CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 7
TBD Items
Supplemental Report
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #7
Subject
Approval of updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List") (Continued from April 15, 2025 and May 6, 2025)
Recommended Action
Approve the updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List")
Background:
Mayor Chao has requested the following addition to Item 18 in Attachment B to add context to the Grants Policy Update. An updated Attachment B has been added to this item as Attachment C.
“The intent of the request is to ensure that the City Council remains the decision-making body when it comes to the allocation of grant funding. We want to avoid inadvertently creating a situation where the Council feels compelled to approve a project simply because it has been tied to a specific grant—especially when that grant could have been applied to several potential projects.
The policy on grant application process should help clarify that the Council retains authority over project prioritization related to grant funding decisions, such as SB1 grants.
As a reference, the attached is a policy from Sunnyvale on the process regarding when they would get approval from the Council before applying for a grant.
Below is one relevant section.
"The city manager may apply for grants of any dollar amount, but shall notify the Council when grants are being pursued pursuant to Council Policy 7.1.1 (Fiscal –Long Range Goals and Financial Policies), B.4. (Grants and
2 Intergovernmental Assistance). The city manager may accept and appropriate grant funds up to $100,000 that do not require a local match or obligate the City to any ongoing expenses, through an administrative budget modification. Any grants of $100,000 or more, or that require a local match or obligate the City to ongoing expenses, shall require Council approval of a budget modification before funds can be expended by staff. The budget modification shall include the use to which the grant will be placed; the objectives or goals of the City that will be achieved through use of the grant; the local match required, if any, plus the source of the local match; any increased cost to be locally funded upon termination of the grant; and the ability of the City to administer the grant."
Another point of reference from Cupertino back in 2018 when Council approval was sought before applying for the County grant:
I came across this item "Authorization of grant application to County of Santa Clara's All-Inclusive Playground Grant Program" on the 10/2/2018 Council Meeting Agenda.
So, the city staff did get the council approval before applying for the grant for All-Inclusive Playground, which was after the feasibility study was done and identified Jollyman Park as the site.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6034641&GUID=C CDA6E1D-66AC-4B23-997A-E289D4817DBA&Options=&Search=
Recommended Action: Adopt the Draft Resolution authorizing application to the County of Santa Clara’s All -Inclusive Playground Grant Program for funding to replace an existing playground at Jollyman Park with an All - Inclusive playground, and related actions.
Thus, we should clarify the process so that the Council is looped in early in the process in a timely manner so that the Council makes decisions in time so that we meet grant application deadlines.”
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. February 2025 TBD List with Adopted Motion
B. July 2025 TBD List
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
C. Updated Attachment B – July 2025 TBD List
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
1 An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list.
Requestor:
Chao
Seconder:
Moore
7/9/24
added by
email
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is on the 7/1 City
Council Meeting. Staff
recommends removing
this item from the TBD
List after the meeting.
2/4/25
2 Consider a policy to provide access to documents made available for closed sessions ahead of time with proper security measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers can read the materials before and after a closed session.
Requestor:
Chao
Seconder:
Moore
At 7/16/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
keep this item on the TBD
list until it is added to the
Council Procedures
Manual, which is
tentatively scheduled for
Summer 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it is heard
by Council.
2/4/25
3 Review the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Requestor:
Chao
Seconder:
Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Revisions to the manual
were done at the March 18
City Council Meeting.
Further revisions are
tentatively scheduled for
Summer 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it is heard
by Council.
N/A
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
4 Review the architectural standards for 5G towers Requestor:
Wang
Seconder:
Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
keep this item on TBD
until it was added to the
City Work Program
(CWP). This item was
added to the FY 25-27
CWP. This is tentatively
scheduled to come to
Council in September.
Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list once it has been
heard by the City Council.
2/4/25
5 Study session to discuss the policy for the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) approval process
Requestor:
Chao
At 3/18/25
Council
Meeting
This item was discussed at
the April 2 Council
meeting. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.
N/A
6 Reactivate the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) Requestor:
Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. On
3/18 Council created a
legislative subcommittee,
which is currently in effect
and is discussing details
on bringing back the LRC.
Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
7 Reactivate the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Requestor:
Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. On
4/15 Council reactivated
the EDC. Council made
further amendments to
the committee
composition on June 17.
Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
8 Introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25- ____ of Municipal Code Amendments regarding vehicle
parking restrictions.
“I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the
original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below.
We could consider the two options:
- Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be
moved at least one thousand (1000) feet
(approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its
current location and may not return to the same
parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after
its departure.
- Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a
short distance will not be considered compliance
Requestor:
Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
This item is being
discussed by the City
Council in July. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.
N/A
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
with this section. Additionally, successive acts of
parking shall be presumed to be a single act of
parking within the meaning of this section when the
vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding
the parking limitations prescribed by this section.
I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner.
9 Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing (MOTION: Chao moved and Moore
seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it;
include existing proposed bills on student housing and
comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in
other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.)
Requestor:
All
At 4/2/25
Council
Meeting
On 4/2 Council voted to
agendize this discussion.
On 5/6 Council adopted a
resolution to encourage
student housing while
preserving multi-unit
housing. A study session
is tentatively scheduled to
go to Council this
summer. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it has been
heard by the City Council.
4/2/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
10 An Informational Memorandum on the contracts signed by the City in the past year. Ideally, include the purpose, the department and the contract duration and the dollar
amount. If this request would need to be added to the info memo TBD list to get majority support. A monthly
report on new contract signed or renewed would be quite helpful going forward too.
Requestor:
Chao
4/4/25
added by
email
This info memo was
published on May 15.
Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.
N/A
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
11 Restore the previous responsibilities of the Audit
Committee (Motion: An action item to restore the Audit
Committee’s previous responsibilities. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang.
Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None).
Requestor:
Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this discussion.
On 5/20 Council directed
the Audit Committee to
discuss their scope and
bring recommendations to
Council. This will be
added to the upcoming
Audit Committee agenda
for discussion. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
12 For transportation projects and added lane reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission
(Motion: An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and
transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission. The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan.
Abstain: None. Absent: None).
Requestor:
Wang
Seconder:
Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is tentatively
scheduled for July. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
13 A study session to consider regulations on sound
amplification devices in parks (Motion: A friendly
amendment was approved to hold a study session on this
item. Add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section
13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall Requestor:
Moore
Seconder:
Chao
At 9/17/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this study
session as soon as
appropriate. Staff
recommends keeping this
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for
amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or
otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following: …
1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for
speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud
manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a
person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code)
item on this list until it is
agendized.
14 Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates (Motion: A friendly amendment was approved to agendize this item as appropriate.)
Requestor:
Chao
1/15/25
added by
email.
Email
attached
below.
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item as soon
as appropriate. Staff
recommends keeping this
item on this list until it is
agendized.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
15 Receive update and review the Active Transportation Plan Requestor:
Wang,
Seconder:
Chao
4/17/25
added by
email
An update on this item is
tentatively scheduled for
Fall 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it has been
heard by the City Council.
N/A
16 Consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD. This includes:
• Information about the Finch Property itself
• Any communication about the Finch Property from
CUSD
Requestor:
Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
On 4/15 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is on the 7/1 City
Council meeting. Staff
recommends removing
4/15/25
approved
by council
to agendize
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
• The info memo on the current balance and estimated
future parkland impact fee.
this item after the
meeting.
17 Get some clarity on the total expenses for the sister and friendship cities. These are valuable programs for the city, but we should be cognizant of the expenses so far and
going forward (in the budget).
“Will someone please provide a cost update prior to the Sister/Friendship city Policy Agenda item, to the following table (below) provided in October 10, 2023 Supplemental Materials to the October 10, 2023 agenda item, to include:
• Friendship City costs (gifts, staff time?), the table only has Sister Cities.
• Provide Actual Staff costs to manage the program so
that we can compare them with the budgeted amount.
If possible, by Sister or Friendship city.
o Staff costs of meeting with the delegations which
includes a presentation by the City Manager, slide
show, City Staff support, City photographer, City
Staff guided tour of the library, Community Hall,
and City Hall.
o Staff attendance at various Sister City and
Friendship City events (Bell ringing for Peace, for
example)
o Staff time making proclamations, speeches for
Mayor etc.
Requestor:
Moore,
Seconder:
Chao
4/14/25
added by
email
An info memo was
published on 5/29. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.
N/A
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
o Staff free Advertising costs such as promotional
videos, this requires staff time to write a script,
video edit, post the videos etc. Here are examples:
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zyfVVrQhs
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwlHxT5-f9I
• Provide travel costs whether covered by the city or not (we should know if individuals are traveling to cities
paid for by a Friendship or Sister City) and if it was for staff or a councilmember. The staff or councilmember
would have to report the costs covered by the Sister or Friendship City and the city would have a record of
what costs were covered.
• How many of the 18 free facility uses were used and for how many hours? The budgeted amount should be the
max. cost? 18 x 4 sister cities x Number of Hours x Cost per hour? I mention this because the policy is very
vague surrounding the uses.
• Any costs I may be missing?
Please repeat the process for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25 so
far. We have had no update since 2023. Please indicate
which Sister/Friendship City the costs are for with a
total for each.”
18 Grant Policy Update: The intent of the request is to ensure that the City Council remains the decision-making body
when it comes to the allocation of grant funding. We want to avoid inadvertently creating a situation where the
Council feels compelled to approve a project simply
because it has been tied to a specific grant—especially when Requestor:
Chao
Seconder:
Moore
6/13/25
Verbal
Request
This item is tentatively
scheduled for January
2026. Staff recommends
keeping this item on this
list until it is agendized.
N/A
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
that grant could have been applied to several potential projects.
The policy on grant application process should help clarify that the Council retains authority over project prioritization related to grant funding decisions, such as SB1 grants.
As a reference, the attached is a policy from Sunnyvale on the process regarding when they would get approval from the Council before applying for a grant.
Below is one relevant section.
"The city manager may apply for grants of any dollar
amount, but shall notify the Council when grants are being pursued pursuant to Council Policy 7.1.1 (Fiscal –Long
Range Goals and Financial Policies), B.4. (Grants and
Intergovernmental Assistance). The city manager may accept and appropriate grant funds up to $100,000 that do not
require a local match or obligate the City to any ongoing expenses, through an administrative budget modification.
Any grants of $100,000 or more, or that require a local match or obligate the City to ongoing expenses, shall require Council approval of a budget modification before funds can be expended by staff. The budget modification shall include the use to which the grant will be placed; the objectives or goals of the City th at will be achieved through use of the grant; the local match required, if any, plus the source of the local match; any increased cost to be locally funded upon termination of the grant; and the ability of the City to administer the grant."
C – Updated Attachment B: July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
Another point of reference from Cupertino back in 2018
when Council approval was sought before applying for the County grant:
I came across this item "Authorization of grant application to County of Santa Clara's All -Inclusive Playground Grant Program" on the 10/2/2018 Council Meeting Agenda.
So, the city staff did get the council approval before applying for the grant for All -Inclusive Playground, which was after the feasibility study was done and identified Jollyman Park as the site.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=60 34641&GUID=CCDA6E1D-66AC-4B23-997A-
E289D4817DBA&Options=&Search=
Recommended Action: Adopt the Draft Resolution
authorizing application to the County of Santa Clara’s All - Inclusive Playground Grant Program for funding to replace an existing playground at Jollyman Park with an All -
Inclusive playground, and related actions.
Thus, we should clarify the process so that the Council is looped in early in the process in a timely manner so that the Council makes decisions in time so that we meet grant
application deadlines.”
CC 07-01-2025
#10
Assembly Bill (AB) 306
Second Ranking
Desk Item
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Assembly Bill (AB) 306
Recommended Action
Accept the Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation to oppose AB 306 and authorize the Mayor to send position letters to the state legislature
Background:
On June 24, provisions from AB 306 were added to AB 130, a budget trailer bill containing a broad range of housing-related measures aimed at streamlining development processes at the state level. On June 30, the legislature passed the bill and Governor Newsom signed AB 130 into law the very same day. This bill became effective immediately upon signing as part of the state budget. As a result, the legislative subcommittee’s prior recommendation for Council to take an oppose position on AB 306 is no longer necessary, given that its key provisions have already been adopted through AB 130.
A full analysis on AB 130 is included as Attachment C and the provisions related to AB 306 are below and found on page 10:
28) Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from October 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
a) The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of September 30, 2025;
b) The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
c) The changes or modifications relate to home hardening; or
2 d) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
e) The changes are necessary to implement a local code amendment that is adopted to align with a general plan approved on or before June 10, 2025, and that permits mixed-fuel residential construction consistent with federal law while also incentivizing all-electric construction as part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy.
f) The changes or modifications are related to specified administrative practices.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Subcommittee Report
B. AB 306 Opposition Letter
Attachments Provided with Desk Item:
C. AB 130 Senate Floor Analysis June 30, 2025
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 130
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 130
Author: Committee on Budget
Amended: 6/27/25 in Senate
Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-17, 3/20/25 - See last page for vote
SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: 13-1, 6/30/25 AYES: Wiener, Allen, Cabaldon, Durazo, Grove, Laird, McNerney, Menjivar, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson NOES: Choi
NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Blakespear, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
SUBJECT: Housing
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill provides statutory changes to facilitate implementation of the Budget Act of 2025 as it related to housing and homelessness.
ANALYSIS:
Amendments of June 27, 2025:
The amendments remove provisions in Section 60 of the bill that would have established county-by-county wage floors for exempt housing development projects, as specified.
Specifically, as amended, this bill:
1) Changes the Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) expenditure deadline from two fiscal years after appropriation of funds to two fiscal years after award of funds.
AB 130
2) Requires Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) recipients to report fiscal and system performance metrics on Rounds 1 & 2 of the program in the same way as they are required to report this information for subsequent HHAP rounds.
3) Consolidates the existing default reserve funds from specified affordable housing funding programs at the Department of Housing and Community Development into a single, continuously appropriated backstop against the loss of affordable housing due to loan payment defaults. Requires notice to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee whenever more than 25 percent of the fund is spent in a single fiscal year.
4) Adds affordable housing projects funded by Proposition 1 of 2024, which includes Homekey+, to the list of affordable housing that is not subject to Article 34 of the California Constitution’s requirement that approval of specified affordable housing projects be put up for public vote.
5) Allows affordable housing developers funded by the Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) to utilize equity in their affordable housing projects to finance further investments in other affordable housing projects, subject to specified limitations.
6) Subjects the California Coastal Commission’s review of housing project permit applications to the shorter California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) timelines that apply to other lead agencies under the Permit Streamlining Act.
7) Establishes a statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mitigation bank program that:
a) Gives cities, counties, cities and counties, transit agencies, eligible tribal applicants as specified, and project developers the option to meet vehicle miles traveled mitigation obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by paying into HCD’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program fund to support VMT-efficient affordable housing and related infrastructure projects, as specified.
b) Modifies the TOD program as specified so that it operates in conjunction with this VMT mitigation program, as specified, including requiring at least 20 percent affordability, requiring 55 year affordability covenants AB 130
on TOD funded housing projects, and establishing prioritization for greater affordability, filling funding gaps, and project readiness.
c) Directs the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (GO- LCI) by July 1, 2026 and every three years thereafter, to create guidelines for the program, as specified, including methodologies to ensure nexus and proportionality between the development project seeking to mitigate its VMT impact and the TOD project that will provide the VMT mitigation.
d) Directs GO-LCI to evaluate the program after the program’s first year in operation and, upon appropriation and with the agreement of the University of California, to contract with the University of California to evaluate other specified aspects of the VMT mitigation program.
8) Allows housing developments involving more than $100 million in investment the option of utilizing the same streamlined CEQA process already open to smaller housing projects.
9) Provides housing development projects with the option of meeting the air quality requirements to qualify for CEQA streamlining by showing consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan instead of using a quantitative net-zero greenhouse gas emissions analysis.
10) Provides that CEQA does not apply to a housing development project (i.e., projects where at least two-thirds of the square footage is residential) that meets the following conditions:
a) The project site is not more than 20 acres, except for a builder’s remedy site, which cannot be more than five acres.
b) The project site is either located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality or is located within a Census Bureau-defined "urban area."
c) The project site has been previously developed with an "urban use" as specified, at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses, at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses, or for sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with AB 130
urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
d) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable specific plan and local coastal program.
e) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable "Mullin" density (i.e, at least five units per acre for an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county, 10 units per acre in a suburban jurisdiction, and 15 units per acre in a metropolitan jurisdiction).
f) The project is not on an environmentally sensitive or hazardous site, as specified.
g) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
h) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging.
11) Requires that projects that utilize the CEQA exemption provided by this bill undertake the following with regards to California Native American tribes (tribes):
a) Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete, the local government must provide specified information to all tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and invite them to consult on the project;
b) Provides that each California Native American tribe has 60 days to notify the local government that it accepts the invitation to consult;
c) Requires the local government to begin the consultation within 30 days of notification that a tribe would like to consult, that the consultation must seek to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource, and that deference must be given to tribal information, knowledge, customs, and understanding of the significance of any resources.
AB 130
d) Specifies that the consultation must conclude within 45 days of initiation, subject to a one-time 15-day extension upon request by a participating tribe.
e) Requires the local government to include, as binding conditions of the project approval, any enforceable agreements reached during the project consultation, and all of the following measures, unless there is mutual agreement between the California Native American tribe and the project proponent not to include the measure as a binding condition:
i) Upon request by a California Native American tribe, the project must include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as specified;
ii) Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, as specified;
iii) The project must stop upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, as specified;
12) Requires that projects that utilize the CEQA exemption provided by this bill undertake the following remediation measures:
a) The development proponent must assess the site for environmental hazards, and mitigate for any hazards found, as specified, before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b) Any housing on a site located within 500 feet of a freeway must include specified air filtration and design mitigations.
13) Establishes labor standards for all projects that utilize the CEQA exemption provided by this bill, as follows:
a) Requires that construction workers be paid the prevailing wage for projects that are 100 percent affordable housing.
b) Requires the use of a skilled and trained construction workforce for buildings that are over 85 feet in height.
c) Requires that construction workers be paid the prevailing wage for projects of 50 units or greater in the City and County of San Francisco if AB 130
not subject to (b), above, for any construction craft where at least 50 percent of the units in market-rate multifamily housing projects, as defined, that received their certificate of occupancy between 2022 and 2024, inclusive, were built by workers that were paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wage.
d) Makes the project proponent liable if the general contractor or subcontractor fails to meet the applicable wage standards and enables a joint-labor management cooperation (JLMC) committee to enforce this requirement.
e) Enables a JLMC to enforce state law that ensure that contractors are properly licensed, are paying their payroll taxes, and have proper workers compensation insurance.
14) Clarifies that providing legal services for homeownership preservation, including foreclosure prevention, is an eligible use of National Mortgage Settlement funds.
15) Eliminates a provision in state accessory dwelling unit law that any local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures, must ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit meeting specified requirements, but may impose objective standards including design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units, but not minimum lot size requirements.
16) Prohibits the separate sale, lease, or financing of any individual parcel following ministerial approval of a starter housing subdivision project meeting specified eligibility requirements unless that parcel has a completed residential dwelling on it, with specified exceptions. Allows local jurisdiction to opt out of this prohibition.
17) Clarifies that any remainder parcel should not be taken into account when calculating project density for purposes of state law requiring ministerial approval of starter housing subdivision projects meeting specified eligibility requirements.
18) Makes the following changes to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process in housing element law:
AB 130
a) Requires the relevant Council of Governments (COG) to provide data assumptions from their projections for overcrowding and percentage of cost-burdened households based on the difference between the region’s rates and those comparable regions in the United States.
b) Requires COGs to submit a draft allocation methodology and develop a revised methodology in consultation with HCD within 45 days, if HCD finds the draft allocation methodology does not further the objectives.
19) Removes several sunset dates within the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) making permanent provisions of the HAA that:
a) Define when a project application is “deemed complete” to mean when the project applicant has submitted a specified preliminary application or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, then when the applicant submitted a complete application, as specified.
b) Define “objective” as meaning involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.
c) Require a court to issue an order to correct an action in the case of a local agency requiring a housing development project to comply with an ordinance or standard not in effect when the preliminary application was submitted.
d) Provide that the HAA applies to a housing development project that submits a specified preliminary application before January 1, 2030.
20) Removes several sunset dates within the Housing Crisis Act (HCA) making permanent provisions of the HCA that:
a) Prohibit local agencies from requiring more than five hearings on a housing development project that complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time the application is deemed complete.
AB 130
b) Require a local government to determine whether a site for a proposed housing development project is a historic site at the time the application is deemed complete.
c) Require a local government to compile a list or lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a development project, as specified.
d) Authorize a housing development proponent to submit a preliminary application, and require a local government to determine the completeness of that preliminary application, as specified.
21) Makes the following changes to the Davis-Sterling Act governing common- interest developments (CIDs):
a) Specifies that reasonable restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in a CID shall not include any fees or other financial requirements.
b) Limits fines that may be imposed on an association member in a CID, as specified. Additionally, the bill provides that an association member shall have the opportunity to cure a violation associated with damage to the common area or facilities by themselves or a guest, prior to a board meeting to discuss the violation, as specified.
22) Makes the following change to the State Lands Act (SLA):
a) Removes school district real property from the definition of “exempt surplus land,” requiring this land must be disposed of in accordance with the SLA.
23) Makes the following changes to the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA):
a) Provides that the PSA applies to an entitlement for a housing development project regardless if the permit is discretionary or ministerial. This change would not apply to a post-entitlement permit.
b) Requires a local agency to approve or disapprove a ministerial permit within 60 days from the date of receipt of a complete application.
AB 130
24) Makes the following changes to the California Coastal Act:
a) Prohibits appeals for residential projects (projects that are exclusively residential and made up of four or more units) that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area or are not the principal permitted use in the Local Coastal Plan (LCP).
b) Requires an annual report by the California Coastal Commission (CEC) for residential projects that are appealed to evaluate how many residential projects were appealed; how many residential projects waived the timelines for acting on an appeal; and how many residential projects were approved, approved with conditions, denied, or withdrawn on appeal to the CCC. The CCC shall include, for each project: a description of the project, including, but not limited to the number of units in the project, and the percentage of units affordable to low- and moderate-income households; time from the appeal to final decision on each project; and any conditions requested or imposed on a project, and the reason for approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
25) Makes the following additional changes:
a) Requires the California Residential Mitigation Program (CRMP), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund the seismic retrofitting of affordable multifamily housing serving low- and moderate-income households, as specified.
b) Prohibits specified conduct by a mortgage servicer in connection with subordinate mortgages, as defined, including, among other things, failure to communicate with the borrower in writing for over three years; failure to provide notice of a transfer of loan ownership as required; conducting or threatening to conduct a foreclosure sale after the relevant statute of limitations has run or after providing a form indicating the debt had been written off or discharged; and failure to provide required periodic account statements; among other things. Provides specified legal protections in foreclosure proceedings for borrowers subject to subordinate mortgages.
26) Extends the expenditure deadline by six months, and the reimbursement submission deadline by six additional months after that, for Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0.
AB 130
27) Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and any other adopting agency, from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless any of the following conditions is met:
a) The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.
b) The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM).
c) The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation to the SFM's study of standards for single-exit, single stairway apartment houses with more than two dwelling units in buildings above three stories.
d) The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to an adaptive reuse standards working group, to reduce potable water use in new residential buildings, or to support risk-based water quality standards for the onsite treatment and reuse of nonpotable water for certain residential buildings, as specified.
e) The building standards are necessary to ensure the latest editions of the model codes are incorporated into the triennial edition of the California Building Standards Code.
f) The building standards are necessary to incorporate the updates to accessibility requirements that align with minimum federal accessibility laws, standards and regulations.
g) The building standards under consideration would take effect on or after January 1, 2032.
28) Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from October 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
a) The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of September 20, 2025; AB 130
b) The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
c) The changes or modifications relate to home hardening;
d) The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts;
e) The changes are necessary to implement a local code amendment that is adopted to align with a general plan approved on or before June 10, 2025, and that permits mixed-fuel residential construction consistent with federal law while also incentivizing all-electric construction as part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy; or
f) The changes or modifications are related to specified administrative practices.
29) Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from October 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in 28) above is met.
30) Requires a city or county to perform annual inspections on every homeless shelter in its jurisdiction to ensure that the shelter is compliant with existing law requirements relating to substandard housing. Provides that these inspections may be unannounced.
31) Specifies that a city shall conduct an inspection for the shelters within the city’s jurisdiction; a county shall conduct an inspection for the shelters in the county’s jurisdiction; and a city with a population under 100,000 may partner with its county to conduct an inspection.
32) Requires a homeless shelter to prominently display information about an occupant’s rights and the process to report a complaint about a substandard shelter, including contact information for the owner or operator of the shelter, the city or county, and HCD. The shelter must also provide this information to any new occupant during intake.
AB 130
33) Provides that a plaintiff who prevails in an action pursuant to this statute shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and authorizes HCD to bring a civil action pursuant to this statute.
34) Amends the annual report that each city and county is required to submit to HCD and BCSH as follows:
a) Adds the number of complaints received by the city or county of substandard shelters, including if the city or county did not receive any complaints.
b) Requires a city or county to submit a report even if there are no outstanding violations, or any violations corrected, during the applicable period.
35) Requires HCD to withhold state funding from any city or county that fails to comply with reporting requirements or fails to take action to correct a substandard shelter violation.
36) Requires local jurisdictions, as part of their General Plan Annual Progress Reports, to provide data about the number of applications submitted, the location and number of developments approved, and the total number of building permits issued pursuant to the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act.
37) Clarifies that childcare centers may be incorporated into an eligible project pursuant to Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act without limitation on the number of children.
38) Modifies specified height and parking restrictions applicable to Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act projects.
39) Extends by up to one year the amount of time that the owner of a multifamily building has to complete required balcony inspections when the discovery of asbestos prevents timely inspection completion.
40) Adjusts the Renters Tax Credit, subject to future appropriation, as follows:
a) For spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses with gross income of $50,000 or less, from $120 to $250 for qualified AB 130
renters with no dependents, and from $120 to $500 for qualified renters with dependents.
b) For other individuals with adjusted gross income of $25,000 or less, from $60 to $250 for qualified renters with no dependents, and from $60 to $500 for qualified renters with dependents.
41) Requires the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to report to the Legislature about the efficacy of the change in (40), above, including the number of taxpayers claiming the credit and the average credit amount on tax returns claiming the credit, beginning two years after any appropriation for the adjusted Renters Tax Credit.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes This bill will result in minimal general fund costs for the administration of the homeless shelter conditions and minimal special fund costs associated with building standard codes. It provides for a continuous appropriation of funds from the Affordable Housing Default Reserve Account fund for the purpose of curing or averting a default on the terms of any loan or other obligation by the recipient of financial assistance, or bidding at any foreclosure sale where the default or foreclosure sale would jeopardize the department’s security in the rental housing development assisted by the department.
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/27/25)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/27/25)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-17, 3/20/25
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas AB 130
NOES: Alanis, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa NO VOTE RECORDED: Ahrens, Alvarez, Bauer-Kahan, Calderon, Essayli, Hoover, Irwin, Krell, Papan, Wallis
Prepared by: Timothy Griffiths / B. & F.R. / (916) 651-4103 6/30/25 15:52:00
**** END ****
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 12
Public Hearing
Townhome
Development
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #12
Subject
Consider a Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit to consider the construction of a 59-unit townhome condominium development. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): DP-2024-002, U-2024-007, TM-2024-001, ASA2024-005, TR-2024-024; Applicant(s): SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 359-08-025, -026, -027, and-028 (partial).)
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution Nos 25-XXX through 25-XXX to: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and 3. Approve the following permits: a. Development Permit (DP-2024- 002) (Attachment A); b. Use Permit (U-2024-007) (Attachment B); c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-005) (Attachment C); d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-001) (Attachment D); and e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-024) (Attachment E).
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from Councilmembers Staff received the following questions regarding Item #12:
Q1: What is the estimated increased property tax that would result from the Summerhill development?
Staff Response: As of Fiscal Year 2024-25, the City received $5,004.26 in property taxes from this site. Attachment K, page 13 shows estimated increased property taxes to the City at $75,360 for the 1% base property tax.
2 Q2: What is the potential approximate revenue that would be generated by the number of new residents of the proposed SummerHill development spending locally?
Staff Response: This information can be found on page 12 of attachment K, Table 4-a Sales Tax Estimate, estimated at $10,149.
Q3: What is the retail square footage and sales tax revenue loss estimated for this project?
Staff Response:
Potential loss of retail sq footage: 29,268 SF
Potential loss of sales tax: Sales tax average over 7 years with all 3 business at the site combined was $21,085 annually.
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 13
FY 2025-26 Fee
Schedule Update
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #13
Subject
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 25‐026 approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by September 1, 2025.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: Provide all recent redline fees schedules.
Staff Response: Staff has provided links below to the fee schedule staff reports for Fiscal Years 2016- 17 through 2024-25, each of which includes the corresponding redline fee schedules as attachments.
Additionally, a link to the June 26, 2025, Informational Memo has been included in the attachments section. The memo summarizes questions posed by Council and the corresponding staff responses for your reference.
1. Fiscal Year 2016-2017
a. Schedules A, B, C, & D
b. Schedule C (revised)
2. Fiscal Year 2017-2018
3. Fiscal Year 2018-2019
4. Fiscal Year 2019-2020
5. Fiscal Year 2020-2021
6. Fiscal Year 2021-2022
7. Fiscal Year 2022-2023
8. Fiscal Year 2023-2024
9. Fiscal Year 2024-2025
10. Fiscal Year 2024-2025
2 Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Redline) B – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Redline) C – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Redline) D – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Redline) E – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Clean) F – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Clean) G – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Clean) H – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Clean) I – Draft Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D J – User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
K – Informational Memorandum - Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update CC 07-01-2025
#16
Oversized Vehicle Parking
Desk Item
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #16
Subject
Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions in the public right‐of‐way.
Recommended Action
Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72‐hour parking limit), Section 11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal Code, to enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more than seventy‐two (72) hours on any public street.
Background:
This desk item includes the official motion of the Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 2025:
Final Vote on Parking Ordinance (Chair moved, Vice Chair seconded, Vote 4-1 in favor, Commissioner Fung voting against)
1. Annual resident oversized vehicle parking permit issued at no charge One permit per household
Allow resident to park one oversized vehicle in the City right-of-way for 72 hours, then vehicle must be moved 1,500 feet and remain away for 72 hours. The resident may park the oversized vehicle for unlimited 72-hour blocks of time in the City right-of-way.
2. Nonresidents may obtain five 72-hour parking permits per year to park an oversized vehicle in the City right-of-way, but may not park within 1,500 feet of a commercial district. Staff to determine permit fee.
3. Otherwise, parking oversized vehicles in the City right-of-way is prohibited, except that an oversized vehicle may park in the City right-of-way for 3 consecutive hours from 6 am to 8pm (day) and one hour from 8 pm to 6 am (night).
2 4. The City should install signage at Alves and Bandley and other problem areas.
5. The City should evaluate the program after one year.
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 16
Study Session -
Oversized Vehicle
Parking
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Agenda Item #16
Subject
Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions in the public right-of-way
Recommended Action
Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit), Section 11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal Code, to enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more than seventy-two (72) hours on any public street
Background:
On June 24, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to adopt an Ordinance with the following considerations:
1. Annual resident oversized vehicle parking permit issued at no charge One permit per household
Allow resident to park one oversized vehicle in the City right-of-way for 72 hours, then vehicle must be moved 1,500 feet and remain away for 72 hours. The resident may park the oversized vehicle for unlimited 72-hour blocks of time in the City right-of-way.
2. Nonresidents may obtain five 72-hour parking permits per year to park an oversized vehicle in the City right-of-way, but may not park within 1,500 feet of a commercial district. Staff to determine permit fee.
3. Otherwise, parking oversized vehicles in the City right-of-way is prohibited, except that an oversized vehicle may park in the City right-of-way for 3 consecutive hours from 6 am to 8pm (day) and one hour from 8 pm to 6 am (night).
4. The City should install signage at Alves and Bandley and other problem areas. 2 5. The City should evaluate the program after one year.
This Supplemental Report clarifies that the recommendation for the proposed Ordinance for oversized vehicle parking does not impact in any way regulations regarding parking generally.
Currently, Municipal Code section 11.24.130 (below) already limits parking of all vehicles to 72 hours. The proposed Ordinance clarifies that oversized vehicles must be moved 1500 feet and stay away for 72 hours before returning. It applies only to oversized vehicles.
11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours.
No person who owns or has in his possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two hours.
(Ord. 843, § 6, 1977)