1 CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AD-HOC LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 ZOOM MEETING REPORT Members Present: Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmember Wang Staff Present: Sr. Management Analyst Astrid Robles Lobbyists Present: Jason Gonsalves and Paul Gonsalves of Gonsalves & Sons The Cupertino City Council Ad hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee met on Zoom September 4, 2025. The Subcommittee first received a legislative update from our Lobbyists regarding the progress of bills, with 700 bills still pending. There was an informational update provided regarding redistricting efforts to redraw the maps. A status update was provided for the following bills the Subcommittee had previously taken positions on: Summary of LRC Positions [This is a courtesy recap from the July 1, 2025 City Council meeting Item 10 RE: AB 306 (Rivas) – State building standards moratorium. LRC recommendation: Oppose. This item was postponed to a date uncertain when it went to City Council July 1, 2025 based on the update in the Item 10 Supplemental Report here: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=1245864&GUID=95F63726-945B-4168-88A5-CADD3739B5B6 See PDF pages 15-30. The SB 130 passage rendered a position unnecessary.] AB 340 (Ahrens) – Employer-employee relations: confidential communications: Oppose. Sent to suspense file. AB 648 (Zbur) – Community colleges: housing: local zoning regulations: exemption: Oppose. Still active. AB 650 (Papan) – Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation: Support. Still active with no opposition. SB 79 (Wiener) – Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transit-oriented development: Oppose. Still active. SB 501 (Allen) – Household Hazardous Waste Producer Responsibility Act: Support. On suspense and inactive. SB 753 (Cortese) – Special business regulations: shopping carts: Support. Still active. 2 New bills and items of discussion: SB 63 (Wiener) – The Subcommittee had a robust discussion of this proposed sales tax across the region, transit ridership, traffic, associated laws regarding transit route frequency, and recommended an oppose position. It was noted there is no direct correlation between the average daily traffic and bus frequency on transit corridors in Cupertino. SB 707 (Durazo) – Changes to the Brown Act. The Subcommittee recommended an oppose position due to the unfunded and unreasonable requirements of the bill during technological difficulties during meetings with remote attendees. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Measure A was discussed and possibly a position opposing the tax will be taken after researching the matter to see if it fits within the LRC scope. There will be a Special Meeting October 13, 2025, 7 p.m., Community Hall with legislators for a legislative update. The Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee will hold an end of session wrap-up meeting October 28, 2025. Report prepared by: Vice Mayor Moore September 8, 2025. Attachments: 1. Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Subcommittee Agenda 2. Gonsalves and Sons Legislative Update 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
Ad-Hoc Legislative Subcommittee
Vice Mayor Moore
Councilmember Wang
September 4, 2025
2:00pm
Agenda
1. Welcome and Kick-Off
2. Legislative Update by Lobbyist
3. Priority Bills Discussion 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)
4. Other items of interest
a. SB 707 (Durazo)
b. Street Sweeping Sign-on Letter
5. Scope of LRC Discussion Follow-up
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.
Priority Bill Summaries
City of Cupertino
Ad-Hoc LRC Subcommittee
September 4, 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 off the Senate Floor on May 27, 2025 with a vote of 39-0. • The bill passed the Assembly local Government Committee on July 16, 2025 with a vote of 6-0.
• The bill is currently on the Assembly Floor and is eligible to be taken up at any time. • The bill is supported by:
o League of CA Cities
o CA Contract Cities Association
o City of Concord
o City of Norwalk
o City of Oakland
o City of San Jose (sponsor)
SB 79 (Wiener) Local government land: public transit use: housing development:
transit-oriented development.
• SB 79 forces cities in urban transit counties defined as “a county with more than 15 rail stations” to approve transit-oriented development projects near specified transit stops, up to seven stories high and a density of 120 homes per acre, without regard to the community's needs, environmental review, or public input. Similarly, cities in non-urban transit counties near specific transit stops would need to approve
development projects by right, up to five stories high, with a density of 80 homes per acre. SB 79 defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent easement on or before January 1, 2026, within a half mile of a transit stop. Transit agencies would have the power to determine nearly all aspects of the development including height, density, and design, without any regard to local zoning or planning. • 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 off the Senate Floor on June 3, 2025 on a vote of 21-13. • The bill passed the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee on July 2, 2025 with a vote of 9-2.
• The bill passed the Assembly Local Government Committee on July 16, 2025 with a vote of 6-1.
• The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 29, 2025 with a vote of 8-6.
• The bill is supported by:
o City of West Hollywood
o City of Culver City
o City of Emeryville
o City of Santa Monica
o Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
o Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
o Casey Glaubman, Councilmember of Mount Shasta
o Addison Winslow - Chico Councilmember
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
o Princess Washington, Councilmember of Suisun City
• The bill is opposed by:
o City of Artesia
o City of Bakersfield
o City of Bell
o City of Bellflower
o City of Camarillo
o City of Carlsbad
o City of Carson
o City of Coalinga
o City of Commerce
o City of Corona
o City of Cupertino
o City of Cudahy
o City of Del Mar
o City of Downey
o City of Encinitas
o City of Fairfield
o City of Folsom
o City of Fullerton
o City of Glendale
o City of Hidden Hills
o City of Hesperia
o City of Huntington Beach
o City of Indian Hills
o City of Inglewood
o City of Lafayette
o City of Laguna Beach
o City of La Mirada
o City of Lakewood
o City of Malibu
o City of Manhattan Beach
o City of Menifee
o City of Merced
o City of Mission Viejo
o City of Modesto
o City of Moorpark
o City of Morgan Hill
o City of Morro Bay
o City of Murrieta
o City of Newport Beach
o City of Norwalk
o City of Oceanside
o City of Ontario
o City of Orange
o City of Orinda
o City of Palmdale
o City of Palo Alto
o City of Paramount
o City of Pico Rivera
o City of Pleasanton
o City of Rancho Cordova
o City of Rancho Cucamonga
o City of Rancho Palos Verdes
o City of Redlands
o City of Rolling Hills
o City of Roseville
o City of San Bernardino
o City of Santa Ana
o City of Simi Valley
o City of South Gate
o City of Sunnyvale
o City of Thousand Oaks
o City of Torrance
o City of Tulare
o City of Vernon
o City of Visalia
o City of Westlake Village
o City of Whittier
AB 650 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation.
• This bill extends a number of timelines in the process of determining regional housing needs, regional housing needs allocations, and housing element revisions, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development 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 a 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 off the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file on May 23, 2025.
• The bill passed off the Assembly Floor on June 2, 2025 on a vote of 79-0. • The bill passed the Senate Housing Committee on July 1, 2025 with a vote of 7-0. • The bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 29, 2025 with a vote of 7-0.
• The bill is currently on the Senate Floor and is eligible to be taken up at any time. • The bill has no opposition and is sponsored by the League of CA Cities and supported by the following cities:
o City of Tustin
o City of Bakersfield
o City of Belmont
o City of Carson
o City of Chino Hills
o City of Corona
o City of Dinuba
o City of Eastvale
o City of El Cerrito
o City of Foster City
o City of Fullerton
o City of Goleta
o City of Laguna Beach
o City of Lake Forest
o City of Long Beach
o City of Menifee
o City of Moorpark
o City of Morgan Hill
o City of Orinda
o City of Palo Alto
o City of Pico Rivera
o City of Placentia
o City of San Marcos
o City of San Mateo
o City of Santa Barbara
o City of Stanton
o City of Temecula
o City of Thousand Oaks
o City of Tulare
o City of Visalia
o City of Westlake Village
o City of Whittier
AB 340 (Ahrens) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications.
AB 340 would prohibit a public employer from (1) questioning an employee or employee representative regarding representation-related communications made in confidence between the employee and employee representative, and (2) compelling disclosure of such communications to a third party. These two prohibition would not apply to a criminal investigation or supersede rights of public safety officers under investigation.
• 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 off the Assembly Appropriations Suspense file on May 23, 2025. • The bill passed off the Assembly Floor on June 3, 2025 on a vote of 65-1. • The bill passed the Senate Labor & PERS Committee on June 25, 2025 with a vote of 4-1.
• The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 15, 2025 with a vote of 10-2.
• The bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File due to costs
• This bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities, CA Contract Cities Association and the City of Norwalk.
AB 648 (Zbur) Community colleges: housing: local zoning regulations: exemption. • This bill exempts community college districts (CCDs) from complying with local zoning ordinances for university housing development projects that are constructed on property owned or leased by the CCD, provided certain conditions are met. If the project includes housing units for faculty or staff, this bill requires that a portion of those units be made available at affordable rents to extremely low income and lower income faculty and staff.
• This bill was heard in the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 16, 2025 and passed on an 7-3 vote.
• This 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 passed the Senate Education Committee on June 18, 2025 with a vote of 6-1. • The bill passed the Senate Local Government Committee on July 16, 2025 with a vote of 5-2.
• The bill is currently on the Senate Floor and is eligible to be taken up at any time. • The bill is supported by the city of Santa Monica.
• The bill is opposed by the League of CA Cities.
SB 501 (Allen) Corporations Tax Law.
• 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 an 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.
• 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 San Jose
o City of Santa Maria
o City of Roseville
o League of CA Cities
SB 707 (Durazo)
• This bill makes numerous changes to the rules governing local agency public meetings pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) to, among other things, increase public access and extend teleconferencing flexibilities. Major provisions include:
• 1) Defines “eligible legislative bodies” as follows: a) A city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more. b) A county board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a population of 30,000 or more. c) A city council of a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more. d) The board of directors of a special district whose boundaries include a population of 200,000 or more and that has an internet website.
• 2) Requires eligible legislative bodies described above to meet additional public access and participation requirements until January 1, 2030. These requirements include providing (a) an opportunity for public attendance via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform, (b) reasonable assistance with translation and interpretation services at public meetings, and (c) translation of agendas and specified website content into all applicable languages. Eligible legislative bodies must also actively encourage public participation, including by members of the public in underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities, among other specified requirements.
• 3) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions applicable to health authorities and applicable during a state of emergency, and expands these provisions to include a local emergency, as specified.
• 4) Extends the sunset date to January 1, 2030, on teleconferencing flexibility provisions allowing remote participation of an individual legislative body member based on “just cause” and “emergency circumstances, ” and teleconferencing flexibility provided to neighborhood councils and student body associations. The bill also provides teleconferencing flexibility to subsidiary bodies and multijurisdictional bodies, as specified, until January 1, 2030.
• 5) Extends, from nine months to 12 months after the alleged violation, the period of time a petitioner has to submit a cease and desist letter to a legislative body before filing an action to determine if a legislative body has violated the Brown Act. • 6) Clarifies the existing authority of a legislative body to remove or limit participation by individuals or groups of persons who disrupt, disturb, impede, or render infeasible the orderly conduct of a meeting applies to members of the public participating in a meeting via a two way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.
• 7) Provides teleconferencing requirements do not apply to remote participation by a member of a legislative body with a disability, as specified. • 8) Makes permanent provisions of law governing the use of social media platforms by members of legislative bodies by removing the sunset date of January 1, 2026. • The bill passed the Senate Local Government Committee on April 2, 2025 With a vote of 5-0.
• The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2025 with a vote of 9-0 • The bill passed the Senate floor on June 3, 2025 with a vote of 24-6. • The bill passed the Assembly Local Government committee on July 16, 2025 with a vote of 6-2.
• The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 29, 2025 with the vote of 11-4.
• The bill is currently on the assembly floor and is eligible to be taken up at any time.