CC 05-19-2022 Item No. 15 FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget_Desk ItemCC 05-19-2022
Item No. 15
FY 2022-23 Proposed
Budget
FY 2022-23 Proposed
Budget Questions and
Responses &
Attachments A-C
Desk Item
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
1. Enterprise funds – Why isn’t Blackberry farm pool/picnic an enterprise fund? Who are we
serving/not serving along with profit and loss statement?
a. All expenses related to Blackberry Farm pool and picnic area can be found in budget unit
100‐63‐612 on pages 352‐354 of the FY 2022‐23 proposed budget. The revenue and
expenditure table shows revenues and expenditures along with any use of fund balance
or General fund subsidy (General fund costs) for 2 years of actuals along with last years
adopted budget and this year’s proposed budget. This budget currently operates in a
deficit as fee revenues are set up to only costs recover about 60% of actual costs per
City Council direction as part of the last citywide fee study. Staff is requesting additional
funds to conduct a new fee study in FY 22‐23 for City Council consideration in this year’s
budget. Based on research conducted, the FY 2007‐08 budget document appears to
recommend the movement of this operation from an Enterprise Fund to the General
Fund because it was not self‐sustaining at that time. Given that currently you can view
the profit and loss easily in the budget we have not transitioned this back to an
enterprise fund. Also, it still requires a subsidy.
b. Information regarding resident/non‐resident use will be brought back at the June 7,
2022 Council meeting
2. Pg 37. Number 844 traffic engineering is a special project that hasn’t been decided. What is that
$80k item?
a. As described on Page 7 of Attachment S (FY 22‐23 Proposed Budget Questions and
Responses, Agenda Item 15 of the May 19, 2022 City Council meeting), the Final Budget
will incorporate any changes approved by City Council as part of the City Work Program.
The $80,000 project is for Vision Zero (WP22‐015). It was approved as part of the City
Work Program on May 17, 2022, and will remain in the budget.
3. The Monthly Treasurer report which you presented to the Audit Committee showed the various
fund balances for January, February, and March 2022, however they did not seem to match with
the fund balances in the Proposed Budget. For example, there is a great discrepancy for the Park
fund in the Proposed Budget and in the March 2022 report (off by about $20M). Please show a
table of each and explain what has happened to change the totals, such as the infusion of funds
from the Westport Project for parks, and for this particular item it would really help if the public
is shown what zone it is intended for, and what the zones mean (because this is all new
information for the public and will help).
a. The proposed budget presents year‐end projections, whereas the monthly treasurer’s
reports present year‐to‐date actuals.
b. Year‐end projected fund balance for FY 2021‐22 is calculated as the beginning fund
balance as of July 1, 2021, plus projected FY 2021‐22 revenues minus projected FY 2021‐
22 expenditures.
c. Year‐end projected revenues and expenditures estimate the revenues the City expects
to receive and the expenditures the City expects to spend. Projections are based on the
amended budget, year‐to‐date actuals, and historical trends.
d. The year‐to‐date actual fund balance as of March 31, 2022, is calculated as the
beginning fund balance as of July 1, 2021, plus year‐to‐date actual revenues minus year‐
to‐date actual expenditures.
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
4. Missing in budget is certain policies, City of Chico’s budget includes BP‐9 and BP‐10 related to
expenditure control. Would like this guidance and policy include in our budget.
a. It appears Chico lists administrative, financial, and human resources policies. The City’s
current budget policies can be found in the City’s financial policies sections. This
includes the City’s budget transfer and amendments, Capital Funding, Fund Balance,
Community Funding and IT equipment replacement policy.
b. Staff can work to include additional policies and revision dates in the FY 2023‐24
Proposed Budget.
5. Slide 28 –shows a decrease due to historical society? What is historical society? Is there a
subcommittee and when will a report be brought forward?
a. The Cupertino Historical Society has been collecting and archiving items that document
the community’s past since 1966. The Cupertino Historical Society has been awarded
funding through the Community Funding Grant Program since 2015. As part of the FY
2019‐20 budget approval process at the June 18, 2019, City Council meeting, Council
unanimously approved to designate an annual amount of $20,000 as a base (or line)
item for the Cupertino Historical Society.
b. The Staff Report from FY 2021‐2022 Community Funding Item with Historical Society
background (Attachment A).
c. A Council Subcommittee was formed at the June 4, 2021, City Council meeting. The
Historical Society information is currently planned for the June 7 City Council meeting.
6. Council and commission expenditures – not an accurate reflection of salaries and benefits
a. Council allocations has personnel costs
Staff costs include all staff that may assist the City Council on a day‐to‐day basis. We can
create a new budget program called City Council Support and move all salary and
benefits associated with support staff to the new program. Then, the City Council
budget would only show City Council’s costs. The overall department budget would
remain unchanged.
As requested, the table below shows the City Council & Commissions budget broken
down into three sections:
City Council (salary and benefits for City Council members)
City Council Support (all salary and benefits for staff supporting City Council)
Commission Support (all salary and benefits for staff supporting commissions,
committees, and sister cities)
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
Benefitted
Positions Compensation Benefits
Total
Compensation and
Benefits
City Council 5 $47,284 $96,986 $144,270
City Council
Support 0.85 $92,791 $61,893 $154,684
Commissions,
Committees, and
Sister Cities
Support
1.43 $212,237 $103,512 $315,749
Total Council and
Commissions 7.28 $352,312 $262,391 $614,703
b. Request to reflect how much is going into each of the depts by comp and benefits
7. Community Funding policy – What is the source of the policy? What is the revision date, year it
was approved and who approved it?
a. The Community Funding Policy was originally adopted in FY 2012‐2013
b. Most recent amendments: City Council Minutes from December 1, 2020 Meeting
(Attachment C)
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
8. Where do we sit in the market compared to other jurisdictions in turnover since 2018 to the
present?
a. Staff is pulling data from other Santa Clara County cities. Staff expects to have these
comparisons as part of the June 7, 2022, Final Budget hearing.
Vallco Town Center/Funds
9. In 2019, there are more Vallco expenses and revenues which we need to see a complete tally. It
shows $14.7 mil in expenses for Vallco construction plan check and $22.5 mil revenue. There are
building inspection expenses of $5.4 mil, but revenue is $7.2 mil. We were only shown one item
of $2M for rise development but no further details around it and would like to see a more
complete detail of ongoing Vallco expenses. How are these special projects being accounted for
in the long term? There are some ongoing projects, but for other one‐time projects, what
happened to them in 2019, as it’s not included in the book but showed up in special projects
update which is confusing.
a. Contracts for the Vallco SB35 project were approved at the February 18, 2020, City
Council meeting. (Refer to attachment B)
b. On March 3, 2020, funding for the budget related to these contracts was approved as
part of the mid‐year financial report.
c. No other adjustments have been made to these contracts/budget to date.
d. The costs related to these contracts are carried over at year‐end into the new fiscal
year. The detail related to which project this revenue gets allocated to is held in the
City’s permitting system and kept in summary in the City’s financial system. The detail is
still held in the permitting system, but staff is working on translating it into isolated
Vallco revenue accounts (as shown below) in the financial system.
e. Expense account 750‐067 Special Projects VTC includes Community Development and
Public Works and will be accounted for in the following revenue accounts 410‐440
Licenses and Permits VTC Plan Check, 410‐441 Licenses and Permits VTC Inspections,
and 450‐407 Charges for Services VTC Engineering. Community Development and Public
Works have expended and received the following:
Budget Unit Expenses* as of 4/30/22 Revenues* as of 4/30/22
100‐73‐714 (CDD) $42,835.63 $141,250.24
100‐73‐715 (CDD) $0 $83,902.69
100‐82‐804 (PW) $25,820 $0
*Timing of revenue and offsetting expenditures may lag due to when fees are collected and when inspections can begin.
f. The Special Projects FY 2021‐22 Update shows the FY 2021‐22 Amended Budget, so it
includes projects that were carried over from prior fiscal years. The FY 2021‐22 Adopted
Budget only includes new appropriations approved. Carryovers are not requested in the
Proposed Budget, since the appropriations were already approved.
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
10. I would like an update regarding the Vallco items shown here because it appears there have
been a significant amount of revenues and much lesser expenses which the update on the
agenda yesterday did not reflect (I mentioned them during the meeting and am pasting the
table from the meeting information you referenced from March 3, 2020 or possibly 2019, for
Council, pardon the formatting issues):
a. Answered above
Account Totals/Balances
11. There was an update to the Audit Committee which showed most of the City’s various account
balances for December, 2021, however there may be some checking accounts which were not
included. During the Monthly Treasurer’s Report Subcommittee meeting it was indicated by
Kristina that there are 3 checking accounts, which I was unaware of. I would like to know the
names, types, and totals of all the City’s accounts, in case we are missing some old accounts or
overlooked anything.
a. Starting April 2022, the Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Report will include account
statements for the City’s checking accounts. The City has the following checking
accounts:
Wells Fargo Operating Account
Wells Fargo Workers’ Compensation Account
Wells Fargo Payroll Account
Wells Fargo Flexible Spending Employee Benefits Account (employee
contributions to Flexible Spending Accounts)
Fund Totals
12. I am concerned that we have a considerable amount of funds already accounted for (Park,
Capital Improvements, etc.) and perhaps I am missing an account, but it does seem that there is
no available funding for many proposed projects in the CIP. I think the funding sources need to
be better explained because, between the potential reduction in sales tax and the funds already
designated to various categories (e.g. parks), I am not sure that several projects can or should be
entertained for discussion. The CIP, in particular, must identify funding sources and I would
assume this would be utilizing the variously already earmarked amounts (which I see at least
potentially 3 distinct funds the City has), but beyond these amounts, there does not appear to
be a source of funding, and items will need to be judiciously removed? My concern is that we
cannot afford many things.
a. Please refer to the Fiscal Impact Section of the CIP report. As described in the CIP staff
report, $13.6 million in fund balance ($4.0 million in Capital Improvement Fund and $9.5
million in Capital Reserve) is expected to be available as of 7/1/2022.
5/18/2022 Proposed Budget Meeting Questions
*For reporting purposes, this fund rolls up/combines with Fund 420.
b. The Proposed Budget shows Projected Fund Balance, which is a year‐end projection that
takes into account how much is expected to be received and expended by the end of
the fiscal year. It projects year‐end revenues and expenditures based on actuals to date.
c. The Amended Budget Fund Balance assumes all Amended Budget revenues will be
received and all Amended Budget expenditures will be expended.
Fund Projected Fund
Balance as of 7/1/2022
Amended Budget Fund
Balance as of 7/1/2022
280 Park Dedication $2,175,440 $2,175,440
420 Capital Improvement Fund $30,841,037 $4,033,422
429 Capital Reserve* $9,546,568 $9,546,568
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 1, 2021
Subject
Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to approve funds in
the amount of $92,900 for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Community Funding Grant
Program; annual funding for the Cupertino Historical Society in the amount of
$20,000; and approval of final funding amounts for the Community Funding
Program, to be included in the Recommended Budget for FY 2021-22. (Continued
from May 18).
Recommended Action
Consider the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to
approve funds in the amount of $92,900 for the FY 2021-22 Community Funding
Grant Program and consider annual funding for the Cupertino Historical Society in
the amount of $20,000. Determine and approve final funding amounts for the
Community Funding Program, to be included in the Recommended Final Budget for
FY 2021-22; and provide direction to staff.
The item was initially included in the May 18, 2021 City Council meeting agenda and
was continued to the June 1, 2021 meeting. Written communications for the item
from the May 18 meeting have been included in the staff report (Attachment A)
Discussion
Background
The Community Funding Grant application process opened in January and closed on
February 1, 2021. The City received 17 applications for the FY 2021-22 Community
Funding Grant Program application cycle. Staff reviewed all submitted applications
for completeness and preliminary eligibility (Attachment A). The 17 applicants had
the opportunity to attend the March 4 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting,
provide additional information on their request, and answer any clarifying questions
from the Commission.
Evaluation Process
At the April 1 regular meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission facilitated the
evaluation process and provided a funding recommendation to City Council. After
receiving public comment on the item, the Commissioners each completed an
evaluation form (Attachment B) before providing their total out of 100 for each
application. Staff received the totals from each Commissioner and compiled them
into the evaluation totals form (Attachment C), which the Commission used to
discuss and determine their recommendation to Council.
Eligibility
After initial review of the 17 submitted applications, seven applications fully met
eligibility requirements and ten applications were pending eligibility, requiring
further consideration by the Commission. This is reflected in the Community
Funding Applications Summary (Attachment D). Final eligibility was determined by
the Commission during the evaluation process. The Commission agreed to provide
rankings for all organizations, and deemed all eligible, except for the Silicon Valley
Jewish Film Festival and Diwani Academy of Percussion Music in the United States.
This decision was based on the Community Funding Grant Policy (Attachment E)
restrictions/guidelines that note admission to or participation in the organization’s
event must be “free of charge” to Cupertino residents, unless stated in the
application and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Parks and Recreation Commission Funding Recommendation to City Council
The Commission carried a motion with 4 votes yes and one recusal to recommend to
City Council funding for the following organizations at a total of $92,900:
West Valley Community Services of Santa Clara County, Inc. - $10,000
Cupertino Library Foundation - $15,000
Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation - $7,400
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society - $8,500
Friends of Deer Hollow Farm - $7,000
Chinese American Coalition for Compassionate Care - $12,000
Valkyrie Robotics - $3,000
Tian Hong Foundation - $3,000
Rotary Club of Cupertino - $12,000
Euphrat Museum of Art - $15,000
The Commission considered the suggested funding range of $70,000 to $90,000 when
providing their recommendation. The suggested funding range was included in the
most recent version of the Community Funding Grant Policy, which was adopted by
City Council at their December 1, 2020 meeting.
The Commission noted that following procedures from past years, it is anticipated
that City Council will consider funding for the Cupertino Historical Society as a
separate line item within the Community Funding Program budget, in addition to
the Commission’s funding recommendation.
Cupertino Historical Society
Background
The Cupertino Historical Society has been awarded funding through the Community
Funding Grant Program since 2015. As part of the FY 2019-20 budget approval
process at the June 18, 2019 City Council meeting, Council unanimously approved to
designate an annual amount of $20,000 as a base (or line) item for the Cupertino
Historical Society. These funds are to be designated in the Community Funding
Grant Program budget as their own line item. Below is a breakdown of the Historical
Society’s previously awarded funds through the Community Funding Grant
Program:
2015 - $10,000
2016 - $15,000
2017 - $15,000
2018 - $15,000
2019 - $20,000 (individual budget line item)
2020 - $20,000 (individual budget line item)
Current Considerations
The Historical Society is required to submit a grant application each year outlining
how they anticipate utilizing funds (Attachment F), as well as a financial report at the
end of each fiscal year, detailing how funds were used (Attachment G). At their
December 1, 2020 meeting, City Council reviewed the Community Funding Grant
Policy and requested to add funding of the Historical Society as a future agenda item
for discussion. The policy is currently being reviewed and will be brought to Council
for their consideration prior to the FY 2022-23 Community Funding Program cycle.
The $20,000 funding towards the Cupertino Historical Society, in addition to the
Commission’s recommended funding amount of $92,900 would result in a total
Community Funding Program budget of $112,900 for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
If Council approves the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommended funding
amount of $92,900, the total Community Funding Program budget for Fiscal Year
2021-22 would total $112,900, including $20,000 allocated to the Cupertino Historical
Society. Final funding amounts for the Community Funding Program will be
included in the Recommended Final Budget for FY 2021-22.
___________________________________
Prepared by: Rachelle Sander, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation
Whitney Zeller, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Joanne Magrini, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved for Submission by: Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
A – Written Communications 5.18.21 City Council Meeting Item 18
B – Community Funding Applications and Preliminary Eligibility Evaluations
C – Commissioner Community Funding Evaluation Form
D – Evaluation Totals and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation
E – Community Funding Applications Summary
F – Community Funding Grant Policy
G – Historical Society Grant Application FY 2021-22
H – Historical Society Financial Report (FY 2019-20)
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 18, 2020
Subject
Award of Construction Inspection Services, Plan Review Services, and Public
Works Inspection Services contracts for the Vallco SB35 project.
Recommended Action:
1. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to 4LEAF, Inc.
(4LEAF) to provide Construction Inspection Services and Public Works
Inspection Services for a not to exceed contract price of $7,407,710 for the
Vallco SB35 project.
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to CSG Consultants,
Inc. (CSG), for a not to exceed contract price of $1,149,983 for plan review
services for the Vallco SB35 project.
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to Independent
Code Consulting, Inc. (ICCI) for a not to exceed contract price of $13,500,000
for plan review services for the Vallco SB35 project.
Discussion:
On February 4, 2020, City Council reviewed the recommendation to award
contracts for three consulting firms to provide Professional Plan Review and
Inspection Services for the Vallco S35 project. The February 4th staff report is
included as attachment A.
Councilmembers made several recommendations to amend specific language in
the contracts to ensure transparency in the construction and inspection phase of
the project. Councilmembers also requested changes to the contract attachments,
including the project description, to provide consistency.
As a result of the comments made by Councilmembers at the public hearing, staff
revised contract provisions for Time of Performance, Invoices and Payments,
Property Rights, and Records. Staff also worked with each of the consultants to
provide a consistent Project Description and Scope of Services terms, attached as
Exhibit A to each of the contracts, as well as consistent Compensation terms,
included as Exhibit B to each of the contracts. The updated contracts are included
as Attachments B, C, and D to this report.
GREEN ROOF DESIGN
A discussion related to the design, review and approval of the Vallco SB35 project
green roof was brought up at the meeting.
The green roof is being designed as a seismically isolated structure by the
integrated architecture, civil, geotechnical, and engineering firms to ensure that
the green roof systems maintain structural stability, are structurally isolated in an
earthquake, have a reinforced soil stabilization design to prohibit sliding of
landscaping, proper drainage, recycled water irrigation with good soil
percolation, and robust waterproofing.
Along with Rafael Vinoly Architects, the developer’s design team is comprised of
two structural engineers, Nabih Yousef Associates and DCI Engineers, Olin
Landscape, Sandis Civil Engineering, ME Engineers, Allana Buick & Bers
Engineering, Langan Geotechnical Engineering, and a third-party seismic peer
review panel.
A selected list of large-scale projects that feature landscape over structure in the
portfolio of the design team include:
Apple Park, Cupertino
New Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto
UCSF Ray and Dagmar Dolby Regeneration Medicine Building, San
Francisco
Pershing Square, Los Angeles
Rockefeller University, New York
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Virginia
The Getty Center, Los Angeles
Battery Park City, New York
Canary Wharf, London
Bryant Park, New York
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Conference Center, Salt
Lake City
Columbus Circle, New York
Philadelphia Museum of Art Sculpture Garden, Philadelphia
Dilworth Park, Philadelphia
Carnegie Hall Roof Terrace, New York
The City’s proposed building plan review firm, CSG Consultants Inc., has
extensive experience in plan review of projects with systems and components
similar to those on the Vallco SB35 project. For example, CSG has performed
structural plan review on the elevated landscape system successfully
implemented at Apple Park in Cupertino. In addition to the plan review of green
roofs and elevated landscape systems, their licensed engineers have experience
designing these types of systems and are well qualified to perform careful and
detailed review of the design.
The City’s proposed building and public works plan review firm, Independent
Code Consultants, Inc., also has the expertise to ensure rainwater does not pond
by verifying there is an inlet within each drainage shed, landscape areas are
designed with the acceptable slope and flow toward inlets, and that there is an
appropriate overland release for large storm events. Inlets depicted on the roof
plans are represented on the mechanical, electrical and plumbing plans. Walking
pathways on the green roof are designed and reviewed to meet ADA and T24
California accessibility requirements.
FEE REVENUES
At the February 4th meeting, Councilmembers also asked for information about
City costs that the pass through fees pay for. Each year the City adopts a Fee
Schedule that lists fees for numerous services and permits provided by City
departments. The Engineering and Building fee schedules for building and public
works permits is available here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/community-development/building/building-forms-fees. These
fees apply to all projects seeking these permits, including the Vallco SB35 project.
A user fee study was completed by the Matrix Consulting group in April 2016 to
determine the full cost of various permitting services provided by the City. The
fee study is attached to the April 5, 2016 City Council agenda packet. Based upon
this study, Engineering, Building, and Planning fees were approved by Council to
fully recover costs, thus fees charged are estimated to cover costs to provide the
services and no more. Costs included in the fee study’s calculation include:
Cost
Component
Description
Direct Salaries, benefits and allowable departmental expenditures for staff
processing the permits.
Departmental
Overhead
Division or Departmental administration / management and clerical
support.
Citywide
Overhead
City costs associated with central service costs such as payroll,
human resources, budgeting, City management, etc.
Cross-
Departmental
Support
Costs associated with review or assistance by other departments in
permit review.
In subsequent years these fee rates have been increased by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI), Construction Cost Index (CCI), or by actual increases in salary and
benefit changes as appropriate. The next user fee study is scheduled to occur in
2023 per the April 5, 2016 staff report.
Of the fees collected for the Vallco SB35 building and public work permit
applications, the Plan Review consultants will receive 65% of the calculated plan
review fee while the City will collect the remaining 35%. The Inspection firm will
receive 75% of the calculated building permit fees while t he City will collect the
remaining 25%. Public Works inspections will be performed on a time and
materials basis and the developer will provide a deposit account for the City to
draw from to pay for these services.
As indicated in the fee study, the City’s portion of the plan review and inspection
fees will be used to fund associated City staff time and overhead. This includes
building and public works staff time (including salaries and benefits) and
expenses to administer review of the permit applications, coordinate with
consultants and the applicant, and perform the final review of all reviews and
checks performed by the City’s consultants. Collected fees will also fund
additional permit review by staff from other departments, such as planning, and
support services provided by the Department of Administrative Services, City
Manager’s office, and City Attorney’s office. Finally, fees will fund a portion of the
City’s departmental and citywide overhead.
PROCESSING VALLCO SB35 PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
At the February 4th Council meeting, there were also questions about the timing
of the City’s processing of permits for the Vallco SB 35 Project. Since October 2018,
the developer has submitted applications for 8 separate demolition permits and 5
separate construction permits for the Project. The City has prioritized its review of
these permit applications to accommodate the developer’s planned demolition
and construction sequencing. Accordingly, the City’s work in 2019 focused on the
demolition phase of the project. To date, the City has issued 7 out of the 8
demolition permit applications it has received. The last remaining demolition
permit is for the demolition of the Wolfe Road Bridge Structure, which is in the
review process and is currently with the applicant to respond to comments.
For the construction permit applications, the City has been prioritizing review of
permits for other site ready work. The City is currently prepared to issue permits
for Make-Ready Utility work pending final submittals by Vallco. This work
includes the relocation and demolition of existing utilities to prepare the site for
the proposed development.
At the same time, the City has been preparing for the third-party building and
public works plan review and inspection services that will be necessary to process
other pending and anticipated construction permits as the project moves into the
construction phase. Thus, last year the City conducted a competitive procurement
process for these services through a Request for Proposals and subsequent
interviews. Once the preferred vendors were selected, the City began negotiations
with the consultants over payment structures. The City also worked with the
consultants to establish in advance processes and procedures to ensure the review
process will be as efficient and effective as possible utilizing methods learned from
the Apple Park project. The consultants are now ready to immediately begin plan
review of other pending applications after City Council approv al of the contracts
for this item.
Sustainability Impact:
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact:
The City will not incur a net fiscal impact. The City will be receiving permit, plan
check, and inspection fees and deposits from the developer. These fees and
deposits will be recorded in specific liability and revenue accounts. From the
deposits and revenues received, a portion (65%-75%) will be used for permit, plan
check, and building inspections performed by Consultants and expensed
accordingly in specific accounts. Deposits for Public Works inspections will be
used for consultant inspections expensed on a time and materials basis.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Albert Salvador, Assistant Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Deborah L. Feng, City Manager
Attachments:
A – February 4, 2020 Staff Report for Plan Review and Inspection Services
B – Services Agreement – CSG Consultants, Inc.
C – Services Agreement – Independent Code Consultants, Inc.
D – Services Agreement – 4LEAF, Inc.
APPROVED MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,December 1,2020
SPECIAL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m.Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order.This was a
teleconference meeting with no physical location.
ROLL CALL
Present:Mayor Steven Scharf,Vice Mayor Darcy Paul,and Councilmembers Liang Chao,Rod
Sinks,and Jon Robert Willey.Absent:None.All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the
meeting.
STUDY SESSION
1. Subject: Study Session on Climate Action Plan 2.0 initial draft goals and vision
statement
Recommended Action:Provide input and direction on the Climate Action Plan 2.0
initial draft goals and vision statement
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.
Sustainability Manager Andre Duuvoort gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.
Pragya Natarajan,on behalf of Cupertino High School Environmental Club,
supported a climate action plan,a 2030 deadline,and incentivizing electricity.
Gwyn Azar on behalf of Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team supported a climate
action plan,an aggressive policy,and joining carbon neutral by 2030.
Jennifer Griffin supported sustainability goals,discussions on density building issues
and new HVAC technologies,and was opposed switching from gas.
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 2
Sophia Wang,on behalf of Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team,supported
adopting a replace on burnout ordinance,rebates,and Menlo Park’s ordinance goals.
Dashiell Leeds,on behalf of Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter,supported an ordinance
like Menlo Park’s or Palo Alto’s,adopting by 2030,and moving to full electrification.
Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham representing self),supported
environmental justice,carbon neutral goals,and green infrastructure.
Shani Kleinhaus,on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,supported a
climate action plan including biodiversity for nature and sustaining local species.
Planning Commissioner Kitty Moore representing self)supported transitioning from
wood heating,new HVAC technologies,and improving diversion rates of recyclables.
Mayor Scharf closed the public comment period.
Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
There was overall support to explore aggressive climate action goals if the data
analysis is supportive and substantive.
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
At 6:45 p.m.Mayor Steven Scharf called the Regular City Council meeting to order.This was a
teleconference meeting with no physical location.
ROLL CALL
Present:Mayor Steven Scharf,Vice Mayor Darcy Paul,and Councilmembers Liang Chao,Rod
Sinks,and Jon Robert Willey.Absent:None.All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the
meeting.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 3
1. Subject:Municipal Code Amendments to update existing Mobile Vending regulations,
including but not limited to regulations in Chapter 5.48,and potential conforming edits
to other chapters in the Municipal Code,including in Titles 5,11,13 and 19.Application
No(s).:MCA 2020 004;Applicant(s):City of Cupertino;Location:citywide.This item
has been continued to December 15.
2. Subject:Approving City of Cupertino 2020 Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study
Update,increasing the Transportation Impact Fees,and amending Schedule B of the
2020 21 Fee Schedule to incorporate the increased fees.This item has been continued to
December 15.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia noted that This item has been continued to January 19
instead of the December 15 date noted on tonight’s agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Written Communications for this item included an email to Council.
Jennifer Griffin was concerned about the process for funding and introducing housing bills and
loss of local control and supported greater transparency.
Michael Haas,on behalf of Charlene Lee,was concerned about the November 3,2020 election
results,her candidate biography posting on the City website,and development within the City.
Rhoda Fry was opposed to naming city buildings after individuals and honorary plaques in
recognition of city leaders including the Library expansion project.
Viggie34 talked about taking photos of a homeless encampment next to Vallco,his interaction
with encampment residents and the police,and his plans to file a lawsuit for compensation.
Charlene Lee was concerned about the conduct and results of the November 3,2020 election,
her candidate biography posting on the City website,and collection of her campaign signs.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 10 minutes)
3. Subject:City Manager update on emergency response efforts
Recommended Action:Receive City Manager update on emergency response efforts
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 4
City Manager Deborah Feng reported on the State’s COVID 19 tier guidelines and
Cupertino case counts and testing opportunities;Parks and Recreation activities;and a
homeless encampment update regarding outreach and engagement for unhoused
residents.
Council received the City Manager update on emergency response efforts.
4. Subject:Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action:Report on Committee assignments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their various committees.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Scharf moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar except for
Item No.8 which was pulled for discussion.Ayes:Scharf,Paul,Chao,Sinks,and Willey.Noes:
None.Abstain:None.Absent:None.
5. Subject:Approve the November 17 City Council minutes
Recommended Action:Approve the November 17 City Council minutes
6. Subject:Approve the November 19 City Council minutes
Recommended Action:Approve the November 19 City Council minutes
7. Subject:Set hearing date on January 19,2021 to declare a public nuisance from weeds)
and to consider objections for proposed removal;declare properties as having potential
fire hazards from weeds or other potential nuisances for the Cupertino Weed
Abatement Program.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No.20 136 declaring properties as having
potential fire hazards from weeds or other potential nuisances;and set hearing on
January 19,2021 to declare a public nuisance and to consider objections for proposed
removal.
8. Subject:Mitigation Fee Act Annual Five Year Report Fiscal Year 2019 2020
Recommended Action: 1.Accept the Annual Five Year Review of the City of
Cupertinos Development Impact Fees Government Code Section 66000 et seq.);and 2.
Adopt Resolution No 20 137 entitled A Resolution of the Cupertino City Council Approving
the Annual Five Year Development Impact Fee Report for FY Ending June
30,2020 and Making Required Findings.
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 5
Scharf moved and Willey seconded to:
1.Accept the Annual Five Year Review of the City of Cupertinos Development Impact
Fees Government Code Section 66000 et seq.);and 2.
Adopt Resolution No 20 137 entitled A Resolution of the Cupertino City Council Approving
the Annual Five Year Development Impact Fee Report for FY Ending June
30,2020 and Making Required Findings.
The motion carried unanimously.
9. Subject:Consider changes to the part time salary schedules for classifications and job
series impacted by minimum wage adjustments.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No.20 138 establishing changes to part time
salary schedules for classifications impacted by minimum wage adjustments and
realign wage increases with position advancement.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
10. Subject:Second reading of Ordinance No.20 2216 to amend Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 concerning the Disaster Council and the emergency management
program).
Recommended Action:Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.20 2216:
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Cupertino
Municipal Code Chapter 2.40 concerning the Disaster Council and the Emergency
Management Program).”
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of Ordinance No.20 2216:An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 concerning the Disaster Council and the Emergency Management
Program).”
Scharf moved and Willey seconded to read the title of Ordinance No.20 2216 by title
only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof.
Ayes:Scharf,Paul,Chao,Sinks,and Willey.Noes:None.Abstain:None.Absent:None.
Scharf moved and Willey seconded to enact Ordinance No.20 2216.
Ayes:Scharf,Paul,Chao,Sinks,and Willey.Noes:None.Abstain:None.Absent:None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 6
11. Subject:Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and lighting regulations to
implement the Fiscal Year 2019/20 City Council Work Program items related to Dark
Sky and Bird Safe Design.Application No.MCA 2019 003 and MCA 2019 004;
Applicant:City of Cupertino;Location:City wide)
Recommended Action:That the City Council:
1. Find the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA;and,
2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.20 2217 An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code to Add Chapter 19.102:Glass
and Lighting Standards and to Amend Chapter 19.08 Definitions,Chapter 19.40
Residential Hillside RHS)Zones,Chapter 19.60 General Commercial GC)Zones,
Chapter 19.72 Light Industrial ML)and Industrial Park MP)Zones,and Chapter
19.124 Parking Regulations to Implement Bird Safe and Dark Sky Policies.”
Attachment A)
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to
Council.
Planning Manager Piu Ghosh and Senior Planner Erick Serrano gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened the public hearing and the following people spoke.
Jill Halloran supported dark skies and bird safe design.
Shani Kleinhaus,on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,supported the
Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance
Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham representing self)supported the Dark
Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance
Peter Friedland supported the Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance
Lisa Karpinski supported the Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance
Mike Rhode was concerned about retail risks,lighting restrictions,and security and
safety,and supported postponing the item.
Greg Whitney was concerned about impacts on retail and restaurants,security and
safety,and uninviting lighting aspects,and supported looking at other cities first.
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 7
Jean Bedord was concerned tax implications on business structures,overregulating
commercial activity,and conducting commercial community outreach.
Dashiell Leeds,on behalf of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter,supported the Dark
Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance.
Rhoda Fry supported the Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance.
Anjali Kausar,on behalf of the Chamber Commerce,was concerned about further
outreach to businesses and supported postponing the item.
Rose Friedland supported the Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance.
Planning Commissioner Kitty Moore representing self)was concerned about string
lighting regulations and addressing commercial area concerns.
Mayor Scharf closed the public hearing.
Council recessed from 8:30 p.m.to 8:35 p.m.
Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
Paul moved to call the question.The motion carried with Sinks voting no.
Paul moved and Chao seconded to continue this item until December 15.The motion
carried with Sinks voting no.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
12. Subject:Updated Administrative Procedures Within the Community Funding Grant
Policy.
Recommended Action:Review and adopt updated administrative procedures within
the Community Funding Grant Policy,including an earlier submission date for
applications,program funding range,and affirmation that all qualified applicant
materials will be brought to City Council.
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation,Amended
Attachment B Community Funding Policy redline version),and Amended
Attachment C Community Funding Policy clean version).
City Council Minutes December 1,2020
Page 8
Director of Parks and Recreation Joanne Magrini gave a presentation.
Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
Scharf moved and Sinks seconded to adopt updated administrative procedures within
the Community Funding Grant Policy,including an earlier submission date for
applications,program funding range,and affirmation that all qualified applicant
materials will be brought to City Council.The motion carried unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUED As necessary)
COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Added a future agenda item to discuss nonprofit funding as a line item in the budget
Chao/Scharf)
Added a future agenda item to review existing policy for naming public buildings,
donations,and recognition strategies Chao/Scharf)
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:13 p.m.,Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
Kirsten Squarcia,City Clerk