HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 01-13-2026 Searchable PacketTuesday, January 13, 2026
6:45 PM
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Special Meeting
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
City Council
KITTY MOORE, MAYOR
LIANG CHAO, VICE MAYOR
J.R. FRUEN, COUNCILMEMBER
SHEILA MOHAN, COUNCILMEMBER
R "RAY" WANG, COUNCILMEMBER
IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information:
(408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov
AGENDA
1
CC 01-13-2026
1 of 52
City Council Agenda January 13, 2026
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE:
Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following
ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and
www.Cupertino.org/webcast
4) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT:
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council may do so in the following
ways:
1) Appear in person for Open Session at Cupertino Community Hall.
A. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda,
and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for
each agendized item.
B. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards
is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for
the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
C. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the
microphone when recognized by the Mayor.
D. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Mayor may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group between 2 and 5 members of the public in attendance may
have up to 2 minutes per group member to speak, up to 10 minutes maximum.
E. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any
personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document
(e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in
one of the following ways:
a) At the overhead projector at the podium, or
b) E-mail the document to cityclerk@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the
Page 2
2
CC 01-13-2026
2 of 52
City Council Agenda January 13, 2026
slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2) Written Communications as follows:
A. E-mail comments to the City Council for Open Session at
publiccomment@cupertino.gov as follows:
a. E-mail comments must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to be
forwarded to the City Council before the meeting.
b. Emailed comments received following agenda publication but prior to, or during, the
meeting, will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
c. These e-mail comments will also be received by each City Councilmember, the City
Manager, and the City Clerk’s Office. Comments on non-agenda items sent to any other
email address will be included upon the sender's request.
B. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: City Council, City Hall, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
3) Open Session Teleconference in one of the following ways:
A. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in
advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_T6DEwqCeQzmT8lQF_0o_KA
a) Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
b) Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
c) Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
B. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join
the meeting as follows:
a) Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 845 1751 7258
b) To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
c) Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number.
C. Via an H.323/SIP room system:
Join from an H.323/SIP room system:
H.323:
Page 3
3
CC 01-13-2026
3 of 52
City Council Agenda January 13, 2026
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 845 1751 7258
SIP: 84517517258@zoomcrc.com
D. Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to provide access
to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
a) Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior
to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from
the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment.
b) If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the
remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote
participation provided above.
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby
called for Tuesday, January 13, 2026, commencing at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council
Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 and via teleconference. Said
special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters
listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Subject: Amendment to 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate
Councilmember Wang as the primary and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate to the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee.
Recommended Action: Amend the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate
Councilmember Wang as the primary and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate to the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee.
Staff Report
A - 2026 Council Committee Assignments
B - Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (redline)
C - Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (clean)
Page 4
4
CC 01-13-2026
4 of 52
City Council Agenda January 13, 2026
STUDY SESSION
2.Subject: Study session regarding Potential November 2026 Ballot Measure on Parkland
Rezoning Considerations.
Recommended Action: Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin
preliminary analysis and engagement regarding a potential parkland rezoning ballot
measure, and return to City Council with recommended next steps.
Staff Report
3.Subject: Study session regarding Various Revenue Tax Options.
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin
preliminary analysis regarding budgetary need for and timeline of potential revenue
generating ballot measure, and return to City Council with recommended next steps.
Staff Report
A – Presentation (2023.12.5)
4.Subject: Study Session to consider possible updates to the City’s practices pertaining to
its advisory bodies, including its Commissions and Committees.
Recommended Action: Consider and discuss options for updating the City’s practices
pertaining to its advisory bodies, including (1) increasing community participation via
extended nepotism restrictions, (2) filling vacancies and appointing alternates, (3)
updating attendance requirements, (4) recognizing commissioner autonomy, and (5)
considering the unique characteristics of Committees as compared to Commissions,
including the Economic Development Committee and the Audit Committee.
Staff Report
ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence
legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance
(Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose
communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or
submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.
For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300
Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email cityclerk@cupertino.org; and
website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
Page 5
5
CC 01-13-2026
5 of 52
City Council Agenda January 13, 2026
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of
the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council
packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter
on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
Page 6
6
CC 01-13-2026
6 of 52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Amendment to 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Councilmember Wang as the
primary and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative
Action Committee.
Amend the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Councilmember Wang as the primary and Vice
Mayor Chao as the alternate to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/8/2026Page 1 of 1
7
CC 01-13-2026
7 of 52
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject
Amendment to 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Councilmember Wang as the
primary and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee.
Recommended Action
Amend the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Councilmember Wang as the
primary and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee.
Background
The City Council appoints Councilmembers to serve as representatives to various local and
regional organizations. Per the City Council Procedures Manual (Resolution No. 25-016), the
Mayor appoints Councilmembers to standing and ad hoc committees and subcommittees
established by the City Council, subject to ratification by the Council at its next regular meeting.
Under the Procedures Manual, the City Council has the opportunity to ratify or modify the
Mayor’s appointments. It is the responsibility of the committees and subcommittees to inform
and submit recommendations to the Council.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
On December 16, 2025, the City Council approved the annual committee assignments for the 2026
calendar year (Attachment A). Under the initial appointments, Vice Mayor Chao was designated
as the primary representative for the Cities Association of Santa Clara County (CASCC) Board of
Directors, Selection Committee, and the Legislative Action Committee, and Councilmember
Wang was designated as the alternate. These meetings occur in a "stacked" sequence on the same
evening, resulting in a lengthy continuous time block commitment that limits a single
representative’s ability to remain effective throughout the session.
Mayor Kitty Moore recommends amending the 2026 Council Committee Appointments to
reassign Councilmember Wangas the primary for the CASCC Legislative Action Committee
and Vice Mayor Chao as the alternate. This adjustment is intended to optimize councilmember
time management and ensure balanced representation across the Cities Association's sequential
meeting structure.
8
CC 01-13-2026
8 of 52
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal:
N/A
California Environmental Quality Act
N/A
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk
Reviewed by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A - 2026 Council Committee Assignments
B - Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (redline)
C - Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (clean)
9
CC 01-13-2026
9 of 52
2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Kitty Moore Primary 1
Liang Chao Primary 2
Annually in June (Online registration will
be available in April)
Sheila Mohan Alternate Bay Area Metro Center
Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West
(hybrid in-person/zoom if possible)
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Committee
10
CC 01-13-2026
10 of 52
2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority - Board of Directors
1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
Expressway, San Jose, CA or via Zoom teleconference
12:00 p.m.
3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison
Location changes monthly
10am
Cupertino Community Hall
11
CC 01-13-2026
11 of 52
2026 Council Committees
City of Cupertino Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Audit Committee (City of Cupertino)Kitty Moore Meets quarterly, usually 4th Monday of
Ray Wang Quinlan Community Center, Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation (Cupertino)All Councilmembers Meets annually, third Monday in November
and as needed
City Hall, Conference Room C
Economic Development Committee (Cupertino)Ray Wang Primary
Liang Chao Alternate
Regular meetings are held quarterly and as
needed (time and location to be determined)
Disaster Council (Cupertino)Meets no less than annually.
City Hall, Conference Room C
Sister City Committees Sheila Mohan As needed
Liang Chao City Hall
* The Mayor, or their
designee per Municipal
Code section 2.40.025
12
CC 01-13-2026
12 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Kitty Moore Primary 1
Liang Chao Primary 2
Annually in June (Online registration will
be available in April)
Sheila Mohan Alternate Bay Area Metro Center
Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West
(hybrid in-person/zoom if possible)
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Ray Wang Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Committee
13
CC 01-13-2026
13 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority - Board of Directors
1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
JR Fruen Alternate January 28, April 8, July 22, October 28
Expressway, San Jose, CA or via Zoom teleconference
12:00 p.m.
3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison
Vice Mayor - Alternate 12pm
Location changes monthly
10am
Location changes each quarter
JR Fruen Alternate 7pm
Cupertino Community Hall
14
CC 01-13-2026
14 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
City of Cupertino Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Audit Committee (City of Cupertino)Kitty Moore Meets quarterly, usually 4th Monday of
Ray Wang Quinlan Community Center, Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Conference Room C
designee per Municipal
15
CC 01-13-2026
15 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Kitty Moore Primary 1
Liang Chao Primary 2
Annually in June (Online registration will
be available in April)
Sheila Mohan Alternate Bay Area Metro Center
Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West
(hybrid in-person/zoom if possible)
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Ray Wang Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Committee
16
CC 01-13-2026
16 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority - Board of Directors
1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
JR Fruen Alternate January 28, April 8, July 22, October 28
Expressway, San Jose, CA or via Zoom teleconference
12:00 p.m.
3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison
Vice Mayor - Alternate 12pm
Location changes monthly
10am
Location changes each quarter
JR Fruen Alternate 7pm
Cupertino Community Hall
17
CC 01-13-2026
17 of 52
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
City of Cupertino Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Audit Committee (City of Cupertino)Kitty Moore Meets quarterly, usually 4th Monday of
Ray Wang Quinlan Community Center, Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Conference Room C
designee per Municipal
18
CC 01-13-2026
18 of 52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Study session regarding Potential November 2026 Ballot Measure on Parkland Rezoning
Considerations.
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin preliminary analysis and engagement
regarding a potential parkland rezoning ballot measure, and return to City Council with
recommended next steps.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/8/2026Page 1 of 1
19
CC 01-13-2026
19 of 52
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 • FAX: (408) 777-3109
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject
Study Session Regarding Potential November 2026 Ballot Measure on Parkland Rezoning
Considerations
Recommended Action
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin preliminary analysis and
engagement regarding a potential parkland rezoning ballot measure, and return to City Council
with recommended next steps.
Background
Parkland Protection / Rezoning Initiative
Council asked staff to bring information on parkland rezoning considerations as part of the TBD
list in December 2025. Staff researched the parkland protection measure adopted by the City of
Milpitas’ Measure K (2016) and seeks direction on evaluating a similar measure in Cupertino.
Measure K in Milpitas proposed that any future construction or change in land use designation
on parcels zoned as Parks and Open Space (POS) would require approval by two-thirds of
Milpitas voters at a general or special municipal election.
Specifically, Measure K did the following:
- Prohibited residential, commercial, or industrial construction on land designated as Parks
and Open Space unless approved by a two-thirds vote.
- Prohibited redesignation of land currently zoned Parks and Open Space to another land
use without two-thirds voter approval.
Measure K was approved by voters with approximately 85% in favor and 15% opposed.
Next Steps and Support Needed
Upon direction from Council to pursue a ballot measure effort, staff will begin preliminary work,
before returning to Council with a recommended scope of work and, if appropriate, a consultant
contract and corresponding budget adjustment.
20
CC 01-13-2026
20 of 52
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact from this action. If Council directs staff to proceed, costs for
consultant services and placing items on the ballot would be identified in the current budget or
brought forward as part of a future appropriation.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description: Yes.
Protections for Parkland/Consider establishing protections for parkland, similar to those adopted
by the cities of Sunnyvale and Milpitas
Council Goal:
Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
21
CC 01-13-2026
21 of 52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Study session regarding Various Revenue Tax Options.
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin preliminary analysis regarding
budgetary need for and timeline of potential revenue generating ballot measure, and return to City
Council with recommended next steps.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/8/2026Page 1 of 1
22
CC 01-13-2026
22 of 52
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 • FAX: (408) 777-3109
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject
Study Session Regarding Various Revenue Tax Options
Recommended Action
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff to begin preliminary analysis regarding
budgetary need for and timeline of potential revenue generating ballot measure and return to
City Council with recommended next steps.
Background
Revenue Measure - History
In December 2023, staff presented Council with a report and presentation on various revenue -
generating options to address the City's long-term structural budget concerns. Options presented
included a Transaction and Use Tax (TUT), Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) adjustment, Parcel
Tax, and Business License Tax modernization. At that meeting, Council directed staff to delay
polling on any specific revenue measures, conduct outreach to the business community, and
return with findings and further recommendations.
In February 2024, following the survey, staff returned to Council with a recommendation to
forego pursuing a revenue-generating ballot initiative for the November 2024 election. Council
accepted the recommendation based on limited time, competing priorities, and the need for
broader public engagement. At that time, staff committed to reintroducing the topic for future
consideration if warranted.
Fiscal Context for Revisiting Revenue Options
Council has expressed a desire to revisit the ballot measures that were presented in 2023 as future
expenditure pressures may warrant renewed consideration of revenue options. In particular, the
City faces uncertainty regarding potential increases to its contract wit h the Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Office beginning in FY 2026–27. For context, each 10% increase in the Sheriff’s contract
would result in approximately $1.9 million in additional annual costs to the City. A 20% or 40%
increase would correspond to approximately $3.8 million or $7.6 million, respectively. Given the
23
CC 01-13-2026
23 of 52
magnitude of this potential cost driver, it is prudent for the City to begin exploring revenue
measures at this time that could help address a possible structural imbalance.
Revenue Measure - Utility Users Tax (UUT)
The City’s existing UUT is set to sunset in FY 2030–31. Should the Council wish to extend or revise
the UUT, voter approval would be required. However, placing such a measure on the 2026 ballot
would not generate additional revenue in the short term and would have no impact on the current
or immediate fiscal years. Council also has the option of directing staff to place a measure
extending the UUT on the 2028 ballot.
Next Steps and Support Needed
Upon direction from Council to pursue one or more ballot measure efforts, staff will begin
preliminary work, which may include updated revenue projections and an assessment of
potential fiscal impacts. Staff will also return to Council with a recommended scope of work and,
if appropriate, a consultant contract and corresponding budget adjustment.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact from this action. If Council directs staff to proceed, costs for
consultant services and placing items on the ballot would be identified in the current budget or
brought forward as part of a future appropriation.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description:
None
Council Goal:
Fiscal Strategy
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Presentation (2023.12.5)
24
CC 01-13-2026
24 of 52
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
December 5, 2023
Updated Tax Revenue Options
25
CC 01-13-2026
25 of 52
Presentation Outline
Tax Revenue Options - General Fund 3
Transaction and Use Tax (TUT)5
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)8
Parcel Tax 11
Business Operations Tax 15
Recommendations & Next Steps 19
2 26
CC 01-13-2026
26 of 52
Tax Revenue Options
General Fund
3 27
CC 01-13-2026
27 of 52
General Fund Revenue Taxes – 4 Basic Considerations
1.Adequacy and Certainty
•Sustainably generates annual needed revenue
•Not subject to significant variation (low volatility)
2.Equity and Fairness
•Fiscal burden appropriately spread
•Proportionate to surrounding communities
•Does not highly skew economic incentives
3.Transparency
•Easy to find information on the revenue/tax structure and understand how it operates
4.Simplicity
•Does not require multiple ballot measures (voter confusion and fatigue)
•Not highly burdensome, costly or complicated to administer (by city or payors)
4 28
CC 01-13-2026
28 of 52
Transaction and Use Tax (TUT)
Basics of a TUT
•Functionally similar to state Sales and Use
Tax (SUT) with important difference:
SUT – Point of Sale
Where did sales transaction occur?
TUT – Point of Delivery/Use
Where did Buyer receive goods or put
them to use?
•2022 – 73% of TUT measures for new or
increased rate approved (30 of 41)
•2020 - 74% of TUT measures for new or
increased rate approved (65 of 88)
Santa Clara Countywide
Base Rate 9.125%
State Sales Tax 6.25%
Bradley-Burns Local Share 1.00%
Santa Clara County Transit District (1976)0.50%
Santa Clara County Valley
Transportation Authority (2006)0.50%
Santa Clara VTA BART O&M
Transactions and Use Tax (2012)0.125%
Santa Clara County
Retail Transactions and Use Tax (2013)0.125%
Silicon Valley Transportation
Solutions Tax (2017)0.50%
Peninsula Corridor JPA
Retail Transactions and Use Tax (2020)*0.125%
5
*Authorized by special State legislation.
29
CC 01-13-2026
29 of 52
Transaction & Use Tax (TUT)
•Available TUT to City = 0.25%
•Statewide Cap = 9.25% + special leg.
•County Rate = 9.0% + .125% special leg.
•Available TUT to Cupertino = 0.25%
•Total Rate in Cupertino w/ TUT = 9.375%
•Additional Annual Revenue (est.)
•@ 0.25% = $5.4 million annually
•Excludes roughly 90% business-to-
business sales (67% of City’s net state
sales tax from 2 large multi-nationals)
•Realization rate on remaining 33% is
assumed close to 100% due to type of
businesses (plus additional est. revenues
from auto sales)
City/Area Rate*
Santa Clara Countywide 9.125%
Campbell 9.375%
Los Gatos 9.25%
Milpitas 9.375%
San Jose 9.375%
San Mateo Countywide 9.375%
Belmont 9.875%
Brisbane 9.875%
Burlingame 9.625%
Daly City 9.875%
East Palo Alto 9.875%
Pacifica 9.875%
Redwood City 9.875%
San Bruno 9.875%
San Mateo 9.625%
South San Francisco 9.875%
San Francisco 8.625%
Alameda Countywide 10.25%
*Effective rates as of April 2023.
6 30
CC 01-13-2026
30 of 52
Transaction & Use Tax (TUT)
Pros:
Standard Voter Approval Requirement – 50% + 1 voter approval required for TOT.
High Approval – recent TUT measures in 2020 and 2022 have high approval rates (74% and 73% respectively) despite COVID-19 pandemic.
Competitiveness/Adequacy – 0.25% TUT rate keeps City generally proportionate to surrounding communities while generating more revenue than TOT or parcel tax.
Who Bears Tax Burden – tax burden spread across residents, businesses and visitors (which includes significant daytime workforce – 60,000+ pre-pandemic).
“Use it or lose it” – 0.25% TUT currently available to the City could be obligated (“used”) if a regional agency or the county passed a new or increased TUT measure. Once obligated, City’s only option would be special state legislation.
Cons:
o Volatility – sales tax is more elastic than property/parcel tax but less than TOT (generally correlates with overall economic trends).
o Equity – TUT is not applicable to large number of business-to-business sales in which purchaser is located outside the City.
7 31
CC 01-13-2026
31 of 52
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Basics of a TOT
•Authorized under Revenue and Tax Code s.
7280 (stays of 30 days or less) imposed on
occupant based on room rate
•TOT has been called a “painless” tax – paid by
non-residents – but can impact hotel
occupancy and future growth if
disproportionate to surrounding areas
•2022 – 77% of TOT measures to increase rate
approved (24 of 31)
•2020 – 91% of TOT measures to increase rate
approved (21 of 23)
Statewide Facts on TOTs*
•Most cities and counties have a TOT
(over 480 total)
•Rates range from 3.5% to 15.5%
(Palo Alto)
•Statewide mean rate = 10.2%
•On average, TOT provides 7% of
General Fund revenue
*Data as of FY 2021 – CaliforniaCityFinance.com
8 32
CC 01-13-2026
32 of 52
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
•City’s Current TOT = 12.0%
•Additional Annual Revenue (est.)
•@ 13.0% = $625,000
•@ 14.0% = $1.25 million
•@ 15.0% = $1.875 million
•Recent Trends in City’s TOT
•City’s TOT ordinance already updated to
improve collection from short-term rentals
(e.g., Airbnb, VRBO, etc.)
•Trendline for TOT growth is conservative
(1.9% annual growth). Hospitality industry
continues to recover post-pandemic and
seek a “new normal.”
City/Area Rate*
Santa Clara County
Gilroy 9.0%
Mountain View,
San Jose, Saratoga 10.0%
Los Altos, Morgan Hill 11.0%
Campbell, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale 12.0 - 12.5%
Los Altos, Milpitas, Santa Clara 13.5 - 14.0%
Palo Alto 15.5%
San Mateo County
Burlingame, Colma, East Palo
Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park,
Pacifica, Redwood City
12.0%
Daly City 13.0%
Belmont, Brisbane, Millbrae, San
Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo,
South San Francisco
14.0%
Half Moon Bay 15.0%
San Francisco 14.0%
*Rates as of November 2022.9 33
CC 01-13-2026
33 of 52
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Pros:
Standard Voter Approval Requirement – 50% + 1 voter approval required for TOT.
High Approval – recent TOT measures in 2020 and 2022 have high approval rates (91% and 77% respectively) despite COVID-19 pandemic.
Who Bears Tax Burden – TOT tax burden borne almost exclusively by non-residents.
Cons:
o Competitiveness - City is currently in middle of regional TOT rates @ 12% but adding 3% would place it second only to Palo Alto for the region (and make it one of the highest in state).
o Adequacy - smallest overall revenue generation unless rate significantly higher than surrounding communities (increasing competitiveness concern – see above).
o Volatility – TOT is more elastic than either TUT or parcel tax, resulting in higher potential fluctuation in annual revenue.
10 34
CC 01-13-2026
34 of 52
Parcel Tax
Basics of a Parcel Tax
•Non-ad valorem (non-value based) tax levied on
parcels of property
•Methodology: Either a fixed/flat rate per-parcel
or a variable rate depending on the size, use, or
number of units on the parcel
•Can establish different rates for residential &
commercial property but rate must be
applied uniformly
•Can include inflationary index
•Voter approval required: 2/3 vote required (funds
restricted to specified purposes); only majority
approval required if proposed by citizen initiative
Statewide Facts - Parcel Tax
•Since 2010, largest percentage of
approved parcel taxes (41%) are for
education.
•Most common methodology: flat
rate per parcel.
•For cities, between 2010 and 2022,
66% of proposed parcel taxes were
approved by the required 2/3 vote.
11 35
CC 01-13-2026
35 of 52
Parcel Tax
•No current City parcel tax
•City’s clean water/storm protection
assessments are property fees (not taxes).
•Schools – Fremont Union HS $98 parcel tax
was reauthorized in 2020 (expires 2028).
Cupertino Union $250 parcel tax expired in
2022 (reauthorization with increase to $398
rejected in by voters in 2021).
•Parcel tax measures in Santa Clara &
San Mateo counties
•18 non-school parcel taxes on ballot from
2008 to 2022.
•83% approved.
•All for special purposes: libraries, roads,
police, water and open space.
•Since 2018, 24 school parcel taxes on ballot
with only 54% approved.
City/Area Rate/yr.
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara - Libraries $34 parcel
Santa Clara – Open Space $24 parcel
San Jose – Libraries $30 parcel
North County - Libraries $76 parcel
Santa Clara Water Dist.$0.006 per sf
El Matador - Roads $350-$750 parcel
San Mateo County
E. Palo Alto – Office Space $2.50 per sf
Portola Valley – Roads $950 parcel
Highlands – Police $65 parcel
San Mateo – Police & Fire $65 parcel
Atherton – Police $750 parcel*
*Not renewed in 2017
12 36
CC 01-13-2026
36 of 52
Parcel Tax
Additional Annual Revenue (est.)
Fixed/Flat Rate per Parcel
Parcel Type # of Parcels**Per Parcel Tax Annual Revs. (est.)
Single-Family Residential (SFR)*14,152 $250 $3,537,900
Multi-Family (three-family & larger)205 $250 $51,250
Commercial/Office/Ind.471 $250 $117,750
Total $3,706,900
Variable Rate per Square Foot (SF) of Parcel Size
Parcel Type (annual tax median parcel size)Total Ac.**Per SF Tax Rate Annual Revs. (est.)
SFR* – 5,000 sf ($27)178 $0.021 $163,010
SFR* – 5,000 to 10,000 sf ($155)1,499 $0.021 $1,370,768
SFR* – 10,000 to 17,500 sf ($247)310 $0.021 $283,210
SFR – Over 17,500 sf ($613)407 $0.021 $372,124
Multi-Family ($219)232 $0.021 $212,224
Commercial/Office/Ind. ($613)1,500 $0.021 $1,372,140
Total $3,773,476
13
*includes condos, townhomes & duplexes
**excludes vacant parcels and parcels with $0 assessed value; and assumes 10% SFR exemption rate
37
CC 01-13-2026
37 of 52
Parcel Tax
Pros:
Low Volatility – parcel tax revenue not impacted by overall economic trends (non-ad
valorem) and inflationary index helps revenues keep pace with rising expenses.
Flexibility – parcel tax provides some flexibility in designing tax structure to help
mitigate equity concerns (see below) using a variable rate.
High Approval but for Special Purpose – voter approval rates for city parcel taxes
has been strong (83%) but all have been restricted to special not general purposes.
Cons:
o 2/3 Voter Approval Required – state law requires 2/3 approval by electorate.
o Equity – flat/fixed rate parcel tax often considered very regressive but can be
mitigated with variable rate (see above).
o Adequacy/Competitiveness - rate equivalent to recently expired local school district
parcel tax ($250/parcel or $0.020 per SF) is significantly higher than most parcel
taxes in surrounding communities but generates significantly less revenue than TUT.
o Who Bears Tax Burden – parcel tax burden borne exclusively by residents and
businesses.14 38
CC 01-13-2026
38 of 52
Business Operations Tax
Basics of Business Operations Tax
•Tax on businesses for privilege of conducting
business within the City.
•Methodology: Either a fixed/flat rate per
business (often varies by type of business) or
a variable rate based on some measurable
aspect of the business operations, such as:
gross receipts/payroll, number of employees
(headcount), square footage of business, etc.
•Cities have wide discretion in determining
methodology, rates and applicability (cannot
be discriminatory or confiscatory, and
state/federal law exempts certain activities).
•Tax is only on business activities conducted
within the City. Multi-jurisdiction businesses
must be able to apportion.
Statewide Facts – Business
Operations Tax
•More than 95% of cities impose one
or more business operations taxes.
•Average city generates around 3%
of revenue from business
operations taxes.
•Top 20 cities generate between 10%
and 25% of total revenue from one
or more business operations taxes.
•Since 2010, 65 business operations
taxes on ballot with 74% approved
(excludes cannabis) statewide. 92%
approved in Bay Area region.
15 39
CC 01-13-2026
39 of 52
Business Operations Tax
•City’s Existing Business Operations Taxes
•$75 flat rate per business + rate per square
foot of the business (ranging from $0.02/sf
for small businesses to $0.0025/sf for
largest business)
•City also has operations taxes (both flat and
variable) for specific businesses, such as
apartments (per unit), hotels (per room), taxis
(per vehicle), theaters (per seat), etc.
•Annual Amount Generated = $725,000 ($12
per capita)
16
City Annual
Revenue
Per
Capita
Santa Clara County
Mountain View*$6 million $74
Sunnyvale $2.1 million $14
Los Gatos*$1.1 million $34
Santa Clara*$6 million $47
Los Altos $490,000 $16
Palo Alto*$9.6 million $144
Campbell $723,000 $17
San Mateo County
San Carlos $1.2 million $40
San Mateo $6.3 million $62
Foster City $1.6 million $48
* New or updated within last 5 years
40
CC 01-13-2026
40 of 52
Business Operations Tax
17
Employee Count Tax* (est.)
Employee
Range
# of
Businesses
% of
in Tier
Estimated
Employee
Count
Per
Business
Per
Employee
Rate
Total Tax
Effective
Tax Rate
Per
Employee
Effective
Tax Rate
Per Avg.
Business
1-9 3,128 89.37%3,400 $25 $0 $78,200 $23 $25
10-49 300 8.57%4,000 $100 $15 $90,000 $23 $300
50-99 40 1.14%2,400 $250 $25 $70,000 $29 $1,750
100-249 25 0.71%3,300 $250 $50 $171,250 $52 $6,850
250-499 5 0.14%1,300 $250 $75 $98,750 $76 $19,750
500-999 1 0.03%600 $250 $100 $60,250 $100 $60,250
1,000-4,999 -0.00%-$250 $125 ---
5,000+1 0.03%24,000 $250 $150 $3,600,250 $150 $3,600,250
Totals 3,500 100.0%39,000 $4,168,700
*Business and employee count data provided by City from 2018 research. Current data likely different post-Covid.
41
CC 01-13-2026
41 of 52
Business Operations Tax
18
Pros:
Standard Voter Approval Requirement – 50% + 1 voter approval required for business
license taxes.
High Approval – since 2010, business license tax measures in Bay Area Region have
high voter approval rates (94%).
Low Volatility – business operations tax based on employee count (pandemic
notwithstanding) provides a stable tax base, subject to unknown longer-term impact
on business location decisions (see below)
Cons:
o Who Bears Tax Burden/Equity – tax burden borne exclusively by local businesses but
setting varying rates and caps can allocate the tax burden differently across different
size businesses.
o Competitiveness/Equity/Adequacy - City currently has a very low business license tax
rate compared to surrounding cities as measured on a per capita basis. If an
employee count tax is set at top rate in the region ($75 per capita), the annual tax
revenue generated is significantly less than the 0.25% TUT and it likely requires
shifting tax burden to a few very large businesses. Additionally, there is an unknown
potential impact on locational choices of existing and future businesses that could
erode the annual tax revenues.42
CC 01-13-2026
42 of 52
Recommendations &
Next Steps
19 43
CC 01-13-2026
43 of 52
Tax Revenue Options – Recommended Ranking
20
Rank Revenue
Option
Est.
Annual
Revenue
Pros Cons
1
Transaction
& Use Tax
(TUT)
$5.4
million
•50% + 1 vote required with high
voter approval in recent
elections.
•Generates most revenue with
rate proportionate to
surrounding cities.
•Tax paid by residents,
businesses and
visitors/daytime workforce.
•“Use it or lose it.”
•TUT is more volatile and subject to
annual revenue fluctuation than
parcel tax but not TOT.
•TUT not applicable to large portion
of business-to-business sales in
which purchaser located outside the
City.
2
Transient
Occupancy
Tax (TOT)
$1.9
million
•50% + 1 vote required with high
voter approval in recent
elections.
•Tax paid by non-
residents/visitors.
•TOT is more volatile and subject to
annual revenue fluctuation than TUT
and parcel tax.
•Smallest overall revenue generation
unless rate significantly higher than
surrounding communities.
44
CC 01-13-2026
44 of 52
Tax Revenue Options – Recommended Ranking (cont.)
21
Rank Revenue
Option
Est.
Annual
Revenue
Pros Cons
3 Parcel Tax $3.7
million
•Parcel tax has lowest volatility
and annual revenues are very
stable.
•High voter approval but for
restricted special purposes
(not general fund).
•2/3 vote required.
•Tax paid by residents and businesses.
•Flat/fixed parcel tax often considered
regressive tax (but can use variable
rate to improve equity).
•Rate equivalent to expired school
parcel tax generates significantly less
revenue than TUT and is higher than
other parcel taxes in the area.
4
Business
Operations
Tax –
Employee
Count
$4.1
million
•50% + 1 vote required with
high voter approval over last
decade.
•Employee count tax has low
volatility but could erode
annual revenues if tax impacts
business location decisions.
•Tax paid exclusively by local
businesses, but varying rates/caps
can allocate burden.
•Setting rate at top of region generates
significantly less tax revenue than
TUT, and likely requires shifting tax
burden to a few very large businesses.
45
CC 01-13-2026
45 of 52
November 2024 Ballot Measure – Potential Timeline
Dates Task
January & February Community opinion research conducted.
March & April Staff develops options for revenue measure based on community opinion research
and feedback, Council input, and other relevant considerations.
April to August Public information disseminated explaining why and how Council is considering
placing a revenue measure on the ballot.
June Council decision on appropriate revenue measure and direction for staff to prepare
ballot measure language and required resolutions.
July 16, 2024 Last regularly scheduled meeting of Council for Introduction/First Reading of
revenue measure ordinance.*
August 6, 2024 Last regularly scheduled meeting of Council for Second Reading/Adoption of
revenue measure ordinance and approval of resolution calling the election.
August 9, 2024 Deadline for City submission of ballot measure to Registrar of Voters.
August 20, 2024 Deadline for City’s submittal of impartial analysis of ballot measure to Registrar of
Voters.
November 5, 2024 Election Day.
22 46
CC 01-13-2026
46 of 52
Recommended Action
23
Provide direction to staff regarding exploring the feasibility of one or more
potential revenue tax measures—Transaction and Use Tax, Transient Occupancy
Tax, Parcel Tax, and/or Business Operations Tax—through opinion research for the
November 2024 election.
47
CC 01-13-2026
47 of 52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Study Session to consider possible updates to the City’s practices pertaining to its advisory
bodies, including its Commissions and Committees.
Consider and discuss options for updating the City’s practices pertaining to its advisory bodies,
including (1) increasing community participation via extended nepotism restrictions, (2) filling
vacancies and appointing alternates, (3) updating attendance requirements, (4) recognizing
commissioner autonomy, and (5) considering the unique characteristics of Committees as compared
to Commissions, including the Economic Development Committee and the Audit Committee.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/8/2026Page 1 of 1
48
CC 01-13-2026
48 of 52
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3403
CUPERTINO.GOV
01276.0001 2076436.2 1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject
Study Session to consider possible updates to the City’s practices pertaining to its
advisory bodies, including its Commissions and Committees.
Recommended Action
Consider and discuss options for updating the City’s practices pertaining to its
advisory bodies, including (1) increasing community participation via extended
nepotism restrictions, (2) filling vacancies and appointing alternates, (3) updating
attendance requirements, (4) recognizing commissioner autonomy, and (5)
considering the unique characteristics of Committees as compared to
Commissions, including the Economic Development Committee and the Audit
Committee.
Background
Various rules governing the City’s advisory bodies can be found in (1) City
Resolution No. 24-022 (“Reso 24-022”), (2) Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2,
(3) the Commissioner’s Handbook 2024 (“Commissioner’s Handbook”), and (4)
the Council Procedures Manual, implementing, among other requirements, rules
for complying with the Maddy Act (the “Maddy Act”), codified in Government
Code Sections 54970-54975.
1. Nepotism Restrictions
The City’s Municipal Code currently prevents members of the same family from
serving on the same City advisory body. For example, Municipal Code section
2.36.010 states that the “Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of five
members who are residents of the City, none of whom shall be officials or
employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by
blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the
staff person(s) assigned to this Commission.” The Council Procedures Manual at
49
CC 01-13-2026
49 of 52
01276.0001 2076436.2 2
section 4.4 further states that “[i]mmediate family members residing in the same
household as a Councilmember are not eligible for appointment to any
commission or committee.”
The Council may wish to consider (1) further restricting appointments of family
members to not only the same commission or committee, but to other City
advisory bodies as well, and (2) other potential restrictions on appointments to
prevent a concentration of influence over City policy.
2. Vacancies and Appointing Alternates
When members of an advisory body miss meetings, it can impact the body’s
ability to conduct business when a quorum is not present. Moreover, filling an
unscheduled vacancy can be time-consuming and costly because Reso 24-022 and
the Maddy Act require that the City undertake lengthy recruitments taking at
least 30 days to complete, usually longer, in order to fill a vacancy.
If the Council added a non-voting alternate to a City advisory body, then when a
regular member is absent, after first being “seated” by the Chair for the meeting,
the alternate could step in as a voting member. This would help ensure a
quorum, thus allowing business to be conducted. Additionally, if an
unscheduled vacancy occurs, that vacancy could be immediately filled by the
alternate if the Council finds there is an “emergency” need to fill the vacancy.
Appointing alternates might also increase community participation as such non-
voting alternates could attend meetings and, local rules permitting, participate in
meeting discussions. Appointed alternates would be required to file Form 700
disclosures and take the oath of office.
3. Harmonizing and Updating Attendance Requirements
Reso 24-022, section C (3), the Commissioner’s Handbook, p. 5, and the Council
Procedures Manual, section 4.5, each purport to govern attendance requirements.
Reso 24-022 and the Commissioner’s Handbook limit the number of meetings an
advisory body member may miss by automatically removing a member (“member
shall be considered removed”) from an advisory body when 1) they miss more
than three consecutive meetings, or when 2) they miss more than 25% of the
advisory body’s regular meetings in a calendar year. The Council Procedures
Manual separately states that when an advisory body member fails to comply
with the attendance policies contained in the Commissioner’s Handbook, “[t]he
City Clerk shall notify the City Council and make a recommendation for potential
removal” of the advisory body member. Here, “Council retains full discretion to . . .
50
CC 01-13-2026
50 of 52
01276.0001 2076436.2 3
take disciplinary action as needed, including removal from the commission or
committee.” These documents should be harmonized, perhaps by noting in the
Commissioner’s Handbook that the rule has been updated by the Council’s
further action.
Additionally, because regular meetings are often cancelled and replaced with
special meetings due to scheduling, often more than 25% of meetings are missed
without commissioner discipline, defeating the intent of the attendance rules.
4. Commissioner Autonomy
Currently, the Commissioner’s Handbook, states that it is “improper for an
individual commissioner, acting in the ir official capacity, to try to persuade the
Council into the acceptance of a recommendation other than that voted by the
majority of the commission.”
The question has been posed as to whether this is an appropriate restriction on a
commissioner’s right to speak their mind. The Council might consider whether
the language of the restriction limiting its application to comments made only in
their “official capacity” alleviate the concern, or whether, nevertheless, it remains
too restrictive of a commissioner’s right to speak freely.
5. Committee Characteristics, as compared to Commissions, including the
Economic Development Committee and the Audit Committee
Committees differ from Commissions in that City Councilmembers, City staff,
and sometimes both, participate as Committee members on the City’s
Committees. Commissions, on the other hand, are usually comprised of
community members, with staff support. As such, rules applicable to
Committees may vary from those applicable to Commissions. Perhaps, more
clearly defining this difference would be useful.
Reasons for Recommendation
Provide Councilmembers and the public with an opportunity to consider and
discuss ways of honing the rules governing the City’s advisory bodies.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact
51
CC 01-13-2026
51 of 52
01276.0001 2076436.2 4
City Work Program Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Public Engagement and Transparency
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Reviewed and Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
None
52
CC 01-13-2026
52 of 52