CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
AD-HOC LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
JUNE 10, 2025 ZOOM MEETING REPORT
Members Present: Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmember Wang
Staff Present: Acting City Manager Tina Kapoor, Sr. Management Analyst Astrid Robles Lobbyists Present: Jason Gonsalves, Paul Gonsalves
The Cupertino City Council Ad hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee met on Zoom June 10, 2025, received a legislative update from our Lobbyists regarding the Governor’s Budget, and were provided an update on various bills which we have taken positions on. See update on pages 3-10 of this report.
See Agenda, page 2.
Three new bills were discussed for a potential position, with an Oppose position recommended for AB 306 which imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031. The concern is that environmentally beneficial building standards could not be adopted during this moratorium.
A robust discussion of the scope of the LRC included pros and cons of returning to the prior, Brown Acted committee. Ideas for how residents interested in legislation could be provided information to engage with legislators, or alternatively, the LRC could return to the prior format and residents could air concerns on a hybrid meeting were discussed. Sensible guardrails were suggested such as having a limited number of meetings and numbers of bills to take positions on in order to be sensitive to resources needed for the committee.
Report prepared by:
Vice Mayor Moore
June 10, 2025.
Updates on the LRC activity may be found at the Legislative Activity page here:
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Council/Legislative-Activity and provided information on how to visit the prior year’s pages and how to contact your legislators here:
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Council/Legislative-Activity/Contact-your-Legislators 1 Ad-Hoc Legislative Subcommittee
Vice Mayor Moore
Councilmember Wang
June 10, 2025
3:30pm
Agenda
1. Legislative Update by Lobbyist
2. Update on bill positions by Lobbyist
a. SB 753 (Cortese)
b. SB 79 (Wiener)
c. AB 650 (Papan)
d. AB 340 (Ahrens)
e. AB 648 (Zbur)
f. SB 501 (Allen)
3. Other bills of interest
a. AB 306 (Rivas)
b. AB 610 (Alvarez)
c. AB 712 (Wicks)
4. LRC Scope Discussion
2025 Legislative Priorities
The legislative priorities are guided by the Council adopted goals of Public Engagement and Transparency, Transportation, Housing, Sustainability, Fiscal Strategy, and Quality of Life.
The City will support legislation that:
1. Helps Cupertino build a fiscally sustainable and resilient community.
2. Furthers the health and wellbeing of Cupertino community members and enhances public engagement and transparency.
3. Promotes Cupertino’s infrastructure needs, especially as they relate to transportation and housing.
2 Priority Bill Summaries
City of Cupertino
Ad-Hoc LRC Subcommittee
June 10, 2025
SB 753 (Cortese) - Special business regulations: shopping carts. • This bill proposes to expand the authority for cities and counties to recover costs for retrieving shopping carts and returning them to their owners. • Passed the Senate Local Government Committee on May 7, 2025, with a vote of 6-1. • The bill passed the Senate Floor on May 27, 2025, with a vote of 39-0. • The bill is now in the Assembly and has been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee.
• The bill is supported by:
o League of CA Cities
o City of Concord
o City of San Jose
o City of Norwalk
SB 79 (Wiener) – Housing development: transit-oriented development: California Environmental Quality Act: public transit agency land.
• This bill authorizes a residential development within a ¼ or ½ mile distance of transit stops in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone to be developed with maximum height, minimum density and residential floor area ratio and additional development benefits. Additionally, the bill would allow a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed to be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a permanent easement, if the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity that is allowed by local standards or applicable state law.
Lastly, the bill would provide that CEQA does not apply to a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-use project that is located entirely on land owned by a public transit agency.
• Senate Floor Amendments as of 5/29/25 provide that for a residential project between ¼ mile and ½ mile of a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop within an 3 urban county may be built up to 45 feet high or up to the local height limit. A development not within an urban county may be built up to the local height limit. • This bill passed the Senate Housing Committee on April 22, 2025, with a vote of 6-2. • This bill passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee on April 30, 2025, with a vote of 4-3.
• The bill passed off the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file on May 23, 2025.
• The bill passed the Senate Floor on June 3, 2025, on a vote of 21-13. • The bill is supported by:
o City of West Hollywood
o Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
o Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
o Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
o James Coleman - Councilmember, South San Francisco
o Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
o Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
o Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
o Matthew Solomon - Councilmember, Emeryville
o Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
o Rashi Kesarwani - Councilmember, Berkeley
o Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
o Zach Hilton - City of Gilroy Council Member
o Caroline Torosis - Mayor Pro Tempore City of Santa Monica o Jesse Zwick - City of Santa Monica Council Member
o Jed Leano - Claremont City Councilmember
o Rebecca Saltzman - El Cerrito Councilmember
• The bill is opposed by:
o City of Agoura Hills
o City of Anderson
o City of Artesia
o City of Azusa
o City of Bell
o City of Bellflower
o City of Belvedere
o City of Brentwood
o City of Calimesa
o City of Camarillo
o City of Carlsbad
o City of Chino
o City of Chino Hills
o City of Cloverdale
o City of Clovis
o City of Colton
o City of Commerce
o City of Concord
o City of Cotati
o City of Cudahy
4 o City of Cupertino
o City of Downey
o City of Encinitas
o City of Exeter
o City of Fairfield
o City of Folsom
o City of Fullerton
o City of Garden Grove
o City of Glendora
o City of Grand Terrace
o City of Hermosa Beach
o City of Hesperia
o City of Highland
o City of Huntington Beach
o City of La Mirada
o City of La Quinta
o City of La Verne
o City of Lakeport
o City of Lakewood
o City of Lafayette
o City of Larkspur
o City of Lathrop
o City of Lawndale
o City of Lomita
o City of Los Alamitos
o City of Los Banos
o City of Manhattan Beach
o City of Manteca
o City of Marina
o City of Merced
o City of Milpitas
o City of Modesto
o City of Moorpark
o City of Moreno Valley
o City of Murrieta
o City of Napa
o City of Newport Beach
o City of Norwalk
o City of Oakley
o City of Oceanside
o City of Ontario
o City of Orange
o City of Orinda
o City of Palm Desert
o City of Palmdale
o City of Palos Verdes Estates
o City of Paramount
o City of Pasadena
o City of Perris
o City of Pico Rivera
o City of Pleasanton
o City of Rancho Cordova
o City of Rancho Cucamonga
o City of Rancho Mirage
o City of Rancho Palos
Verdes
o City of Redding
o City of Redlands
o City of Ripon
o City of Riverbank
o City of Rolling Hills Estates
o City of Rosemead
o City of San Fernando
o City of San Juan Capistrano
o City of San Luis Obispo
o City of San Marcos
o City of San Rafael
o City of Sausalito
o City of Scotts Valley
o City of Solana Beach
o City of South Gate
o City of Stanton
o City of Thousand Oaks
o City of Torrance
o City of Tustin
o City of Upland
5 o City of Vernon
o City of Vista
o City of Walnut Creek
o City of Whittier
o City of Yucaipa
AB 650 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation.
• This bill proposes to extend several timelines in the process of determining regional housing needs and regional housing needs allocations (RHNA) and housing element revisions and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide specific analysis or text to local governments to remedy deficiencies in their draft housing element revisions.
• This bill was heard in the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee on April 24, 2025, and passed on an 11-0 vote.
• The bill was heard next in the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 30, 2025, and passed on a 9-0 vote.
• The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file on May 23, 2025.
• The bill passed the Assembly Floor on June 2, 2025, on a vote of 79-0. • The bill is now in the Senate pending referral to Committee. • The bill is sponsored by the League of CA Cities and supported by the following neighboring cities:
o City of Belmont
o City of Concord
o City of Cupertino
o City of Martinez
o City of Oakley
o City of Rohnert Park
o City of Salinas
o City of San Mateo
o City of Walnut Creek
AB 340 (Ahrens) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications. • This bill proposes to prohibit an employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding communications between the employee and the employee representative.
6 • This bill was heard in the Assembly Public Employment & Retirement Committee on March 19, 2025, and passed on a 6-0 vote.
• This bill was heard next in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 23, 2025, and was sent to the suspense file due to costs.
• The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Suspense file on May 23, 2025. • The bill passed the Assembly Floor on June 3, 2025, on a vote of 65-1. • The bill is now in the Senate, pending referral to the Committee. • This bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities and the City of Cupertino AB 648 (Zbur) Community colleges: housing: local zoning regulations: exemption. • This bill proposes to exempt the construction of faculty and staff housing projects, student housing projects, and university housing development projects from local zoning regulations of any city, county, or city and county when constructed on property owned or leased by a Community College District (CCD). • The bill was heard in the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 16, 2025, and passed on a 7-3 vote.
• The bill was heard next in the Assembly Local government Committee on April 30, 2025 and passed on a 9-0 vote.
• The bill was heard on the Assembly Floor on May 27, 2025, and passed on a 63-5 vote.
• The bill will be heard next in the Senate Education Committee on June 18, 2025. • The bill is supported by the City of Santa Monica.
• The bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities and the City of Cupertino SB 501 (Allen) Household Hazardous Waste Producer Responsibility Act • This bill proposes to establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) or stewardship program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and the safe and proper management of products containing household hazardous waste (HHW) in California.
• This bill is substantially similar to SB 1143 (Allen, Ch. 989, Stats. 2024). SB 1143 was eventually amended to delete the contents of the bill and instead address a completely different topic.
• This bill was heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 1, 2025, and passed on a 6-0 vote.
• The bill was heard next in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2025, and passed on an 11-0 vote.
7 • The bill was heard next in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 5, 2025, and was placed on the suspense file due to costs.
• The bill was held on the Senate Suspense file and is now dead. • The bill is supported by:
o City of Cupertino
o City of San Jose
o City of Santa Maria
o City of Roseville
o League of CA Cities
Other Bills of Interest:
AB 306 (Schultz/Rivas) - Building regulations: state building standards. • Imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031. • This bill was heard in the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee on March 12, 2025, and passed on a vote of 12-0.
• The bill was heard next in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and passed on a vote of 14-0.
• The bill was heard on the Assembly Floor on April 1, 2025, and passed with a vote of 71-0.
• This bill is opposed by various environmental groups, but not by any local agencies.
AB 610 (Alvarez) Housing element: governmental constraints: disclosure statement. • This bill proposes to make changes to the contents of the governmental constraints analysis that must be included in a local government’s housing element and prohibits local governments from adopting or increasing the stringency of certain “covered governmental constraints” within three years from the date the housing element is considered in substantial compliance.
• This bill was heard in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 22, 2025, and passed on an 11-0 vote. • This bill was heard next in the Assembly Local government Committee and passed on a 10-0 vote.
• The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file on May 23, 2025.
• The bill passed the Assembly Floor on June 5, 2025, with a vote of 72-1. • The bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities and the Cities of Carlsbad and Murrieta.
8 AB 712 (Wicks) Housing reform laws: enforcement actions: fines and penalties. • This bill proposes to enhance the enforcement of housing reform laws and the penalties that may be imposed on a local agency determined to have violated those laws.
• This bill was heard in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 9, 2025, and passed on an 11-0 vote. • This bill was heard next in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and passed on a 9-0 vote.
• This bill was heard next in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and passed on a 12-0 vote.
• The bill passed off the Assembly Floor on May 12, 2025, with a vote of 64-2. • The bill is now in the Senate Housing Committee awaiting a hearing date. • This bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities and the City of Murrieta.
SB 457 (Becker) Housing element compliance: Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals.
• This bill revises Housing Element Law to specify that a local agency’s housing element is in compliance on the date it is adopted if the element is subsequently certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a court of competent jurisdiction and changes the vesting period for builder’s remedy projects.
• The bill failed passage in the Senate Housing Committee on April 29th with a vote of 1-2. The Committee granted reconsideration.
• The bill failed to pass out of the Senate Housing Committee by Friday, May 8th and is now a two-year bill.
• The bill has been sent to the Senate Housing and Local Government Committees and is awaiting a hearing date.
• No local governments have taken a position on the bill.
SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development: streamlined approvals. • This bill makes a series of substantive and technical changes to SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) and SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statues of 2017) which streamlined ministerial approval for specific types of housing developments and parcel subdivisions.
• This bill was heard in the Senate Housing Committee on April 22, 2025, and failed passage on a 4-3 vote (6 aye votes needed to pass). The bill was granted reconsideration, however, the bill must be heard in the Senate Appropriations 9 Committee and the deadline to pass policy committee to the Appropriations Committee was last Friday, May 2, 2025.
• This bill is now a 2-year bill.
• This bill is supported by:
o City of Berkeley Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
o Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
o Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
o Mark Dinan - Councilmember, East Palo Alto
o Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
o Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
• The bill is opposed by:
o League of CA Cities
o City of San Rafael
o Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members
SB 789 (Menjivar) Taxation: information returns: vacant commercial real property. • The original version of this bill proposed a vacancy tax of $5 per square foot on all vacant commercial property. The bill was recently amended to remove these provisions and replace them with a requirement for every person who owns commercial property to register with the CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration and to provide an informational return annually on the vacancy rate of their property.
• This bill was heard in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on April 23, 2025, and passed on a 3-1 vote.
• The bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense file and is now dead.
• No local governments have taken a position on the bill. 10