

Sure, I'll second.

Okay, so this is for the Parkland ballot measure. I see Council Member Wong, your hand's still up, okay. I'm not seeing any other requests to speak on this item. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we will vote on designating myself and Council Member Mohan to draft the primary argument and rebuttal argument for the Parkland rezoning ballot measure.

Was there a motion and a?

I guess I made the motion, but I don't know if there is a second. Council Member Wong seconded.

Okay, so Chau and Wong, okay. The motion carries unanimously.

All right. Now we have the user utilities tax. I'm saying it backwards. Utility users tax. So do we have any motion on the UUT at this time?

Yes. I have a question. So in the survey, It seems if we maintain the existing rate, we have a higher rate of approval. And I think now is a better time than waiting two years so that we have more predictability for our budget, given we are losing about 10 to 20 million of sales tax, and then we are facing a large increase of sheriff contract. And even if the city decides we have to get our own sheriff, the cost might be higher. So I think we need that certainty now. but my question is the estimate of 6.9 million on the ballot includes streaming service. I'm inclined to not include that, so if we just maintain the existing rate without streaming service, what would be the estimate?

So the 6.9 million dollars in the question that was posed to the potential voters was the 3.4% and streaming service. Should be right that's so and 2.4 it would be just proximate 4.4 million dollars. Or 4.4 at just I'm sorry 4.9 million dollars for next fiscal year.

With the current without streaming service right.

No with streaming service without streaming service, we're looking at four point four Without it's approximately four point eight four point nine The projected tax revenue for the city to include streaming service ranges between four to five hundred thousand dollars a year Okay

Pardon, Jonathan, could you please repeat that? So using the same 2.4%, what is the prediction estimate for without the streaming service and then with the streaming service?

Without, it's 4.4%. Okay. With, it's 4.8%, 4.9%. Okay.

And there does seem to be a move towards individuals moving towards all streaming service and having no network television whatsoever. I have family members that have done this as well. So if they were to have this tax without the streaming service, they would be paying nothing at all for all of their Internet use. Okay, so do we have a motion to place the ballot measure related to the user utilities tax for the continuation of the 2.4% with the added streaming? Okay, I don't know if this is still accurate. I have Vice Mayor for one and Council Member Mohan is two. Is your hand raised?

I do have one more question about streaming. We have YouTube now also has a paid version. So that's kind of streaming service too. Is it considered a streaming service or not?

I mean I potentially I think it's a similar to the question that we were discussing around Amazon Prime. I think we need to do a little bit maybe more analysis to understand considering Santa Barbara's done their effort and maybe to see where they've.

So there has been only one city who has done this. So I'm inclined to not in going to this unclear area. But then I do see, so I'd like to make a motion to extend the existing 2.4% without adding any streaming service. So only telecommunication and electricity and gas.

If I can add just one point of clarity, there are other cities in California that have done this.

Other cities have done that.

The reason we're bringing up Santa Barbara is because they had litigation with Disney Plus which set precedents.

Oh I see. OK. That's my motion.

Can you repeat your motion, Vice Mayor?

Just extend the existing 2.4% with existing services, telecommunication and gas and electricity without adding streaming.

So no change?

No change.

No change in the rate and no change in the additional?

I think that's safer. How does other people think?

Can I ask another question? Please do. At the 3.4%, what would be the additional revenues with video services and without?

It's currently projected at $6.9 million annually by increasing it by 1%.

That is with, right?

Correct.

And without?

Without it, it'll be approximately 6.3 million.

And my other question was, and I discussed this with you, Jonathan, what would be the average increase in monthly fee that an average resident of Cupertino would pay if we went from 2.4 to 3.4 with video services?

And I think you said about $4. Yes, it could range. $3.50 to $4.50 for that. Again, there's several factors that play into that, the number of various utilities and the number of streaming services that any one particular household may have.

And the 65 plus exemption would still be effective?

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Council member Wong.

Thank you. I, in general, am not for new taxes. I would tend to be on the fence for supporting where we are existing without adding the streaming services. I am worried about this tax because I've talked to a number of my neighbors and they're very concerned about affordability. Many of them don't know about the senior exemptions which might help in the ballot language, which could help there. I'm hoping that we would find other taxes in transit for Waymo and other robo-taxi services in the future, but those aren't in these calculations. So I'm kind of on the fence at the moment, mostly because the initial purpose was Measure T, and that's really what a lot of the older residents and people that have been here for a long time have told us about. So I'll leave that at B.

Okay. Personally, I believe that the move to streaming services is going to continue with people dropping traditional cable. That is what we've been seeing, and that the prediction of the 4.4 million is actually going to start dropping as people move to streaming. strictly streaming services. I know just as I mentioned in my own family that that's what I'm seeing. They don't want to pay for cable at all. So it would be my preference and I do think the statistics that we have from the polling show that the 2.4% with the added streaming is likely to pass. And so I would move, I'm moving that we due the 2.4% continuation and have added streaming. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay.

May I ask one question? This is until ended by voters or a set period of time?

You had 16 years, correct?

There was two questions. The first one, the higher polling results was until ended by voters. And I believe that was at 66%. And that decreased to 61, I believe. With 16 years.

Okay, so until ended by voters is considered more successful. So if my seconder will accept that amendment.

Yes. Okay. I do have a question if anyone else has.

You actually have your first in line here in the queue and then followed by Councilmember Mohan and Councilmember Fruin.

Okay. So do we know how much of the current revenue is from cable service?

Actually, no revenue at this time is from cable service. So at this time, the utilities are telephone, both hardline and wireless, electricity and gas.

Okay, so streaming would also include the satellite subscription also, right?

I'm sorry, can you say that one more time?

Satellite subscription service. Some people get it from satellite disk.

I am unsure. Subscription as far as cable? I think cable wouldn't be inclusive if you had a satellite for streaming, for video, like Dish TV, I believe that's what you're referring to. Yeah, Dish TV. Yes, I would consider that as a cable.

So if we add streaming, then that does not include cable? So people who are using cable will not pay?

That is correct.

Anything now or later?

Now nor later. Nor later, right. They would not. As the mayor had said earlier, the statistics or the data has showed that people are moving away from cable so that you would see a decrease. If we were to include that in this ballot, over time that would decrease with it being replaced with streaming.

I guess what convinced me to second this motion was I thought Mayor's argument that the cable is part of the current revenue which might start to decline and therefore it makes sense to include streaming. But if cable is not included now, Then...

There are currently four utilities that are not included. Cable, water, sewer, and garbage.

Jonathan, this is Anita. We were going to include cable in the ordinance as well because of the Internet Act. Yeah.

Then... They need freedom pardon. I just want to clarify. Do we receive cable franchise fees and Cupertino?

Franchise fees are different than user utilities tax.

Correct, but are we receiving the franchise fees based on cable?

We are.

Okay. So it was not mentioned that cable, so we talked about streaming services that they would be taxed, but it wasn't mentioned, this other part about cable. So could that be clarified, please?

Anita, can you go ahead and clarify that?

Sure. Yeah, no problem. The reason we decided to include cable is because the Internet Freedom Act and sorry, it's been a while since I read it, but it prohibits discrimination in the different services of the Internet. And so if the city started to And that was a big question in the Santa Barbara case as well. And so that if the city started to tax video services but not tax cable, then there would be a big argument that why are you taxing video services and not taxing cable when they're providing the same type of service? So if you are gonna tax the video services, I would recommend that you also tax cable or you're likely to get attacked in that way.

Thank you. So I'm gonna withdraw my motion. And so we did have a motion for the 2.4% without any adding it streaming or a cable. And would someone remind me who made that original motion? Vice mayor. Vice mayor. Okay. And had you been seconded? No, there had not been. Okay. More seconds? Okay. And vice mayor, you're still listed number one to speak next.

So just I want to clarify. So for Santa Barbara, they did include the cable in there as well as other streaming services. in their . They won the lawsuit, right?

Yes, Santa Barbara won the lawsuit on the language they included, and they did include cable. And they didn't really have, they had kind of futuristic services, similar to streaming services, because I think it was sort of before streaming services, and I can't remember the exact language. And they won their argument, yes. And that's why we're following exactly the language that they used in Santa Barbara and maybe even improving on it a little bit so that we make sure that we're in compliance with what the current state of the law is. Their argument on the Internet Freedom Act was on something else. And I cannot remember it at this particular moment, but it was a significant argument. So I can get back to you with it, but I just cannot remember the exact reason for the argument at this time.

I apologize.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Mohan, followed by Council Member Fruin and Council Member Wong.

Okay, I just wanted to go back to the motion. Has that changed?

Yes, so I withdrew the motion to have the 2.4% with the added streamlining, a streaming service, which also included cable, because we do have individuals with both cable and streaming services, so all of that's gonna get taxed now. And so now that that's been clarified, the new motion is just the 2.4% without added streaming. So that's the current, that's the status quo.

Correct. And that goes until it's rescinded by the voters? Correct. Thank you.

So I just wanted to make a comment, and I know I probably won't get too much traction on this, but if we go with the 3.4%, and this would be a 1% increase after, what, 35, 40 years? 1990 was when this started. We've never increased the rate, and... I mean, I don't like to pay taxes and I know that no one else does either, but let's look at it realistically. We go to Starbucks and the prices go up every other week by 50 cents or $1 and we don't quibble or we don't even know that these things are happening. And to ask for a 1% increase after 40 years... which will increase the average cost by $4, I think is not unreasonable. And I know what the polls are saying, and I'm not looking at that, but I don't think a 3.4% increase is unreasonable. rate is unreasonable, considering we've never increased it in 40 years. And every other cost has gone up, and we have a structural deficit that we're looking at in the future. So I'm making a pitch for the 3.4 rate with the streaming services and keeping in mind that other cities, most of the other cities that the survey looked at had higher rates as well.

Council Member, is that a substitute motion?

Okay, that's a substitute motion.

I'm not hearing a second on that one. Council Member Fruin.

I want to thank Mr. Godby for his self-deprecation earlier with respect to if this particular measure fails, than what happens in 2028 when we put it back on the ballot because we need the money. And noting that maybe his track record won't be quite as good at that point. I do think that we are into an uniquely toxic tax environment in the coming election. I didn't expect us to be quite where we are right now. but there have been a lot of things that have happened in the course of the last several months that I think have people especially price conscious. So this is a really tough one. I don't want us to have to try to roll the dice on this twice, and I think we have to roll the dice on it at the right time, and I'm not sure if that's this year. So I'm very much on the fence.

Council Member Wong.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT WAS PREEMPTION, FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTION, SO I'M GLAD THAT WE COVERED THAT AND ALSO THE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FIGURE OUT IF IT'S UNTIL VOTERS DECIDES OR 16, THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL BE THINKING ABOUT OR WHATEVER THAT YEAR NUMBER SHOULD BE. I DO WANT TO REBUT SOME OF COUNCIL MEMBER MOAN'S COMMENTS ONLY BECAUSE SHE'S PROVEN DEATH AND TAXES NEVER GO AWAY. THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS. WE NEVER INCREASED THE RATE BECAUSE BLACKBERRY FARMS WAS PAID FOR. I mean, the point was was paid for. And when Starbucks goes up, you have the choice not to pay for it. When the city raises your taxes, you have no choice to opt out. So that's an important point here. So when you add new taxes, you need to understand the ramifications of those taxes. Thanks.

Can I make a quick comment? Just not very serious, but when Starbucks increases its rates, I don't even know that it has.

Well, I'm not that rich.

Vice Mayor.

So I I think the Sunnyvale UUT is 5% and Mountain View is 5%. Yeah, there are other cities who might not have UUT and the need does change, but it was a general tax and this is going to be general tax, so it's not a special tax to start with. But then I do not support increasing because this is a percentage of the utility cost. That cost has increased over the past few years and probably is going to continue to increase. So I don't think we should increase the percentage on that. I think it's safer to maintain that. And I don't want us to wait until 2028. It feels pretty dangerous at the time. We will not have certainty whether we would continue to have this $4.4 million after 2030. So I think we need that certainty now. because otherwise it will mean our general fund revenue will be $2.24 million short than the current. That means we have to cut services. I think we have already cut a lot ever since the CDTFA audit. We have reduced the hours at the Quinlan Senior Center. We have removed a lot of services already. Even though I think at this point the city does need this revenue. Yeah.

Vice Mayor, I agree with you on that. I just want to make sure that as the seconder that it's clarified that we're having this until it is rescinded by the voters.

Yeah, until the voter decides to end. And I have to say that I was against of the county sales tax measure. I usually am very conservative when it comes to taxing. I tend to oppose. that oppose them, but then considering I'm on the Cupertino City Council, and then as for the city of Cupertino, we are extending the existing tax, not adding anything, which is why I would prefer not to consider streaming, which is removed, so the current motion is extending the existing one, no streaming. I think that's a conservative, yeah, and so that we can continue to provide the excellent service that we are providing to our residents and our city staff.

May I add something that the mayor did bring up earlier relating to franchise fees as cable decreases over time and we've seen it in our specifically for Comcast cable that has decreased over time historically we're somewhere around 3 to $400,000 in that revenue in just the last year we've seen that decrease to 200. So that will decrease over time as cable is becoming outdated replaced with streaming services.

Thank you. My concern is that for some reason for individuals to hear that their cable cost is going to go up, that's a real sticking point. I'm not really sure why it's something that's so sensitive, but I believe it is. And then when you add in the various streaming services on top of that, I think that it isn't going to be popular. And I think that putting the two together, my understanding before was, well, we're just going to get the streaming service individuals who are jumping away from cable and that we were actually... ALREADY TAXING. THE UUT WAS ALREADY HITTING THE CABLE PART. NOW HEARING THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO SELL WELL FROM ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT. I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY STRONG. So I see Council Member Mohan, then Council Member Wong. And do we have any further requests to speak before we go to vote? Please put yourself in the queue. Council Member Mohan.

Yeah, just a quick question. Are you seeing the revenues from electricity and gas go down as well? People use less gas, and people have solar panels. So we have, looking into the future, those are revenues that we cannot count on to sustain us at the same level. Does that make sense?

It does. Unfortunately, we don't have those data points at this time to make that assessment.

Okay, so my point is, Mayor, if we stay with the 2.4 without the streaming services, we are going to see a reduction in revenues as the years into the future. And so we will not be able to even I think expect the level of the revenue that we're getting now. Because of these changes in habits and laws and so on.

Councilmember Wong.

I think the way to frame this to the voters is really, are you okay with a $5 million reduction in services instead of being taxed additionally for utility tax? I think they need to know that. And I want to go back to our pollster, Brian Gavi, and ask this question. In an election cycle, when you propose one of these taxes, does the voter ever equate the loss of tax revenue with the loss of services? Is there a correlation there that you're comfortable with?

Complicated answer. The focus of most of these measures isn't about what we're going to lose. It's about what we're going to keep. Now, obviously, that's, you know, glass is half full, glass is half empty. Some voters prefer the positive side, and some do prefer the negative side. But generally, the ballot questions are written so that it is not, this is what we're going to prevent the loss from. And Anita can comment on this more. It's, we're going to spend the money on these things, A, B, C, and D, as opposed to the opposite, the negative side.

So no one would ever say, hey, if you don't support this ballot measure, this is what you're going to lose?

Well, you might wind up in that way in the messaging in a campaign, but that's different from the ballot question. The ballot question has to say what you're going to do with it, not what you're going to prevent from happening.

Understood.

Thank you. But I would defer to Anita on that. She's the attorney, not me.