City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 645 and I call this regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council to order. Please rise 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 Fruin?

Here.

Council Member Mohan? Here. Council Member Wong?

Here.

Vice Mayor Chau?

Here. And Mayor Moore? Present. Thank you. Madam City Attorney, do we have a closed session report?

We do. This evening, Council met in closed session, and they discussed all the items on the closed session agenda, and there was no reportable action taken. Thank you.

All right, thank you. So while we do not have ceremonial items this evening, I will be adjourning today's meeting in memory of Major Robert Bolton Dee, and I will read about him now. Thank you to Dennis Whitaker for providing this information. Major Robert Bolton Rogers Dee, 40, passed away on June 15th, 2026, during a routine B-52 test flight at Edwards Air Force Base, California, while serving as a United States Air Force test pilot. Robert was born October 10, 1985, in Santa Monica, California, and moved to Cupertino, California, in 1988. He loved Cupertino and had deep roots here. He always referred to Cupertino as his hometown. He graduated from Apple Computer Preschool, Grammar School at Freya A+, Middle School at Kennedy, and then Monta Vista High School in 2004. While at Monta Vista, he played football for four years and was CCS All League player. He was a Cupertino Boy Scout Troop 470 and earned the rank of Eagle Scout. He continued his education at Danza College, where he earned associate degree in the automotive field and obtained his ASE certification. He later earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from San Jose State University, and in 2014, he completed a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. Commissioned through the San Jose State Stanford University Air Force ROTC program on June 23, 2014, Major Dee completed pilot training at Laughlin Air Force Base and was selected to fly the B-52H Stratoforceress. After completing B-52 formal training at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, he was assigned to the 23rd Bomb Squadron in the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. From February 2017 through May 2023, Major Dee served as a B-52 pilot, weapons and tactics officer, wing data link manager, and instructor pilot for the 5th Operation Support Squadron. During his time at Minot, he deployed to Guam in 2019 and took part in operations supporting the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. His leadership significantly enhanced the B-52's tactical data link capabilities and combat readiness across the wing. Major Dee then went on to earn a Master of Science in Flight Test Engineering from the prestigious U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School in 2024 and was assigned to the 419th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base in California. There he served as a B-52 test evaluator pilot, chief of B-52 test, and chief of training. His work was instrumental in modernizing the B-52 fleet, including leading the first flight of a new radar system and accelerating certification of critical data link and braking system upgrades that will support the B-52 for decades to come. A command pilot with more than 1,800 total flight hours, including 326 combat hours, Major D flew for more than 30 different aircraft throughout his career. His military decorations include the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster and Space Achievement Medal. and the Air and Space Recognition Medal. His colleagues remember him as an exceptional leader, brilliant aviator, trusted mentor, and friend who set the standard for professionalism and excellence. He died, along with seven others, on June 15, 2026, when the B-52H they were testing suffered a tragic accident on takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base in California investigation. Their loss is significant to the US Air Force B-52 program. He is survived by his wife, Ashley, and three children, Beverly, Eleanor, and Corbin, as well as his parents, Leslie D., Jeffries, and Mike D., and several brothers and sisters, nieces, and nephews. We will be providing a proclamation for Major D's family, and I thank Dennis Whitaker for letting us know about this tragic accident. Next, we move on to postponements and orders of the day. I move to postpone item seven, the McClellan Bridge, to wait further information regarding the request for a bridge underpass into the McClellan Preserve. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk, I believe, Madam City Attorney, we move straight to the vote on this item?

Yes.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel for the vote? All right. Thank you.

Motion carries unanimously.

Great, thank you. Next is oral communications. Madam City Clerk, how many speaker cards do we have?

We received a few more. One, two. Five, six, seven in person, Mayor, and at this time, I don't see any requests to speak virtually.

All right, let's begin. Madam Mayor, may I just make a quick statement about the oral communication? Yes, please. Thank you. On the agenda, agenda item number three pertains to the approval of the final map, the subdivision improvement agreement, and the acceptance or abandonment of various public easements. That item is a narrow item. It's specifically those three aspects of the RISE project. So if anybody has public comment on any other aspect with respect to the RISE comment, the time to do that would be now during this general oral communications period. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you, Madam City Attorney. So to clarify, if you want to speak about the sound wall or conditions of approval, oral communications is the time to do that? Yes, thank you. Thank you, and trees. And trees. All right, thank you, Madam City Clerk.

Yes, so I'll read the instructions regarding oral communications. And Mayor, we now have, right now I see two hands raised virtually. So 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 heard basis with priority given to students in most cases state law will prohibit the council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda a council member may however briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers a council member may also ask uh Ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment. And as a reminder, members of the public wishing to speak regarding oral communication shall submit a request to speak hard 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 welcome Toby Levitt, followed by Sid Rajaram, followed by Subiksha. So we will welcome Toby.

Thank you. It's always tough to be first. Good evening. My name is Toby Levitt. I'm executive director of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, and I'm here to invite you to the show. Free Shakespeare in the Park begins performances in Memorial Park this weekend. We will perform at 6 p.m. this Saturday and Sunday and the next two weekends through August 9th. The play is Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare. This tragic love story begins with history's ultimate power couple fawning all over each other with PDA that makes their entourage cringe. Their love challenges loyalty, tests ambition, and reshapes the course of history. We look forward to offering audiences a compelling exploration of power, sacrifice, and the enduring tension between the heart and the state. By the end of the tragedy, geopolitics has so upset Antony and Cleopatra that each is pledging to slay themselves over the presumed loss of the other. Think grown-up Romeo and Juliet in Rome and Egypt rather than Verona. Memorial Park has hosted Free Shakespeare in the Park since 1993, and this wouldn't be possible without your leadership. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the council for your support, for your advocacy. I'm also grateful to Cupertino Parks and Rec Department From the gardeners to the director, we are grateful to them for their support. And I would like to thank the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and local sponsors, San Jose Water, the Cupertino Library Foundation, Heidelberg Materials, Pineapple Tie, yum, and Applied Materials. You can help by spreading the word. There's a downloadable flyer on the SFShakes website, sfshakes.org, and an event you can share on Facebook and Eventbrite. For those of you here with me today, I do have some schedule cards. Thank you so much. I look forward to seeing you in the park.

Thank you, Toby. Next, we will welcome Sid Rajaram, followed by Spruce Riksha, followed by Ayesha Kasamseti. Welcome, Sid.

Thank you. Evening, council. My name is Sid Rajaram. I'm the chair of the Public Safety Commission. And today I'm basically here to recommend that the council throw its weight in the fight against online fraud and abuse. So we actually voted back in May that we make this as an official recommendation to the council. And really, it was sort of catalyzed by some troubling stats that we received from the sheriff's department, both in May as well as in our July meeting. And kind of the long shot of it is that This year, robberies and burglaries are trending significantly down compared to years prior, which is great. But what's very interesting is that identity theft and fraud are actually spiraling upwards. And we received a very interesting presentation from a detective at the sheriff's office who gave us some more detailed stats. And it actually showed that in fiscal year 25, in the state of California, the total damages, at least reported damages, from online frauds and scams totaled around 3.6 billion, and that they're projected to reach 18 billion in fiscal year 26. That's a fourfold increase, and according to them, and experts, and pretty much anyone you ask, this can be attributed to two letters, AI. There's no sign of any kind of breaks or any kind of action being taken on this in the private sector. So it seems that the responsibility falls on us as commission members, as council members to spread the word and to recommend allocation for city resources towards creation and distribution of materials to the public about the dangers and things to look out for, similar to how in the 2010s we used to recommend changing passwords and that kind of thing. A new set of recommendations and playbooks are probably exigent for this new class of dangers. That's our official recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, Sid. Next, we will welcome Subiksha, followed by Ayesha, followed by Marcus.

Good evening, Mayor Moore and members of the City and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Sabiksha Sri, a resident and rising sophomore at Cupertino High, and I'm one of the interns for the City Council running under the guidance of Vice Mayor Chau and Council Member Wang. As part of our internship program, we had prepared a survey and reached out to the residents of Cupertino across three occasions, one at the 4th of July event, another at the library, and recently at the camp out at Creekside Park. From the findings, we have discovered that some of the information about city issues and events don't truly reach the entire population. As a survey question, we asked how residents usually learn about such events, and the most common response was through friends and neighbors, with 46% of respondents, and social media with 40%. Even with multiple forms of public relations, about 22% of residents do not hear and receive this information, proving as a barrier for community interaction. Furthermore, when asked about one issue in Cupertino that they would like city council members to pay more attention to, a frequent response that was brought up was the need for better public relations across multiple platforms. Based on this finding, I was curious if there was any other way to highlight and promote information regarding the city onto different social media platforms for younger generations and perhaps old fashioned way with flyers to common community places for older seniors. Thank you so much for your service. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we will welcome Aisha followed by Marcus followed by Casey. Welcome Aisha.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor Chau, and members of the City Council. My name is Aisha Kazimseti, and I'm a rising sophomore at Cupertino High School. This summer, I've been participating in a community outreach and policy internship with the guidance of Vice Mayor Chau and Council Member Wang. As part of this internship, we conducted a community survey to learn what residents value about Cupertino and what issues they believe deserve more attention. We received more than 50 responses, and 80% of them were Cupertino residents. However, two findings stood out for me. First, safety was one of the strongest priorities. Public safety received an average rating of 4.84 out of five, and traffic safety received an average of 4.74 out of five. Residents also mentioned concerns about walking conditions, bicycle safety, traffic, and children using electric bikes. This matters because safety affects how people experience the city every day. It influences whether children can travel safely to school, whether older adults feel comfortable walking, and whether families can enjoy parks and public spaces. The second finding involved young people and schools. Some respondents expressed concern about declining school enrollment, school funding, and many more. Others asked for more youth programs, volunteer opportunities, and activities that help young people become involved in the community. Although the city does not directly manage the school districts, it can still support young people by partnering with schools and community organizations and by expanding opportunities for youth participation. My main reflection from this project is that many residents' concerns are connected to what they already value about Cupertino. It's safety, schools, parks, and most importantly, a sense of community. I encourage the council to continue strengthening traffic safety and creating meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in the future of the city. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.

Thank you. Next, we'll welcome Marcus, followed by Casey, followed by Shreya.

Good evening, members of the City Council. I am also part of the City Council Student Internship Program that is being hosted this summer, and we put out a survey at, we put out a survey during the camp, Cupertino campout, and we got a lot of responses, and I, after looking through these statistics, a couple, a couple of them seem to stick out to me, and I figured that they had to connect in some way. When people were asked how long they had been coming to these community events, 34% of respondents said it was their first time attending. Another question asked whether they worked in Cupertino or outside the city, and 74% said that they work outside of Cupertino. One of the main things I believe that attracts people to our city is school districts, safe neighborhoods, and the opportunities provided by big tech. However, many residents do not actually work in Cupertino and instead commute to jobs in other cities. This could explain why so many people were attending a community event for the first time. They may have simply had fewer opportunities to participate because of their work schedules. Another statistic that supports this belief is that the largest number of respondents said that they heard about the event through friends or neighbors being word of mouth. In addition, when residents were asked what they love most about Cupertino, the most common themes were its safety, parks, libraries, schools, family-friendly atmosphere, and strong sense of community. These responses show that people value the quality of life the city provides and community events help strengthen those connections. survey showed that public safety received the highest average importance rating, a 4.84 out of 5, followed closely by traffic safety, 4.74 out of 5, parks and rec, 4.62 out of 5. This would suggest that residents place a high priority on maintaining a safe, family-friendly community while continuing to invest in public spaces that bring people together. Based on these findings, I believe that the city should focus on making community events more engaging, memorable, and enjoyable than ever before. If people have a great experience, they will continue talking about these events with their friends, families, neighbors, and their coworkers. Since word of mouth is already the most common way people hear about these events, creating memorable experiences can help attract even more first-time attendees and encourage them to return in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Marcus. Next we will welcome Casey followed by Shreya followed by Rhoda. Welcome Casey.

good evening mayor moore vice mayor chow and members of the city council i'm casey chen a rising sophomore from limbrook high school i'm also a student intern with the summer program internship led by vice mayor chow and mr ray over the past few weeks our cohort has been going out and gathering community feedback through our survey Tonight, I want to share how our data relates to us students and overall community. First, traffic and pedestrian safety received top priority scores in our survey data. As a student, I see this every day. The morning traffic guards do an incredible job controlling traffic and keeping us safe while crossing the road. However, after school hours are a different story. I personally know a few students who have already had their safety compromised while biking home, highlighting an urgent need for better infrastructure and safety guidelines for students on public roads. especially with new electric bikes and student drivers. Secondly, we recorded a prominent community concern regarding local education, housing, and development. I know my high school is quite well known for experiencing shrinking school enrollments and declining funding. This doesn't just impact students in the classroom through cut programs, but it also deeply worries parents because declining school resources eventually depresses local housing values as our top tier schools are what drive families to invest in Cupertino neighborhoods. To address these interconnected youth and community concerns, I have a few suggestions. First, we can expand funded traffic guard hours to cover the chaotic after school dismissal windows, and we can form a joint task force between city council and local school districts tasked explicitly with solving the enrollment crisis rather than just having standard license meetings. Thank you for your time. Have a good night.

Thank you. Next, we welcome Shreya, followed by Rhoda.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Shreya, and I am an intern in the City Council's Community Outreach and Policy Internship Program this summer. As a part of this program, my fellow interns and I conducted outreach during the Pancake Breakfast and Flag Raising event that occurred during the City's 4th of July celebrations. Specifically, we asked residents to complete an online survey to help us understand the issues that Cupertino residents want the Council to prioritize. Observing the data from this particular survey afterwards, I noticed a trend. Many residents used the survey to discuss housing policy. Notably, residents had divided viewpoints, while some residents emphasized the importance of affordable housing. Other responses protested against new housing and development projects, while yet others brought up related issues such as rent control and homelessness within the city. In a different question, we asked residents about how important the issue of housing and development was on a scale of 1 to 5. Over half of respondents, 52% to be exact, gave it a 5, the highest possible level of importance. Through the survey, Cupertino residents made their voices heard, letting the council know that housing is a salient issue that affects their lives on a daily basis. While we may not all agree on a solution, the dissent is inherent in democracy. We cannot ignore this issue. Instead, we need to facilitate civil discourse, increase our community outreach efforts, and work together to find common solutions that serve the needs of all Cupertino residents and emphasize the long-term interests of the city we call home. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, we welcome Rhoda Frye.

Hi, good evening. I've got about four points this evening. First, thank you for your continued support of the San Francisco Shakespeare in the Park. And you can find out more about it through sfshakes.org. And that's S as in San and F as in Francisco. Good to see Toby here again. And it's been a longstanding tradition on Cupertino. The second thing was, it's so good to hear that um that vice mayor uh chao and council member wong has done this this internship program for students what a great way uh for to bring up our future leaders here and also a great opportunity for the students it's really nice to see the collaboration so i want to thank you for that And lastly, another thank you for talking about what we could speak with regard to Valco. So when I saw this thing, two things came to mind. I do hope you look at Peggy Griffin's commentary regarding the wall issue. This is something that has been long standing there for that neighborhood, and I do believe it needs to be preserved. The other thing that came to mind that I've spoken with this body numerous times, although a body with different people on it, which is why I'm bringing it up again today, is that uh... when the this this program has been continually group has continually change but also continually grandfathered in one with with with fees and fees these are mitigation fees which are intended to make up for the costs that we would have in in having this development. So it's not taxes. This is something that impacts the community. So if we have to put in sidewalks and things like that, and anyway, so mitigation fees are really important and because these fees have been established a long time ago and now the costs have gone up we the residents are going to wind up having to subsidize this project which has morphed into something very much different and i'm hoping that this body can once again take a look at this because mitigation fees are important and i can't speak more about them enough about them the other thing regarding this project, I guess this makes number five, and this was my primary thing, is I was really alarmed the last time I took a look at this project that there was going to be a freeze on the building codes from a really long time ago. We want our buildings to be current. And the other thing is by using old building codes, it makes really, really hard for our building department to figure out which code they're in when they come in to do inspections, when they're doing new codes for fire, old codes for building. Thanks. Thank you, Rhoda.

And Mayor, we'll move into the request to speak virtually. We have three hands raised within the first nine minutes. We will welcome Harvey McKeon, followed by Jennifer Griffin, followed by Colin User One. So at this time, we will welcome Harvey.

Hey, can you hear me?

We can hear you. We can hear you.

Thank you very much. My name is Harvey McKeown. I'm from the North Coast States Carpenters Union. I'm commenting on something that's on the consent calendar, but I'm following the city attorney's instructions in that I'm going to speak about it since the item related to the rise is quite rightly put very narrow on the consent calendar. But anyway, I am talking about something that is very specific, one specific commitment in the project's own settlement agreement and a question tonight's staff report doesn't answer um i don't want to go through the whole timeline of this project but you know in very short terms in july 2024 the city and valco property owner entered a settlement uh resolving the project's development fee obligations Section 60 of that agreement provides that if the developer later modifies the agreement under 35, the city is to re, evaluate the modifications impact on affordable housing demand using the methodology methodology in the exhibit D of that agreement and to subsequently charge. any resulting below market rate fee before core and shell permits are issued. So, you know, in February of this year, the council approved a third modification to the project, and that reduced the project's affordable housing from 890 units to 356. So that's a two-thirds cut while increasing the market rate units. And on its face, that should be something that compels the re-evaluation of below market rate fees that Section 6C covers. Tonight's staff report references the settlement only once to note that it generates revenue. But I can't find anything in public documents that shows that this exhibit D evaluation has been performed. It may have been, but if so, it isn't in the packet and it isn't in any public record I can find. And that matters tonight because the report states that no vertical building permits will issue on this parcel until this map records. The map is the last gate before the permits the settlement ties the fee to. And once those permits issue, the practicability to collect could be gone. So my question is pretty narrow. I want to know whether the city has done that re-evaluation of the below market rate fees. And, you know, as a union, we're pretty serious about this because this is a massive project. It's going to have an impact on the local workforce. And we're also people who are taxpayers. So we wanted to know about the funding arrangements. And that's all I've got to say tonight because I'm coming to the end of my time. But I will be returning to this body in the future with more information about funding for this project, different sources of funding, let's say. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Harvey. And Mayor, before I go to the other two requests to speak virtually, we do have comment cards for item number three, and I just wanted to reiterate to those requests to speak, just reconfirming that you will be speaking under item three regarding the subdivision map and the... sorry, the final map and the subdivision agreement. And that's correct for all three of you in the back? Okay. Okay. So just didn't want to miss their comments. Thank you. So at this time, we will go ahead and welcome Jennifer Griffin.

Can you all hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. I was originally going to be speaking on item three, but I'm going to go, since I heard that the city attorney had instructed people to, if they had comments pertaining to the wall or trees, they should do this during oral. And I want to make sure that in this is pertaining to the final map, it is item three, but it's items that are outside of the scope of what is on consent. But I wanted to make sure that the trees that are currently along the North Portal neighborhood area the wall between the rise falco and the um wolf teacher housing project that they are retained they're a long-term um asset to that neighborhood and this has been going on for 20 years now We need to make sure that those trees are retained for privacy for that neighborhood. Also, they provide privacy for the Wolf Road housing and for the new homes that are going in at Balco the Rise. A lot of them are very mature. There's redwood trees, etc. Also on that vein, I want to make sure that the wall there that is shared between the North Portal neighborhood and Valco the Rise and the Wolf Road Teacher Housing Project, that that is not breached. This goes back 20 years to the previous owner of Valco Shopping Center. This has been a longstanding battle, and I think it is, in due respect to the neighborhood, I think it's good that we honor the integrity of that neighborhood and their long-term battle to maintain their neighborhood. I don't think it's a good idea to try to breach the wall to provide more parking for anyone on the other side of the wall. I know that may sound strange, but if people look back on the 20 year battle of this, there have been continually The people in North Cupertino neighborhood and North Portal, their desire has been to maintain the integrity of the wall. And I think that that is very, very appropriate. We need to respect them as a neighborhood. So please do not do anything to breach that wall. The other comment is, and I'm going to just... if the attorney thinks I'm on the wrong vein here, but I have a couple of questions about what's happening with the West Perimeter Road entrance. Is this going to be an entrance into Valco the Rise? I'm really confused.

Thank you, Jennifer. That is your time. And Mayor, next, we will welcome call on user one.

Hello, Councils and members of the guests. We can hear you. I'm a Brown family member. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. This is staying from actually quite years matters from the property rights or the belonging rights and the constitutional rights. original staff from professionals. We are actually professional, although we hire professionals as well, and deal with the non-professional staff actually no longer in the city and the and the build-up structures. And we assumed we were too close to the property line. Actually, the property line is actually a few feet behind the fence. And also, we are on the higher ground, so we actually didn't really have the problem. But the worst after that, after taking the property belonging away, and again, again, without notice, and the prosecution, prosecution, and continued. And the magnitude, actually, if you want to understand, we are regular salary-working people, and it was like two, three years of salary alone for the property belongings, and again, give cause and double that. Then after the continued prosecution, prosecution, we also lost, again, two, three years of salary work. And if you understand... elders come here and they work the butt off, and I also too. They also, with the strokes and the broken bones still working, and similar to me, if I'm not here, there, because it's a similar situation. And over the years, numerous requests at the city and managing the attorneys reach us, but it doesn't happen. And we just noticed another middle manager called Aracela didn't pass information, even when we go through a public channel. And if this If they continue failure to respond and raise the serious concern about the accountability and the public service, if they're unwilling and unable to perform the duties and we request them to resign and so property people and the competent leadership can properly serve the communities and also in the ethics and the moral pretty low in the society and we don't want to see there's no compassion either. And over the years, the people want us to run the office by depriving us rights and the financial situation. It's made it even harder. So we want everyone to want to give suggestions for us to run. And you can also let us know as well. And I'll turn the meeting back to you. Thank you.

Thank you, call on user one. And Mayor, that concludes the request to speak under the oral communications this evening.

All right, thank you. Next is the consent items, items three through six, eight, and nine. Have any further items been pulled from consent?

Yes, Mayor, we have item three and item six have been pulled from consent. Okay.

And then we postponed item number seven. Okay. Do we have any requests to speak for members of the public on items four, five, eight, or nine?

Before you proceed, Madam Mayor, I'd just ask for a separate vote on item nine.

A separate vote on item nine, okay. we can do that um and do we have any requests to speak for members of the public on four five eight or nine at this time uh so mayor and community hall i only have requests to speak on item three um and i do not have any i don't i do not see any hands raised virtually okay uh do i have a motion to move items four five and eight motion to move items four five and eight and do i have a second

Second.

Okay, thank you. Are there any requests to speak? I'm not seeing any. Okay, Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting lights and we can vote on four, five, and eight. The motion carries unanimously. Okay, thank you. And do I have a motion to move item nine? Okay, I will move item nine. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Any requests to comment on item nine? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we will vote on item nine.

The motion carries with Ferwin and Mohan voting no.

Okay.

So we have, yes? Floyd, I defer to the city attorney. Would this, the utility user's tax, require four out of five vote, four-fifths vote on UUT?

I do believe it does. We might want to check in with Attorney Luck, who should be on the Zoom, but I do believe that it does require a supermajority.

Yes, it does require four out of five.

Okay, so the motion fails then.

okay and so this one is just on the user utility tax so the parkland is still moving forward yeah correct so that was unanimous vote okay great okay well if this item is not pulled can we ask what's the objection can we clarify what the up

The objection to the resolution?

No one raised their hand to speak on that item, and the vote has already occurred. Madam City Attorney?

You could move to reconsider. That's a process the Council has not done since I've been City Attorney, but that is an option.

Okay. We were in the majority, so we can move to reconsider.

So then I'd like to move to reconsider. And I believe at the last meeting, Council Member Mohan wants to increase it by 1%. And then Council Member Fu and This does not oppose the major, but he wants to delay it to.

Before we begin discussing, we should vote on whether we will be reconsidering the item.

Move to reconsider.

Second.

Okay, so I'm city clerk just to confirm a child was moving or mayor was moving I'd end up being me okay and long.

Do we need to also move to pull this item because this was not exactly.

We need to decide if we're reconsidering before we pull it.

Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and then we'll vote. We just need a majority.

Excuse me, what are we voting on?

To reconsider the item? Yes, to reconsider the item, which means if it passes, then we would be re-looking at the utility users tax, beginning with debate, if there is debate, and then moving through it as if it was from the beginning.

And would we be doing that at the pulled items from consent time later in the meeting or?

I think that we should leave it where it is on consent because we aren't reconsidering the vote that we took on the consent. Unless you want to reconsider the vote we took on consent as well, then you could at that point move it into the action calendar. Could you explain that again? It might be taking the rules too far, but you're reconsidering your vote on this item, which was on the consent calendar. And now you want to open up debate about it, which is something you do when it's not on the consent calendar. And you've already voted on the consent calendar and this was part of that. And so if you want to move it to the action item, I think you would need to make a motion to approve I suppose you could just make a motion to pull it. Yes.

So you are saying we need to make a motion to reconsider first. Correct. And then we pull that.

Correct. Reconsideration.

Correct.

Then you pull the item and then you can address the item as an action item.

So the current vote is to reconsider. Correct. The vote that was just taken.

Correct. Okay. So first, we're gonna vote on the reconsideration. Okay, so the panel said.

Can I ask a quick question? Please. So if we didn't want to debate, but we still wanted the vote to stand as, if we didn't want to reconsider, what's the option?

Vote no. Right now, on the motion to reconsider. If you don't want to reconsider, you should vote no.

Okay, so that would preempt the discussion.

Well, no, then we'll count the votes, and if the majority wants to reconsider, then we will.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay. So is the panel set? Yes, Mayor.

Okay.

You need to vote. Vice Mayor? My screen doesn't see the panel somehow, okay.

Okay, the motion carries with Fruin and Mohan voting no.

Okay, and then next we need to move to poll item nine. Yes. Okay, so.

Make a motion to poll item nine, please.

Okay, Moore second. Madam City Clerk, will you please reset the panel? Thank you. And we can vote.

The motion carries with Vruin and Mohan voting now.

OK. So this will now be under items removed from the consent calendar. So now we've got three. Keep this straight. I believe it's just three and six. Three, six, and nine. OK. Right before item 13 Unless is there any issue with the city attorney or are we okay?

The issue is that The motion, the maker of the motion to reconsider needs to have been a member on the prevailing side.

I made the motion to reconsider. I was on the prevailing side.

No, because it was a four-fifths vote.

You needed a four-fifths vote.

So we would need either Councilwoman Mohan or Councilman Fruin to make the motion to reconsider.

So we can't reconsider because it was a 3-2 vote.

But they are a minority. That's not a prevailing side either.

Well, on a four-to-one vote, the four votes would have been prevailing. And... only three votes were obtained. So that was not the prevailing side.

There is no prevailing side.

Pardon me?

Attorney Luck, may I quickly ask again, did you confirm that the utility users tax item needs four votes to pass?

Yes, the utility users needs four votes to pass. And I believe maybe when you're talking about the prevailing side, the prevailing side here was the losing side. I mean, was the side that said, no, they don't want this on the ballot. So it would be the two who voted no, who would do the motion to reconsider someone from the no votes. If I'm understanding it correct.

Okay, so even though it was approved with a four-fifths at the last meeting on this item, that now it can be taken away with a three-two vote?

If you would like, we could take a break and I could make a phone call to the managing partner of my firm and just confirm that that is the appropriate procedure. Okay, that would help, thank you.

As a quick point of order, it wasn't approved unanimously, it was approved 3-2 at the last meeting.

That's correct.

So does that mean- Nonetheless, would you still like me to take a moment and check in?

So question on that, so was the 3-2 actually not adequate to have this move to this meeting?

But let's take a five minute break.

Thank you. Thank you.

do Bye.

you do do

do

do do do Thank you.

All right. Welcome back, everyone. And okay. All right.

Thank you. Madam City Attorney. And so first we double checked to confirm that the tax requires, the ballot measure requires two-thirds vote and it does. And then we, why are you looking at me? And then we considered where we go at this time, and the prevailing party, somebody on the prevailing side of the vote, needs to be the one to request the reconsideration, to move to reconsider. And so that would mean we would need either Council Member Mohan or Council Member Fruin to make the motion to reconsider. And that's where we are.

Okay, so that's interesting. So the prevailing party is the one that basically didn't allow it to pass through in this case, you're saying?

So the idea is that, this is my understanding of the rationale, is that the council votes to make a final action. And if it was a mistake, oh, we just made a mistake here, then one of the individuals on the prevailing side would be like, we need to reconsider because we made a mistake. And then you get a second, and then you reconsider. But the concept of reconsideration isn't, oh, we voted wrong. Let's, you know, re-vote because we don't like how it came out.

So for the reconsideration, if there is a motion, who is allowed to second it? Or is there some stipulation on that, that it needs to be the prevailing?

I didn't look at that. But I think it's on our sheet. I mean, who moved to reconsider? I moved to reconsider, but I don't count as being on the prevailing side. Great. And who seconded?

Council Member Wong.

Also on the not prevailing side.

Right.

Yeah. If we need a moment, let me know. And I'm not sure what diving deeper into whether the seconder also has to be on the prevailing side gets us anywhere.

Okay.

And I in our current setup.

So first, we need to find out if there's any appetite to have a motion to reconsider from council member Mohan or council member from correct.

So we'll wait a moment on that.

Okay, so I'm not seeing that being moved. So that ends the debate on this matter. It does. So the UUT is not moving forward. Correct. Okay. So we have items, let's see, three and six. only, so we're not gonna be looking at item nine. So three and six will be heard before item 13. So those are the items removed from consent calendar. I was informed that we have some oral communications which did not get heard, which we will be doing right now. So we will be reopening oral communications for those blue slips that were missed.

Thank you, Mayor. So at this time, we will go ahead and welcome Chuck, followed by Jamie, followed by Oscar. Welcome, Chuck.

My name is Chuck Adamo. I'm a field rep with the North Coast States Carpenters Union. I'm concerned with the potential of no oversight for the SB 35 compliance on the project as it sits currently. Tonight is one of the last steps before buildings can start being built. This project was brought forth and approved under SB 35, which is a state law requiring the project workforce to be skilled and trained. The developer promised the city and its residents in 2018 to abide by that to build the project. With the law comes compliance, because who's going to stop if no one's watching? The law requires the developer to send a compliance report to the city for open viewing and transparency with the public. It even sets financial penalties for the developer if they skip reports and perform the work out of compliance. But all that means nothing if there's not a system in place for the checks and balances that will be needed on this project. This isn't the first time the development team is hearing from us. We've been in contact with them, asking them to please have a stakeholder meeting and have a good walkthrough on the requirements and how they'll meet the SB 35 reporting obligations. That meeting has not happened in any meaningful fashion. SB 35 places the responsibility on the developer to keep the project compliant, and so far it's been radio silence on a meeting with all stakeholders as requested. That's why I'm bringing the issue before you tonight. My request is straightforward. Before the map clears the way for construction, please direct staff to report back on how the city will collect, review, and monitor the required monthly workforce compliance reports. This would ensure that the commitment made in 2018 is properly tracked and verified in 2026. To be clear, I'm not asking the council to change its vote on the map. I am simply asking for accountability and a process that ensures compliance with the law and the commitments made to this community. Thank you.

Thank you, Chuck. Next, we will welcome Jamie, followed by Oscar. Welcome, Jamie.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Jaime Arteaga, and I'm with the North Coast Carpetage Union. Right now here in Cupertino, the former Valcom Mall is being transferred into the Rise. This massive project moving forward using Senate Bill SB 35, a state law that fast-tracks developments. But SB 35 is a two-way street. In exchange for streamlined approvals, the law strictly mandates that the developer must pay prevailing wages and hire skilled and trained workforce. These are not options, they are the law. On this project, this massive project, compliance cannot be left to chance. That is why the North Coast States Carpenters Union is officially calling for an immediate meeting with the developers, prime contractors, and the city officials. We need to sit down at the table to ensure there are clear, ironclad tracking mechanisms in place before the major construction hits full stride. Let this be a reminder to every stakeholder, the stakes here are incredibly high. Failing to meet the state labor standards does not just mean minor paperwork errors, it triggers severe consequences. We are talking about state labor laws violations that carry civil penalties up to $10,000 per month. for each noncompliant subcontractor on this site. Worse, willful violations can lead to freezing payments, the loss of building permits, and the total shutdown of the project. Nobody wants to see this project stalled by avoidable legal battles, massive state fines. We want the rise to succeed, but it must be built right, safely, entirely by the book, We look forward to meeting with the stakeholders immediately to ensure total compliance from day one. Thank you.

Thank you, Jaime. Next, we will welcome Oscar.

So good evening, Mayor Moore and the rest of your esteemed city council members. Thank you for the opportunity of letting us speak. I know there was a bit of a confusion with the whole where to speak or anything, so yeah, thank you, appreciate that. So my name is Oscar Mazariegos. I'm a field rep with the North Coast States Carpenters Union. We represent 57,000 members in our region, but more specifically, 5,700 members from Santa Clara County. I am here tonight because we have serious concerns regarding this project and the path it is taking to move forward in the city of Cupertino. This project is being developed under SB 35, legislation that was intended to streamline housing development while also ensuring strong workforce standards. SB 35 requires that to use the skilled and trained workforce, supports state certified apprenticeship programs, and helps ensure workers have access to health care and benefits. On paper, that sounds like exactly the kind of development model we should all support. HOWEVER, OUR CONCERN IS NOT WITH THE PROJECT ITSELF. OUR CONCERN IS WITH WHO MAY ULTIMATELY SELECT IT TO BE BUILDING IT. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THE DEVELOPER IS CONSIDERING AND POTENTIALLY SELECTING GENERAL CONTRACTORS WITH TROUBLING RECORDS AND HISTORIES. THESE ARE CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WORKFORCE MISCLASSIFICATION, WAGE THEFT, TAX FRAUD, AND OTHER PRACTICES THAT UNDERMINE BOTH WORKERS AND RESPONSIBILITY OR RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYERS WHO FOLLOW THE LAW. In fact, one of these contractors has hired a subcontractor that was recently charged with five felony counts related to wage theft right here in this county. That should concern every one of us. When companies cut corners on workers, it raises questions about what other corners may they cut throughout the project. We asked the developer and their team to sit down with us WITH ALL OF US, THE STAKEHOLDERS, AND WALK THROUGH HOW THEY MEET THE SB 35 OBLIGATIONS. THAT MEETING HAS NOT HAPPENED. THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO SHOW THIS PROJECT IS COMPLIANCE SITS WITH THE DEVELOPER. AND SO FAR THEY HAVE NOT COME TO THE TABLE AS WE REQUESTED. WE ALSO URGE THE DEVELOPER TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND SELECT A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR, ONE THAT RESPECTS THE WORKFORCE, PAYS WORKERS PROPERLY, PROVIDES HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS, AND INVEST IN THE NEXT GENERATION THROUGH A CERTIFIED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM. This project has the potential to be a positive addition to Cupertino, but quality housing should not come at the expense of the people building it. The last thing any of us want is to look back later and realize the warning signs were ignored when action could have been taken. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Oscar. And we do have one more request to speak on item three. And I just want to confirm with the member of the audience, are you wishing to speak on the actual item number three, final map and subdivision agreement, correct? Okay. Because if you're speaking on anything else regarding this project, you would speak now under oral communications. Are you speaking on anything else regarding this project, or are you planning to speak on the map and the subdivision agreement?

I'm no attorney, so I can't make sense of what you're talking about. Can you pull the record and talk about it?

Okay, then why don't you speak now? The mayor is allowing that. Thank you.

I'm no attorney, so pardon my words that I'm going to pick up. My daughter would pick up in six years. Maybe I can make more sense of the rule book. So I've been a city member for about 15 years, living right by the wall on Auburn Drive. So you can imagine why I'm here. This is my fifth visit to the city council in seven years, all to talk about, please do not destroy the wall behind my house. We came and we bought the house here. Our intention is very purely the safety because we were right by the freeway. The wall was the only thing that convinced us to buy the place. So I know this is on the consent calendar. This is not on an approval. What I'm requesting you to pull the item and make sure there is a clause which says the wall will not be breached under any condition. This has gone back and forth. It seems like one of the two things that stresses me these days is AI and the wall that's going to be breached behind my house. This has been with me for seven years. It's been a real struggle. Please, please make sure that there is no open loopholes in the approval of the map, which allows them to break the wall, breach the wall. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Vijay. And Mayor, that concludes those blue speaker cards in person.

All right. Thank you. Now we will be opening public hearings. Our first item is number 10, a public hearing item on weed and brush abatement. Madam City Manager, do you have a report or presentation?

Thank you, Mayor. This item will be presented by the city clerk and I will turn it over to Lauren to present this item.

Just give me one moment while I share my screen. okay i believe that's available for you all to see and let me find my my script okay okay good evening mayor and vice mayor and council members the lean assessment and collection process yeah here we go The lean assessment and collection process includes both weed and brush abatement programs. The programs are in place to work with property owners to ensure the removal of brush, dry weeds, and dead vegetation before the start of the fire season. Property owners must clear their properties by the notice deadlines. Tonight's hearing requests council's consideration of a resolution confirming assessments on properties for unpaid abatement services and allows owners an opportunity to contest the fees. If approved, the total charges are included on the property owner tax statements. Owners may request council to remove their property from the assessment list. Charges include any work performed by a county contractor as well as a county administrative fees. So here is the list of the county fees for the 2026 season. Every property in the program receives an initial inspection to determine if the property has been properly abated. That inspection fee is $296. A processing fee of $953 is charged for non-compliant parcels that fail the inspection and must be reinspected. And an administrative fee of $1,383 is charged if weed and brush removal is completed by the county's designated contractor. This fee is in addition to the cost to remove the weeds and brush. A warrant fee of $3,006 is assessed if the county needs to obtain and post a warrant to access the property. County contractor abatement work prices vary depending on the work type completed. On July 2nd, the county filed the assessment report of all costs associated with abatement for 14 of the 94 listed parcels in the program. Due to timing delays in the county's inspection and processing of re-abatement cases, only 14 properties have completed the process in time to be included in this year's lien assessment. The remaining properties will be considered for assessment through the 2027 annual lien assessment process as applicable. This hearing will consider approval of lien assessment and collection of fees on those properties, including any incurred costs for the county to abate the nuisance. On July 9th, the city mailed the notice and report to those property owners listed on the report, along with tonight's public hearing notice. The action before you this evening is to conduct the hearing objections from property owners for assessed fees and consider adopting resolution number 26-086, approving the lien assessment and collection of fees for weeds and brush to allow the county to recover those costs for abatement. And that concludes my presentation. And we do have Garrick here from the county, along with a few other inspectors to answer any questions you may have this evening. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Madam City Clerk, for the report. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council at this time? Not seeing any hands raised. Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Mayor, I don't see any requests to speak in person, and I do not see any hands raised virtually.

Okay, so public hearing is closed. For purposes of deliberation, do we have a motion and a second on this item?

I move that we accept the staff report. Second. Okay, so you're accepting the recommended action? Yes.

Okay. Second, please. Okay. Do I have any comments from any members of the council? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we will vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right, thank you. Next is item 11, approving an agreement with Insight. Madam City Manager, do we have a report?

you mayor this item is consideration of a new sales tax sharing agreement with insight since 2006 the city and insight have partnered to support the retention of sales tax generating business activities in cupertino the proposed agreement would continue this long-standing partnership helping retain the important source of ongoing revenue for the city while maintaining insights business presence in cupertino STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED TAX SHARING AGREEMENT AND THE ACCOMPANYING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY REPORT. I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO JONATHAN AROSCO, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS ITEM. ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ARE ANITA LUCK FROM ELSHIRE AND WINDER AND RACHEL CRUMP AND DANIEL POTENGER FROM INSIGHT. JONATHAN?

Thank you, Tina. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. Before I begin, I'd like to recognize Daniel DeGue, our Economic Development Manager, who unfortunately is unable to join us this evening. Daniel took the lead and worked closely with Insight throughout the process, and I'd also like to thank Anita Luck with Alshire and Winder for assistance in drafting the agreement and ensuring compliance with the applicable legal requirements. We appreciate all the efforts they are bringing forward in this item. Before you this evening is the proposed economic development and sales tax sharing agreement with Insight Direct. The city has maintained sales tax sharing agreement with Insight since 2006. Over the past two decades, the agreement has successfully retained Insight's sales tax activity in Cupertino while generating a significant net fiscal benefit to the city. The most recent agreement expired on June 30th, 2026. Staff is recommending the approval of the new standalone agreement that would continue the partnership through December 31st, 2029, with the option for up to eight one-year extensions, apologies, so it'd be June 30th, 2029, with the option for up to eight one-year extensions, each subject to the City Council's approval. While the overall structure of the agreement remains consistent with prior agreements, the proposed agreement includes several updates to strengthen the city's interest. These include revised provisions to reflect current law, additional reporting requirements, and provisions required in sight to cooperate with the city in meeting applicable California Department of Tax and Fee Administration reporting requirements. From a fiscal perspective, the agreement is projected to generate approximately $2.4 million in annual sales tax revenue, of which approximately $1 million would be retained by the city, and approximately $1 million will be rebated back to Insight. Over the initial three-year term, the agreement is expected to generate $7.2 million in gross revenue and sales tax revenue, which approximately $4.2 million will be retained by the city. State law also requires the city to conduct a public hearing before approving the economic development subsidy. Attachment B of the staff report contains the required economic development subsidy report, which summarizes the public purpose, fiscal impacts, and other disclosures required under government code section 53083. Before I conclude, I'd like to invite Rachel Crum, Insight's chief accounting officer, to provide a brief overview of Insight, the company's operations, and its longstanding partnership with the city. Rachel.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Mayor and other members of the Council for entertaining this vote this evening. Insight is a Fortune 500 technology solutions integrator. We help organizations modernize their business through technology across hardware, software, cloud, AI, cybersecurity, and IT service solutioning to all commercial public sector and enterprise customers worldwide.

Thank you, Rachel. Steph recommends that the council conducted the required public hearing of the economic development subsidy report and adopt the resolution approving economic development and sales tax sharing agreement with Insight and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement. That concludes my presentation, and Steph is available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Jonathan, for the report. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council at this time?

Vice Mayor? Yeah. So my understanding, it sounds like we will receive, we are still giving back a sizable chunk of the sales tax received. However, my understanding is this agreement will incentivize Insight to stay within Cupertino and otherwise they might easily move elsewhere. Could you clarify why this is necessary?

So this agreement would incentivize Insight to remain and continue to have operations within Cupertino, of which the city, if not agreed upon, Insight could leave the city and the city would lose an approximately $1.4 million in net sales tax revenue.

So Daniel Deku proactively reached out to Insight so that we can retain them in the city for a longer time.

Correct. So myself and Daniel reached out to Insight earlier in the year to continue the conversation as far as renewing the agreement. after having conversations with legal, they made the recommendation that instead of extending the contract that expired on June 30th, to develop a new and have it approved a new contract and naming it for what it is, which is a tax sharing agreement.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk if you're able to move us off of vote idle for our panel state so that there we go now we've got the RTS mic capability okay so please if you want to thank you councilmember Mohan yeah thank you for your report Jonathan

Can you give me a brief explanation of the salient differences between the previous contract and this one?

Largely, there's really no structural changes as far as the terms. This particular one's expanding 11 years. This follows the same rebate structure. The few items that would change, one item that calls to mind is the opportunity for both parties to counsel the agreement. should there be any legal requirements, whether that's by CDTFA or state requirements that would otherwise prevent the city and INSIGHT to continue the agreement as it stands.

So have we had these one-year extensions in the past?

Correct. So the last agreement, the one that ended in June 30th, if I remember correctly, was a four-year contract with six single-year extensions.

And those extensions didn't come to council, right?

From my understanding, the authority was granted or it was passed city attorney's office interpretation that the city manager then was able to renew the contract. However, as it stands now, we are not making that recommendation. We'll be returning to council in three years should this pass and ask the council to extend it.

Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Wong?

I wanted to thank the economic development team and administrative services for putting this in place. It's really important to have our small businesses and Fortune 500 companies stay here. They're very important. It's a major priority for each of us to be able to keep business here and attract new business. So thank you for your work.

So at this time, we're going to see if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this item.

Mayor, I do not have any requests to speak in person in community hall, and at this time I do not see any hands raised virtually.

Okay. Before I close the public hearing, were there any last questions from the council? Vice Mayor.

I had the answer from the prep session, but I just thought it's good for public to know. So when did we start the TechShare agreement with Insight? I believe it's about 20 years ago, and then we renewed about 10 years ago. Could you confirm or clarify?

Correct from understand there's been 2 contracts with insight both of which have been for 10 years so from 2006 2016 and 16 to 2026. So at this time do we have a motion on this item.

I'll move approval second. Thank you. Do we have any further questions or comments from members of the council? I'm not seeing no hands raised. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we will vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. So our next item is the action calendar. It is a consideration of attendance policy waiver for a library commissioner. Madam City Manager, do we have a report?

Thank you, Mayor. We have a very brief report. This is staff bringing forward an attendance review for Library Commissioner John Kichokshi under the commissioner's handbook policy to outline the circumstances and options before council. Again, our city clerk, Lauren Sapuder, will present a brief verbal report on this item.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. Tonight, staff is bringing forward a review of the attendance record for Library Commissioner Junkee Chokshi, pursuant to resolution number 26-042, the Commissioner's Handbook. Under the handbook's policy, an advisory body member who misses more than 25% of regular meetings within a single calendar year is subject to an attendance review and potential removal by the City Council. Commissioner Chokshi previously served on the Arts and Culture Commission from 2016 to 2023 and was appointed to the Library Commission in 2023 for a term expiring January 2027. In 2026, Commissioner Chokshi missed two meetings, one in February and one in June, which represents a 33.33% absence rate, exceeding the 25% threshold. Following a warning letter in February and a formal referral in June, Commissioner Chokshi emailed council, which is attachment D in your council packet, explaining her absences and reaffirming her commitment and requesting to complete her term. Council options tonight are to grant an attendance policy waiver allowing Commissioner Chokshi to remain on the commission or to terminate the appointment. Staff is happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. So her term would end in January 2027? That's correct. Okay. And she's been serving the city since 2016? Correct. Okay. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council this time? Council Member Fruin, followed by the Vice Mayor.

Just wanted to confirm, it looks like the Library Commission is scheduled to meet every two months. Is that accurate?

Correct. Okay.

Vice Mayor? So they have six meetings, regular meetings in a year. Are the dates predetermined in the beginning of the year?

Yes, they are.

Because I am, I think I proposed to have a council review of any termination because I thought in case of their There may be unforeseen situation people cannot attend. But the reason given by this commissioner is that she somehow couldn't check email for two days. That's the reason for me seeing a regularly scheduled meeting. That reason is not very convincing to me. I do thank her for her years of service on the Arts Commission. So thank you for continuing to serve on the Library Commission. Yeah, but it doesn't seem like there is sufficient reason for missing two meetings out of six. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, seeing, okay, so Vice Mayor, please, yeah, thank you. Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public who wish to speak to this item?

Mayor, I do not have any requests to speak here in person in Community Hall, and at this time, I do not have any, I do not see any hands raised virtually on this item.

Okay, so what I'm trying to do is look up how many meetings they have left and you're saying it's every other month. So can anyone pull that up fairly quickly? You think there's three more perhaps?

That's correct. They will have a meeting in August, October, and December. Okay.

Well, for some of these commissions, it's been very difficult for the commissioners to make all of the regularly scheduled meetings. In fact, sometimes our council members have difficulty meeting them as well. SO I'M AFRAID FOR MYSELF I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER GIVEN THAT SHE'S ABOUT TO TERM OUT IN ITS 11 YEARS OF SERVICE, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE HER PRESENT FOR THE NEXT THREE MEETINGS AND MOVE THAT WE RETAIN COMMISSIONER CHOKSHI ON THE LIBRARY COMMISSION UNTIL BECAUSE SHE WILL BE TERMING OUT IN 2027. SECOND. Thank you. Vice Mayor, your hand's raised.

Can you check your mic, Vice Mayor?

Given that she will term out in January, it does make sense to just allow her to continue to serve since there is no time to through recruitment. But I do want to understand, was the opportunity of attending remotely offered to her for those meetings?

I believe it was, yes. Usually all the commission liaisons reach out in advance and check if anyone is planning to participate remotely.

So we can agendize the we don't know why the first episodes.

I don't have a reason for that.

First says that she somehow didn't check email for two days. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. So I would rather try to see if we can get all five commissioners to be present for the remainder of the meetings rather than having just four. I think that I would much rather hear Commissioner Chokshi's comments and perspectives. So Council Member Fruin, your hand, sir.

I was going to build on that and say that a number of our commissions do have some difficulty in achieving quorum, and so I feel like it would be a disservice, especially for a commission like this that meets relatively infrequently, to have to worry about getting quorum with one less person who is already on the commission, so.

Okay. Council Member Mohan?

Yeah, my only comment, Mayor, was that she has been a commissioner for 10 years. And I don't believe this problem has occurred in the past. So I'm all for extending. leaving her as a commissioner until the end of her term in January 2027.

Thank you. And to clarify with the city clerk, prior to the change of our commissioner's handbook that it would come to council and we would have a discussion, were the commissioners automatically removed if they had missed too many meetings?

Yes, it was, since it wasn't spelled out in the commissioner's handbook, it would be automatic removal if they reached that threshold over the 25%.

So this may be like the first time that we've had a discussion like this to whether to retain a commissioner?

Yes, and I don't recall if even in recent years if there was anybody that we actually terminated because of attendance. I don't, I'd have to go back and look, but this is a first in a while. Okay. Council Member Fuad.

Yeah, a quick point of information. Previously, the procedure allowed the commissioner subject to removal to petition the council for a waiver. I don't recall us entertaining one, But that was certainly an option that was available.

Okay. Vice Mayor? Just for information, there actually was a public safety commissioner who was reaching the threshold and was going to have to come to the council for potential consideration. And I spoke to the commissioner and he decided that he would just resign. And so he actually just resigned. So he didn't come to the council. But it... He would have been terminated, but his resignation was because he reached the termination threshold. So just, yeah.

So seeing no further requests to speak, Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we'll vote.

The motion carries with Wong abstaining.

Okay, so next we're moving on to the naming, donation, and sponsorship policies, which is our item 13. Madam City Manager, do we have a report?

Thank you, Mayor. This item is consideration of amendments to the city's naming, donation, and sponsorship policies. This item was requested by City Council as part of the TBD list to review the approval process for any entity to place a logo, name, or brand on any city property. We do have a brief presentation tonight, and with that, I will now turn it over to Astrid Robles, Assistant to the City Manager, as well as Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager, to present this item.

Great. Thank you, city manager. Good evening, mayor and council members. I am here today to present the proposed amendments to the city's naming, donation and sponsorship policies. As our city manager mentioned, as part of the TBD list, council requested review of the process for placing any logo, name or brand on the city property. As part of that review, staff evaluated the existing policies and is recommending amendments to improve clarity, consistency and coordination between them. Starting with the naming policy, this was first established in 2017 with the purpose to govern all forms of permanent naming of city-owned facilities. We are renaming this policy and clarifying that it applies to logos and branding as well as added cross-references to the donation and sponsorship policies. Donation policy was also established in 2017. It governs the acceptance of donations with no expectation of benefits in return. The proposed changes clarify that donations do not automatically provide naming, branding, logo placement, or sponsorship rights, and that recognition requests outside of the scope of the policy would be reviewed under the naming, logo, and branding policy. The sponsorship policy was established in 2018 and its purpose is to govern arrangements where support is provided in exchange for recognition or other benefits. The amendments clarify that sponsorship recognition is generally tied to the duration of a specific event program or activity. Longer term recognition would be reviewed under the naming logo and branding policy. I would also add that we did attach the commemorative bench policy as part of the staff report for reference. So tonight our recommended action is to accept the amendments presented this evening and we are here for questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Astrid, for the report. I found that I really appreciate the donations policy updates and the sponsorship policy updates. However, I got stuck on the naming logos and branding for city facilities policy. And reason being is like, for instance, in Cupertino, we have... A LARGE COMPANY HERE THAT HAS A VERY EASILY RECOGNIZABLE LOGO. AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY COULD ACTUALLY UNDER THIS POLICY HAVE CITY FACILITIES BEAR THAT LOGO. and that would actually not be something that I would want to see, so I'm kind of curious about if this particular item, and perhaps the city manager could address this, if it could come back where we look at what the city's surrounding cities are doing with regards to branding and logos? Because I'm seeing that they don't allow any other logo on their city properties than the city logo. So is that...

I'm certainly happy to bring more information. Is that something you want in an info memo, Mayor?

I think this, I'm unprepared to either try to edit this on the dais or approve it at this time because of the concern for having different businesses logos put on the property and it's not clear to me when they would be able to do that. So if I were to, I see under the donation policy that I would donate something with no expectation to be able to put a logo and brand on it. But we have this naming and branding policy, which I don't quite understand when that comes into play. But just as a point of principle for the city, that if the city is going to have a logo placed anywhere on us, that it should be the city's logo. So that this large company, for instance, isn't able to put their logo or branding on us. So I don't know if there's an answer to that. It's like, when does this naming policy come into play?

Yeah, that's a good question. Two things I wanted to clarify. The naming policy always, the authority for the approval of any of the naming always has been with the city council. So there was nothing that would be placed without city council approval. So that is not being changed. So I wanted to clarify that. but in terms of the donation policy, it always had a little sentence at the bottom that allowed for the council to add a commemorative plaque if they wanted to, and that always existed. And so what we did was add a cross-reference to the naming policy just to say anything beyond that, let's say we did have a donor that then wanted some form of recognition, it would then fall under the naming policy, which requires council approval. Just because right now it doesn't mention anything about the naming policy. So these policies were all working independently of their own. And so with these references, we're just pulling them all together and kind of clarifying that. Anything beyond these other policies just follow on to the naming policy, which require council approval.

Okay, so I suppose what I'm saying is like, when I'm looking at the naming of facilities policy, so now it's the policy on naming logos and branding for city's facilities. I personally don't want to see logos and branding on city facilities, like for the example I've brought up. And the way this is written, the city council, three people could vote to say it's okay and I don't actually see a size limit or anything here for, it's okay for this, this logo to go on your building. And were we to receive a large donation from a business while they don't have the expectation that they're going to get their logo on it? But if there was a... IF THE COMPANY NAMED TREE HAS A TREE LOGO AND THEY WANT TO HAVE THE CITY, THEY DONATE $20 MILLION AND THEY WANT TO HAVE AN EXPANSION OF THE SPORTS CENTER AND THEY WANT TO HAVE IT CALLED THE COOPERTINO TREE SPORTS CENTER EXPANSION AND THEY WANT THE GREAT BIG TREE ON THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COULD ALLOW FOR THAT. So the donation policy didn't get them the express permission to have their name there, but the naming policy would let them do that if three people on the city council agreed to that. so that's that's where i have a problem so i personally don't want to see any logos or branding name is fine but i think we also need to think about how big that's going to be what we're talking about um because i i can see little plaques but once once you start naming you know convention centers and things after individuals and you know i've seen this in other cities, and we do have the Quinlan Community Center, so that we have named facilities after individuals. But I feel like this one is a little bit too liberal. and there's not enough there's not enough rules around it and that's why this is the one section that i would want to have come back as a study session for a little further discussion about what could possibly happen under under this policy so i see vice mayor your hands raised followed by council member wong

So this is a donation policy. And I like that this part is clarified that acceptance of a donation does not create any right to naming, recognition, logo placement, sponsorship benefits, or advertising. So it's good to clarify that and any recognition WELL, THEN THE COUNCIL MAY RECOGNIZE AND I ASSUME THAT MEANS IT WILL REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVE TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF RECOGNITION. AND THAT SHOULD FOLLOW THE NAMING POLICY. I LIKE THIS CLARIFICATION. AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION. I keep hitting the wrong one. Okay, here. I have a question about What is this? And is this covered by the naming policy or whatever policy? I believe this is a partial donation by the Rotary Club. And when someone donate an object to the city, I assume there will be like a brand of, there might be a small brand of whoever manufactured it. But this logo is a very prominent logo of Rotary Club. That's not even the manufacturer of this so-called bike rack. So this has been placed in multiple locations in the city, so that one is in Memorial Park, and kids are climbing on it. And this one is placed on Stevens Creek. It's a squarish design with a very prominent Cupertino Rotary logo, and it's at the location where it doesn't really suggest to people that it's even a bike rack. And this is another location where one of the bike racks is placed in McLellan Ranch. It's a yellow circle that also does not suggest it's a bike rack, but it appears to be the main purpose is the logo, which is the Cupertino Rotary Club logo on the city property. And there are maybe, I don't know how many of these bike racks are there, like eight or more, such bike racks on the city properties. Assuming this is a donation by Rotary Club, do they then have the right to put their logo on the thing, the object they donate with a very prominent logo of their club? to kind of claim ownership of city property. That's not really covered in the current policy. So I have a question about how we should handle this kind of logo. It could be any other company. that who donate something, but they put, then it could be any other company or entity or organization, they donate an object and put a very prominent logo of their own company to the city and we accept it. So how should we regulate? what we accept or not, yeah.

Vice Mayor, I was gonna, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I think that something like this would be, going forward, would be governed by the naming and the logo policy that you're considering tonight.

No, my question is not covered by the policy that's proposed tonight. Because the donation policy covers the donation. But this is not a separate logo. The naming policy appears to cover a separate recognition. Beyond the donation, but this logo is on the object, donated object itself, and that's not covered in the current policies. So maybe the staff can propose something next time when this comes back. So any object that's donated to the city, are they allowed to have logo of the donated organization? If so, maybe how prominent it is or if the recognition should be separately approved. A donation should just be a donation without the recognition unless it's approved by the council. That's something the staff can bring back some options to consider.

If that's council direction to bring this item back, we're happy to, but if I look at the naming where it talks about the logo placement, the way that the policy reads to me as we're presenting tonight is any logo that's placed on city property would require it coming to council in approval. but if there's further clarification that's required, I'm happy to either take direction now or if the direction is to come back, we're happy to do so.

Council Member Wong.

My only comment here was really that there may be a point in time where the city may need to find other funds and how we handle sponsorship and naming needs to be set up. So I think it's good to think about this policy now. And, you know, if we have pomegranate field in the future, it'll be interesting. But that's the point. It is up to future councils to decide. So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you. I do think we, one thing that's missing is having a limit for how long signage can be on city property. I think if there were to be something like a pomegranate field, that we would, It almost gets to a place where I'd want to, if it's that significant, put it on the ballot and let the public decide about it. I think that some of us are more sensitive than others about seeing signage put on public property because it's for the use of everyone. And so when you have it, used for perpetual advertising. That's particularly problematic. In looking at the MOUs with regards to those particular bike racks, there was nothing in the MOU that said that they would be placing their branding on the item. That was something that's not contracted, so I don't see that they have a right to have that there, and I think that the city, can choose to remove it and place a, if they want to have a plaque, I think the size of plaques should probably be discussed because we do, even within here, there's a plaque here, there's some in the library. In other locations within the city, one of the trails has a plaque AS WELL. We haven't even touched on the bench policy, which does need to come back as well, because that, the bench policy doesn't really have a set like locations for where benches go, so I think I'll just, because it's not really agendized for discussion, but I think that's another part that needs to come back to be more comprehensive. So I think that there's, SOME KIND OF OVERLAPPING ISSUES BETWEEN THE POLICIES LOOKING AT LIKE DONATION AND THE RECOGNITION THAT SOMEBODY WOULD BE GETTING FROM THAT DONATION. AND LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY, I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE NAMING POLICY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING WITH REGARDS TO ALLOWING the branding and logos on their property and also have something with regards to size. If we're leaving it to the city staff to decide, I think that that can run into some problems. But I am overall really happy to see that it would now GET TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE SEE INSTALLATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY COUNCIL SAY THAT THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING A GOOD PROCESS FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THEN WE END UP HEARING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED LIKE WHY WAS THIS DONE, WHY IS THIS LOGO ON HERE? WHY WAS THIS ART INSTALLATION PUT IN HERE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COUNCIL AT ALL? WAS THAT A PROPER ACTION? SO I KIND OF THINK THAT THIS ITEM NEEDS TO COME BACK AND PERHAPS HAVE A MORATORIUM ON PLACEMENTS UNTIL WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON ALL THREE ITEMS. Council Member Mohan, your hand's raised and we still need to go out to public comment. Thank you. Okay, Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Mayor, I have one request to speak here in Community Hall, and at this time I have two hands raised virtually, so we will welcome Rhoda.

I just wanted to echo the comments made by the mayor. Those things that are supposed to be bike racks look like climbing structures, and particularly the one at McCollum Ranch. It really scares me because I think a kid could actually break a finger, break a wrist in there. I actually went to the building department and I asked whether these things were vetted. They were not. In general, actually, it seems like Projects that happen within the city to city projects Aren't do not get the benefit of our own building department and time and time again I know I'm getting off topic but time and time again We see rework because the building department there was not involved or there wasn't due diligence One example actually is right behind us here with these ad a doors. They were not present when the when the facility was built initially and it created quite an issue. Getting back to these naming issues, I would also realize I'm a little behind. I probably should have emailed you. I don't know whether any of you guys are aware of this, but back when there was going to be a significant donation for the Cupertino Library. And it was going to have a community member's name on the library because it was a significant contribution. And council didn't want it. They didn't want to put one person's arbitrary person's name. And then it wound up becoming a racial issue. It was very highly contested. And ultimately, we did get the aquarium, which thankfully is being rebuilt now after many years. These things are, I don't envy the staff here for trying to propose something. So I can't make a specific, recommendation on what to do. I think there's a lot of nuance here. And maybe these things should be taken at a one-at-a-time, at a case-by-case basis rather than, I'm just thinking about that, rather than having policy on them. But I think these bike racks was very instructive on what not to do in our city. And I was really surprised because when proposals came through, the logos were not on there. And the logos really create a hazard and I think also a liability for the city. So thank you very much. Good luck.

Thank you, Rhoda. And now we'll move to the request to speak virtually. We have two hands raised. We will welcome San Rao.

Good evening, council members, speaking on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident. The donation-related policy needs to also look at the liabilities that come with the donation. I have pointed out to you before that you have in your midst a public record request. If you search for the organization that made that particular donation under discussion and you search for the term bike rack in public record requests, you will find a public record request that goes into extensive discussion between a member of that organization and a member of staff asking for a reduction in liability coverage on those bike racks because that particular individual believed that there was a cost issue that was prohibitive. And this was under the previous city manager, and under a prior council majority. But that public record request then finds the trade basically ends in a live meeting. And so it actually asks you to investigate what the outcome of that discussion was. If it did go into a live meeting, you need to call for an investigation to understand if, in fact, the liability was waived. So there's not just a donation naming issue here, but there's a liability issue as well. into who provides liability insurance on what has been donated to the city, especially the item under discussion right now. And if the coverage is insufficient, what is the city liable for? Likewise, I've talked about the queuing rack at the pickleball courts. It brings together unrelated individuals. There are minors on court with unrelated individuals. God forbid if there was any kind of incident, what is the liability the city faces? So there are a number of incidents that you need to think about, not purely from a donation perspective, but what does it cost the city in the case of a litigation involving that item? Thank you.

Thank you, Stan. Next, we will welcome Jennifer Griffin.

Can you all hear me? We can hear you. Okay, thank you. Yes, I'm glad that you all are discussing this. I remember the library incident that Rhoda had spoken of, and I think that we need to realize that It's very lovely, wonderful when people donate things to the city, whether it's money, pieces of artwork, things that are held in trust, parkland, et cetera, et cetera. It might be nice to acknowledge them by having part of the Cupertino website. And this is a perfect location because the website has everything that pertains to the city in it, have a section that acknowledges donations of different kinds. And this does something in that it allows everyone, students, old people, young people, et cetera, to look at the city website as a resource of learning. That means that they can go onto the website under the philanthropy or contribution section and look at different types of ways that individuals, families, et cetera, have helped make their mark on Cupertino by donating land, donating parks, donating money, which allowed XYZ to be purchased, et cetera, et cetera. We've never really had anything like this before. And it made me think because I get a lot of things from San Jose State as an alumni. And we do, my husband and I contribute to his university and to San Jose State. And they acknowledge their donors by having write-ups in the booklet. I donate to the chemistry department regularly. My husband donates to statistics department. former Hayward State, which is now East Bay State. And it's nice to know who is involved in thinking about different parts of donations. If you see what people are doing, it also encourages other individuals to contribute, too, in their own way. So this is something that you can go do research and see, even if someone contributed someone had fixed a student had helped fix up a garden or a walkway. Everything can be graciously received. And that way, then you look it up. But I understand why we can't have names all over the city, etc. But I think that having a lovely website that acknowledges people's contributions would be a wonderful learning tool uh thank you thank you jennifer mayor that concludes the request to speak on this item

Thank you. I do think that that's an interesting idea from the last speaker about having some public recognition area. At this time, I would prefer that we would actually table this item and if we can bring it back as a study session to include items such as a plaque size, when would we have removal of old branding? We have some that's actually deteriorated at a location where it's on a bench in a fairly prominent location and it's not looking very attractive. And I'd like to have a brand logo comparison with surrounding cities to see what they're doing and for now have a moratorium on adding more branding and labeling until we've brought it back, had a study session and then provided some clear direction for what we wanna see. And do I have a second on that?

Mayor, can I clarify something before you get the second? On the moratorium piece, it does not affect the sponsorships and sometimes we get donations, for example, to the senior senator, which may not have anything in return other than a thank you letter. There are also sponsorships for city events from businesses sometimes.

Okay, so it's strictly with regards to having some sort of plaque brand or you know label placed on the city or an object actually placed on on city grounds are you excluding cash donations no that doesn't it's unless they're going to be nailing it to the the ground out front and I'm not excluding that with a plaque okay thank you for clarifying there okay sure second

Yes, Vice Mayor. So, well first I have a question, then I have a clarification. First, what do you think about just approving the donation policy and the sponsorship policy today and only bring back the naming logos and branding?

there were some things in the donation policy that needed some clarification and further study was the problem there. And one of them even includes our sheriff's contract because that's what they've been using. And I actually do need to add to my question a motion if possible that we also bring back the bench donation policy for clarification as well. That one one year it was MISCONSTRUED TO BE THE DONATION OF A PLAQUE WOULD GET YOU A BENCH. SO THAT WAS KIND OF A PROBLEM. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND? WELL, AT ISSUE ALSO IS MANY OF THESE ARE BEING USED AS MEMORIALS. Do we really want to have all of our benches have a memorial statement? Because to me, it starts getting a little gloomy. And dedicating it to individuals, it can also someone can choose a controversial person. And so I think those would come to council, but are we going to just be expanding the number of park benches without some plan about where these are gonna be? Do we have areas of the city where we do or don't want to have memorial benches, if that's gonna be what the trend is? Yeah, it's just something that I think we need to have it as a study session where we get into this type of discussion.

Mayor, how would you like to make the amendment?

Just that we would bring back the commemorative bench policy for discussion as well with the other. Second that. Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor? Yeah, so I... I looked at the policy again, I think that city manager is right that this current proposed naming policy might already cover the logo on the donated object. So I see that the original policy already include equipment and furnishings. but now we have added including the use of or display of logos, trademarks, colors, insignia, symbols and branding that identify an organization, business or other entity. And then this particular here, is also equipment or furnishing include the use of any local of branding is subject to the approval of the city council so sounds like the current policy or we already require city council approval for any naming of city building structure equipment and furnishing. It's just we did not clarify. Naming means a logo which has a name also. And so this, I guess clarify that. This does include a furnishing. So if the furnishing is donated away as a logo, then it will be subject to approval of the council. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, and one thing just came to mind, if we were to have a religious organization with their logo, wanting to have that posted on city property, where is there a difference between, in this case, the Rotary doing that and having it in the public right-of-way, and a religious institution doing that. I think that, I think when we, if this passes and we bring this back, I think that that would be something that we also would wanna talk about. It's kind of like when we put in the flag policy to there's, what's actually fair for the community and, you know, Yeah, I think we could have some very interesting discussion about this. Yes.

So I think another issue with having a local organization is, for example, that circle, yellow circle by the barn. with a prominent local, it gives the impression that this organization somehow owns the barn or somehow is sponsoring the barn when that's not the fact. And so when we allow a local organization placed on a city property or even next to a city property, I think we need to think about are we creating some public confusion? whether this is a city building or not, or belonging to a third party. So, yeah.

That's interesting, because you see that when you enter the Quinlan Community Center, because there's the same logos on the benches there pretty prominently.

I think the quillen I've been wondering about those on the quillen and guessing they were created of when the quillen was built so maybe they have donated something at the time I it would be nice to find out where how those come about.

So Madam City Attorney, is my motion proper to table the item and bring it back for a study session?

It is, and you could suggest a date or leave it open-ended. Okay, yeah, I'll leave it open-ended.

So we do have a motion and a second. I see no further hands raised at this time. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the vote panel and we shall vote.

Council Member Mohan? The motion carries with Vruin voting no.

All right, and at this time, we go to items removed from the consent calendar, which are items three and six. Correct, okay, Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation for item three?

Mayor, I don't believe we have a presentation for this item. This is a proposed, the proposed action is to approve the final map for the RISE development at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolf Road. While approval of a final map is a ministerial process, the Cupertino Muni code requires that the final map is approved by city council. Staff and representatives of the developer, I believe, are here for any questions.

Okay, so there's no presentation. This had been on consent. Do we have any clarifying questions from members of the council before we go out for public comment? Vice Mayor.

Could the staff please briefly summarize what the final map consists, what kind of change in easement, especially in anything involving roadways?

Yeah, I think the question is there are certain easements that are being vacated or partially vacated. Those easements are fully contained within areas that are being dedicated to the city and in full. So if there is a public utility easement in an area that's going to be dedicated as public roadway, we've asked that that easement be removed just for clarity and clear title.

On any changing configuration for the roadways. For wolf on any changes that like number of lanes with.

That stuff is not being approved with the subdivision map.

Okay, so there is no change on that part. Okay. Then I remember in the initial project proposal, there was a bus terminal. And so is there any dedication for bus? for any bus parking along Stevens Creek or I think initially there was going to be some kind of transit center. So are those all now removed?

There is no dedication for a transit center along the public rights of way. There is an existing bus stop on Stevens Creek Boulevard that's not affected by this map.

But then there is no indentation to allow bus to park without blocking the vehicle traffic.

That you're you're getting into design efforts that are not part of this that part not part of the subdivision map.

Oh Because alone Stevens Creek that there are some bus stops that has this carve out So that's it. Do you know if that's being proposed or not?

I'm not sure that that's part of this project But I have not seen those finalized drawings yet.

No, okay and Then another question is about there was a discussion of fire station that's required to was there is there no any dedication to fire station.

That would not be part of this subdivision map.

So there is no dedication for fire either OK. My next question. In the staff report, it says this will facilitate construction of 2,669 residential units and 31 office retail condominium units. So there will be 31 separate parcels for the office retail condominium units. BUT THEN IN THE RESOLUTION, I SEE IT SAYS THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST UP TO THIS NUMBER OF UNITS. BUT UP TO 2700 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED BETWEEN THE TWO.

THERE'S A NUANCE WHEN IT COMES TO LAW. THERE'S PARCELS WHICH ARE TYPICALLY horizontal on the land condominiums are kind of air subdivisions so with respect to this subdivision map we are showing how the parcels lay out on the ground but we're also allowing for what the subdivision of the condominium units so we're calling out the the certain number of units on the map condominium plans are recorded directly with the state. I'm going to get this wrong. But the building and architecture I think is what it is. Those are state mandated documents.

So this so this map a final map would have a individual parcels for each individual buildings and but for each building there might be also multiple condominium units. Those crew are like maybe a storefront or office that could be so the separately.

Correct up to 2700 condominium units, OK.

Another question, sorry, I cannot see. Okay, here. Wait, ah, I closed the staff report. Just a minute, I'll stop here, I'll share later.

So a quick comment. Just because there's like the 2700 condominium units, it doesn't mean that they're going to be for sale. They can be rented out so that people don't think that there's going to be a massive condominium project out there. And they did, in the original project, you had, I believe, two parcels back in 2018, and now they've parcelized the entire project out so that they can sell individual sections off, if I understand that correctly, if a different developer is interested in a certain block, that they can move ahead with that. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Okay, so another question is in terms of the process. So the tentative map was already approved through the administrative process under SB 35, right? And then what's on the agenda today is a final map. And then the, All we have authority to do for the final map is to find that it's consistent with the tentative map. And then we have to approve them. So is my understanding correct?

That's pretty much correct for every final map that you see it's it's always a ministerial process.

So hopefully that clarifies that okay, so then is the subdivision improvement agreement. Administrative process or is that a console discretion.

I'm all the further the city attorney on that one.

For this project, this SB 35 project, that subdivision improvement agreement is ministerial for the council. I do know that the public works director and the city attorney interfaced in the negotiation of that document.

So this is a result of a negotiation, which means it's not administerial.

No, I think it's still ministerial.

on what improvements to provide or not provide. So why is that not a discretionary decision?

Well, for the body, for the political body, it's a ministerial approval.

Okay. So now I will share screen. This is from the staff report. So for subdivision improvement agreement, it says that this would include a new frontage road along the west side of north Wolf Road and new curb and gutter and detached sidewalk and driveway at points and related frontage improvements in accordance with city standards. So these improvements are included Because they are specified in the city standards. That's correct. So that's why, because reading this does bring me to a question of what could be included in a subdivision improvement agreement or not. For example, this would improve the curb, the gutter, the sidewalk, the driveway. Then how about the wall that's separating from the neighborhood? That wall has been there, I think, for 20, 30 years. How about an improvement for that wall? Shouldn't that also be included as an improvement?

That's not a city standard improvement. That's a civil improvement.

So unless the city to adopt a standard for this. All the teaching that the they are required to upgrade.

So typically subdivision improvements are to ensure that public right of way improvements are being constructed by the developer. So in this case we're talking about stuff that's in the road roadways sidewalks curbs and gutters those various aspects.

OK so any you anything separating from the other joining property would not be part of this map.

That would not be part of the map, no.

So in what, I guess, phase of a development would a project consider any improvement to any wall or separation or barrier with other joining properties?

That would be during the entitlement phase.

Okay, so, but during entitlement phase, since it's administrative approval and the city doesn't have specific standards on that, so that means there is no requirement, right?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'm still seeing Vice Mayor's hand raised. Any other questions from the council?

okay madam city clerk do we have any public comments on this item mayor i don't see any requests here in community hall but i do see one hand raised virtually so at this time we will go ahead and welcome jennifer griffin uh thank you um can you all hear me i know we can hear you just repeating yourself okay thank you um yes uh thank you for Discussing this item, I'm glad that the mayor asked for a bit of a staff report. I will tell you that I could not pull up the map, the tentative map, I guess the subdivision map, very well i could not see the contents exactly of where the roads were i could see wolf road but that was about all and i don't know if that was my tablet or not but i just had i i appreciate the comments that you all made so that i as a member of the public can understand the process of where we are currently with this. I just had maybe two or three questions, and I apologize if I'm not exactly on the mark with what this is doing. I have been through subdivision maps before with other projects, certainly the Apple campus, et cetera. But my first question is perimeter west side perimeter road disappeared on the property. My question is and I may be off kilter here but is any part of it being retained on the property near where it had been and what happens with the intersection where there is a there's a traffic signal at West Perimeter Road coming into Stevens Creek and then we have the Joanne's property immediately to the left. there's a fence that went up along that property line and i believe that there are reciprocal parking agreements in that area and that may have to be hashed out with the owners but my question is does that intersection Is that involved in any of this subdivision map that we're doing tonight? Because I think that intersection needs upgrades and I don't understand where the roadways are on this piece of property that's going to generate 2000 housing units. I am familiar with the condo mapping from past. I don't think what i what my question is utilities there used to be no pg e improvements there was no power on the on the old sears property in the parking lot when islands tried to put a restaurant in there how are you all addressing that or is it this at that phase has has utilities been brought into this property and is that part of this phase thank you That is your time? Yeah.

Where are the roads going? Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Next, we will welcome San Rao.

Good evening, council members. Speaking on behalf of myself only as a resident, this project has had significant neighborhood interest from the Portal Avenue community, yet there is barely any speaker on the item tonight. Perhaps they were not expecting to see material changes tucked away in a consent calendar item and we're not keeping an eye out for this. And so I would request council to consider if you are not under time bound obligations to approve this today, to consider a continuation of the items so that you take no action today and the neighborhood has a chance to re-digest and participate in the process. You may also consider referring it to the Planning Commission for a study session and recommendation back to Council, which gives additional time for the public to hear and deliberate with the bodies on diets to give feedback as to what they would like to see. Coming to the specific subdivision improvement agreement itself, a few things that I see. If the agreement is understood, it appears that the the public works engineer may amend changes in the future, but is not obligated to amend the agreement. So I would urge you to probe on that a little bit and see if there are future changes, whether those changes are required to make sure the agreement is amended so that it is actually enforceable. Because one of the things we have seen with other projects is absent a developer agreement or any sort of agreement that's contractually binding, nothing is actually enforceable. The other thing that I want to bring up is these documents in front of you are looking at conceptual plans and whether you should be going ahead at this stage based on conceptual plans or should wait for final plans is something for you to look into. And whether there is, once again, the need to go ahead. I'm very sensitive to the need to be supportive of our developers and ensure that this progress on development, particularly a project that has sat idle for so long, and we do need to be supportive as long as it does not impact the neighborhood so there is that balance and hopefully you can give the right amount of oversight and the right amount of soak time for the public to understand the issue and for enough deliberation to occur perhaps across multiple bodies the other thing to also look at is what are the timelines around this so there are certain timelines when the developer is required to complete the improvements within five years. But what happens if that five-year period is extended? do these improvements lapse in the plan is another area that you might want to probe because the project has run for a while. And if I heard the discussion earlier, there's a potential of out parcels and transactions that can cause the project to run even longer. And so these improvements should not run forever based on approvals that occur now. So there may be a time lapse that you should consider and see if you can apply those. And finally, if this document would

And Mayor, I don't see any further hands raised. So that concludes the request to speak on this item.

All right. Thank you. So I believe the law changes made this a forever agreement, basically a forever approval. I'd like to hear if that is correct and that we are unable to have a development agreement because this is using SB 35. So that legal document is not something that is part of this package. Is that correct? that's correct okay um i do have one uh small fix on the subdivision improvement agreement um section 2.1 it references section 15 and i believe it should be referencing section 14 with regards to noticing so and that was it um vice mayor Oh, one other last thing, pardon. City Attorney, could you address the kind of the request to have the item go to the Planning Commission? Because it kind of ties into the earlier information for people wanting to speak to this item for what it actually entailed, what we were, what's on the agenda versus some of the other issues people wanted to discuss, if that makes sense.

I cannot speak to it needing or not needing to go to the Planning Commission. It's my expectation because it's an SB 35 project, it doesn't need to go to Planning Commission. And I can also say that the first part of the larger project that the developer will be moving forward with is an Eden housing, affordable housing building. And they are working diligently to secure tax credits and it's my understanding that if we delay approval, we could compromise their ability to get those tax credits as we've seen in other projects that the city's looked at. And since this is the last council meeting for a month, the developer is in dire need to get an approval of the project today.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Wait, first, how is this related to the Eden project? Isn't that a separate project.

I think my understanding is that even is working on more than one affordable housing project and so this is one that perhaps the Council has spoken about before.

You mean the the rice the affordable portion of the rice correct is also many to the by eating. Yes, they are trying to get a tax credit I see OK. So I tried to look up the map that I think Jennifer was trying to look for. I believe this is where the parameter road currently goes in on the lower right from the Stevens Creek. And then you will have two parcels. And the dotted line are the property line. So it does not look like there will be space for any trees along here. For where it might be adjacent to a single family home. And then for this part, I think this appears to be the perimeter road is this part.

If I may? Yeah. That section where your arrow is pointing, that is a proposed bike path. There are existing trees there. Most of the existing trees along the property line are proposed to remain. There are maybe a half dozen or so that they're proposed for removal either due to health issues or other circumstances. THE NEW PERIMETER ROAD IS PROPOSED OVER PARCEL F. LET'S NOT CALL IT PERIMETER ROAD.

JUST A MINUTE. SO THIS WHERE I'M POINTING, is the previous perimeter road which will become the well it's a trail it's more like a trail so that will remain actually as a bike correct yeah and that's roughly where perimeter road currently is so they will try to retain the trees that are healthy the ones that are against the the property line the ones closest to the property line Okay, I think that's what they want to know. Yeah, so you say the new parameter road?

Will be and I shouldn't call perimeter road but parcel F is the new roadway that's running back along there If you oh, this is parcel F. Correct.

Okay, so there will be a new road away. That's Vehicle Correct and then okay Thank you that Yeah, that's my question. I hope that clarifies for people.

Okay, at this time, do we have a motion on this item?

Show motion to approve the tenant of the final map. Sorry.

Included the whole item.

For the final map track number 10, 7, 6, except the public roadway dedication and public easements and abandoning the necessary public easements is shown on the final map and authorizing the city engineer to execute record the subdivision improvement agreement in substantial ality the form attached.

Okay, and do we have a second? We have a second from Council Member Mohan. Do we have any comments at this time? Not seeing any, Madam City Clerk, will you please set the voting panel and we will vote.

The motion carries with more abstaining.

All right, thank you. And next we move on to item six, approval of a third amendment to extend the term through October 31st, 2026 of the interim city attorney agreement for city attorney services by and between the city of Cupertino and Alshire and Windor LLP with Floyd Andrews as interim city attorney. Madam city manager, do we have a report on this item?

No, Mayor, there's no report on this item.

Okay, so Council Member Mohan, I believe you pulled this item. Would you like to share your thoughts on it?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I did ask for this item to be pulled. I did want the interim city attorney's contract to be extended to December 31st, as opposed to October 31st. I thought that was sort of an awkward time, and I felt that an extension till the end of the year made more sense, and then we would start the next year with either the continuation of services on new city attorney, but it just seemed to make sense to continue at least until December the services of A&W with Floyd Andrews as our interim city attorney.

Okay, thank you. I'm thinking in terms of the timeline, election, if it were to go to December, until the end of December, when would you be suggesting that there be an evaluation done? because as we were as we're scheduled now the plan was that we would have an evaluation sometime in September and we would have a decision I believe in October on that now if you move it up to December you'll have a newly seated council that doesn't have YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE MEETING. THEY WON'T HAVE HAD TIME TO DO AN EVALUATION OR I WANT TO SAY HONESTLY EXPERIENCE TO DO THAT EVALUATION. So I'm not sure how that would work out. And then you're gonna have, unless we put in another extension, which I think you would have to, if you go to December, you're gonna have to extend it even further a few more months to have the evaluation happen. So I'd like to hear from the other council members what you think about on this one. Vice Mayor?

Yeah, I think what Council Member Mohan proposed makes sense. Even with the timeline the Mayor describes, we do this evaluation in September. In October likely we decide if we want to continue or not. Even if we decide to find a new city attorney, either a firm or individual city attorney, it would take time to recruit. And therefore it makes sense to go until December, even January, because that gives the new council time to to the recruitment. If, yeah. Mayor?

I just want to, the conversation is and I think that perhaps I should step out of the room. Thank you.

Okay.

So I kind of feel like either, what is the, could someone remind me what the current contract end date is that we have? Is it the end of October?

Currently end of July. Okay, and then the extension was being brought forward for three additional months So that will double that would have taken us over.

Okay So to me End of October and leave it as it is and do our evaluation or if you're if you're gonna say December I feel like you need to go to March Because you're gonna need time to get an evaluation in there because you won't you won't have had any evaluation and there'd be very little time for the new council to have experience to even evaluate the city attorney on so that so i get a little bit stuck on december because i think we're just going to be pushing it out again so i would say you know either go for the end of october or go to go to March unless you have another idea.

I think your assessment timeline works. September we evaluate and then we decide if we want to continue with the current city attorney, right? But the problem is if the contract ends at the end of October, what would we do then? We won't have any time to recruit a new firm. So I think we do need to do assessment now. But even with that timeline, We cannot just end the contract by the end of October. Because how do you bring in a new firm in one day?

Okay, so given how long these, if you were to need to recruit, you're going to need, and you're deciding in October, you're going to need a good six months?

Four to six months.

Okay. So you're in March then, right? I mean, if you want it to be. If you go from October to, and how is the recruitment going to go over the break, the holiday break in December? I'd almost go even one month out from March, go end of April. So you'd make your assessment, you would do your evaluation, and then... leave the contract in place until April.

So there are two scenarios. We either retain our current interim city attorney, in which case we won't have to do any recruitment and so on. And then it would be a fairly seamless transition. Now, the problem arises only if we decide we want to go in a new direction. in which case we can go up to December and postpone it again. What do you mean renew again in case? If we decide we are going to terminate her services, should we be, is it okay to talk about this?

She has recused herself, yes.

I will try to play the interim city attorney role. I think the item tonight is the term of the agreement, so maybe focus on that. And there are several options, as you have talked about. So it's a three-month extension. You could leave it three months and then have another extension if needed, or you could do December or April, whatever. But I think if you limit it to the term of the agreement, it should be okay to discuss.

I think maybe six months until like end of January might make sense. That way the next council can decide.

I tend to agree with the Vice Mayor on this one. I think there's enough of a lead time that we know what's going on, but I also generally think that we've not afforded an evaluation in the entire time that the interim has been here. Maybe that's because we didn't expect it to be as long. as this, but I feel like we kind of owe that. So I'm fine with that timeline, and I think that the beginning of the year is a reasonable point in time.

Okay, so I'll make the motion then to approve the third amendment extending the terms through the end of January of 2027. January 31st, 2027 then.

January 31st of 2027, yeah. More second? And so our timeline's still going to remain that we're looking at the evaluation in September?

Yeah, I think we need to evaluate.

Yeah, so that's still in the works. Vice Mayor, you're the only person with a hand raised. I think it's a relic. Okay, with that, Madam, do we have any further comments? Are we ready to go? Okay, so Madam City Clerk, will you please set the panel and we will vote.

I don't remember if we went out for public comment, but.

I feel as though we didn't.

I don't believe we did. Thank you for. I do not have any requests to speak in person, but I do have one hand raised virtually, so before. Before we do that, thank you. So we will welcome Jennifer Griffin.

Thank you, everybody. I'll just say I've been so pleased having Flo back. She's wonderful. I think she has I appreciate the fact that she tries to explain to everyone as Mr. Killian used to do. I mean, it's a real learning experience when you see city council in action and then the attorney has to consult and then... I appreciate the fact that she takes time to explain why we're doing this and why we're doing that. I've been coming here since 2003 and Mr. Killian used to do this. Other attorneys did that the city had and I appreciate Flo doing this because she's educating not only the city council, but the public too. And I really am very pleased that we have been honored with her presence. And I hope we continue with her for a long, long time. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jennifer. And Mayor, I do not see any further hands raised virtually, but I did just receive a request to speak hard here in Community Hall. So we will welcome Rhoda Frye.

Hi, good evening again. I just want to add that I think the benefit of having this arrangement with a city attorney is that she has an entire firm behind her. So as a generalist, and obviously she knows some specific things, but if she needs to get more information, she's got a whole team to help her out. and we saw that this evening, and I think that that is a really huge benefit to our city. Thank you.

Thank you, Rhoda. Mayor, I am triple checking. We don't have to have any more requests to speak here in person, and there are no hands raised virtually.

Okay, so procedurally, do we need to go back and make our motion in a second, or is that still standing?

I would recommend you take another vote. Pardon? Bless you. Sorry, Mayor, I was saying I recommend you do another vote.

Okay, so we didn't ever vote, but so we're ready to vote. You're ready to vote now.

All right, thank you, Madam City Clerk.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right, so we've completed the items removed from the consent calendar. You may peruse the city manager report, council member reports, and the future agenda items. And with that, I'm gonna read an abbreviated version of what I read at the start of the meeting. Tonight, we adjourn our meeting in honor of one of Cupertino's own, Major Robert Bolton Dee, who tragically lost his life on June 15th, 2026, in a B-52 bomber crash at Edwards Air Force Base. Major Dee grew up in our neighborhood, attended Faria Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and graduated from Monta Vista High School in 2004 before dedicating his life to serving our country in the United States Air Force. On behalf of the city of Cupertino, we extend our deepest sympathies to Major Dee's family, friends, and fellow service members. We are forever grateful for his service and his ultimate sacrifice. Tonight we adjourn in solemn memory of Major Robert D. and his crew.