10-29-2019 (Special)CITY OF CUPERTINO
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall, Conference Room A
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
5:00 PM
Special Meeting
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Legislative Review Committee is hereby
called for Tuesday, October 29 , 2019 commencing at 5 :00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California, 95014 . Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business
on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting ."
SPECIAL MEETING
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approve the August 27th Legislative Review Committee minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the August 27th Legislative Review Committee
minutes
A - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the members on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
members from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT (including comments on all agenda items)
AGENDA REVIEW
In order to make the most efficient use of outside consultant time, Committee members will review and
discuss items on the agenda to assist in developing priorities and strategy for formal consideration of
those items when the consultant is present later in the meeting. No action will be taken on any agenda
items in this portion of the meeting.
ACTION ITEMS
Page 1
Legislative Review Committee Agenda October 29, 2019
2.Subject: 2019 Legislative overview of signed, vetoed, and two-year bills
Recommended Action: Receive legislative overview and provide input
Staff Report
A - Cupertino Bill Positions
3.Subject: Discussion of possible sponsored legislation for 2020
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide input on possible sponsored legislation for
2020
4.Subject: Discussion of future meetings and agenda topics
Recommended Action: Recommend future meetings and agenda topics
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next 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, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. 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. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use
during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will
be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at
10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100
written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City 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’s website and kept in packet archives. You
are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to
the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights
you may have on the information provided to the City .
Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the
notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment .
Page 2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Approve the August 27th Legislative Review Committee minutes
Approve the August 27th Legislative Review Committee minutes
File #:19-6379,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/23/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Page 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
DRAFT MINUTES
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall, Conference Room A
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
9:30 AM
Special Meeting
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m.
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, City Manager Deborah Feng, Townsend
Public Affairs (TPA), Assistant to the City Manager Katy Nomura.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approve the June 25th Legislative Review Committee minutes (Continued
from July 23rd meeting)
Recommended Action: Approve the June 25th Legislative Review Committee minutes
The Mayor makes a motion to approve the June 25th minutes. Vice Mayor seconds the
motion.
2. Subject: Approve the July 23rd Legislative Review Committee Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the July 23rd Legislative Review Committee minutes
The Mayor makes a motion to approve the July 23rd minutes. Vice Mayor seconds the
motion.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Griffin spoke about issues in Sacramento and mentioned that similar issues are
happening in Portland and Seattle. She fears the loss of local control.
PUBLIC COMMENT (including comments on all agenda items)
This item was not conducted as the Chair decided to take public comment on agenda
items when the agenda items were discussed.
AGENDA REVIEW
This item was not conducted
ACTION ITEMS
Page 2
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
3. Subject: Legislative updates
Recommended Action: Receive legislative update and provide input
TPA explains that the legislature has three more weeks until they adjourn on Friday
September 13th. Most of the bills that we are looking at right now and that the City has
taken a position on are going through the Appropriations Committee (AC). A number of
them are on the suspense file and both the AC and the Fiscal Committee will be
considering those bills on Friday August 30th. Any bill that has a fiscal impact to the state
that is greater than a $150,000 is referred to the suspense file, which then allows the AC
to evaluate all of the proposed spending. On Friday, the AC will vote on about 1100
active bills. Afterwards, the legislature will be conducting floor votes every day until the
legislative session adjourns on the 13th.
SB 330 and SB 592 will be heard tomorrow morning in the Appropriations Committee
and those will most likely not get referred to the suspense file because they do not meet
the financial threshold for state impact.
The Prop 13 reform bill, also known as the split role bill, is an initiative that qualified for
the November 2020 ballot that would modify the property evaluations for commercial
and business properties. Currently under Prop 13, the property tax is based on 1% of the
property’s purchase price, which can then be adjusted up to 2% annually. This measure
would not change the tax rate on commercial and business properties, however in 2022,
Counties would be required to reassess the current market value of the property at least
every three years, which could change the value of the properties in question. This
would only impact business and industrial type properties with some exemptions for
small businesses. This change is anticipated to generate an additional $10 to $12 billion
in annual revenue. Forty percent would go to education and 60 percent would go to
local services.
Proponents of this initiative have filed for a new initiative after taking consideration
from feedback in opposition to this bill and hope to requalify a new ballot measure to
replace the current one. The biggest change in this new initiative is in the way they
define small businesses as having 50 employees, property values less than $3 million, or
if they are a small business within a larger multi-business complex. The financial
supporters for this bill have been through the California Teachers Association (CTA) and
other labor organizations. This bill is essentially supported by people that are going to
benefit from the state having a larger general fund. There has not been any active
campaigning yet, so it is hard to tell how likely this bill is to pass even if it only needs a
majority vote. The governor showed his interest in this bill as a possibility to entertain a
larger statewide revamp of the state tax code. This is very difficult to do, but we should
keep an eye on it next year.
ACA 1 would have effectively lowered the local voting threshold from 2/3 to 55% for
local revenue and bond measures, which would have applied to bonds and parcel taxes
Page 3
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
and other general taxes. This measure fell in the Assembly and will most likely not come
back until next year, however, this bill ultimately needs to pass by the voters, since it’s a
constitutional amendment. There is a lot of support from local cities including the
League, but we will probably have to wait until after session adjourns to see what
happens with this bill.
SB 50 is a two-year bill and it will not come back until the next legislative session.
SB 592 was last amended to remove the compensatory damage provisions, however
there was another set of amendments that just came through this morning that are being
reviewed currently. Both this bill and SB 330 are up in the Appropriations Committee
tomorrow and will most likely move out of Appropriations since there is minimal
impact on the state and the governor has expressed his support for SB 330 along with AB
1482. SB 330 has not been amended since the last committee meeting. Currently the bill
includes a limit of 5 hearings within a 12-month period.
4. Subject: Update on positions taken by the League of California Cities (League), American
Planning Association (APA), and the Cities Association of Santa Clara County (CASCC)
Recommended Action: Receive update on positions taken by the League, APA, and
CASCC and provide input
TPA explains that the League, APA, and the CASCC have mostly been focusing on the
same bills as Cupertino. The League heavily supports ACA 1 but are trying to seek some
amendments for some ADU bills, but at this point most of their positions are locked in.
As the legislature takes some amendments in the last couple of weeks some of the
“oppose unless amended” positions may become neutral for these organizations. These
organizations are closely watching AB 1484, which deals with mitigation fees and public
notice. TPA anticipates that this bill will become a two-year bill but are keeping a close
eye on it since the City is very interested in mitigation fees.
Wieckowski’s ADU bill, SB 13, is currently in the Appropriations suspense file, but TPA
expects some amendments among all the ADU bills to come in the next few days. The
authors and the Appropriations committee have all received Cupertino’s letters of
opposition and if the bill moves out of the suspense file then we may do another round
of the City’s letter.
5. Subject: Discuss a letter to the governor on the trailer bill process
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to send a Letter to the Governor on the
trailer bill process.
TPA explains that the state budget is done in a single bill every year and there are
numerous pieces of legislation that are needed to enact various spending or policy
changes to implement the actual budget bill. Those are commonly in the capital referred
to as budget trailer bills. There’s typically one or more per subject areas so usually the
budget includes about 20 trailer bills. These bills are generally not in print for very long
before they’re voted on, but they have to at least be in print for 72 hours. The bills are
Page 4
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
printed after deals have already been reached between the administration and the
legislature and the bill just reflects the deals that have already been reached. So
generally, by the time a budget trailer bill is in print, everything has already been agreed
upon already. Governor Brown was notorious for putting a lot of major policy into
budget trailer bills and Newsom, at least this year, has not. This is the way in which
legislation can get through without the significant amount of public input and they only
require a majority vote and they go into effect immediately. The Governor can decide to
put anything into a budget trailer bill as long as they are statutory changes and not
constitutional ones. Ultimately, they have to be related to the state budget, and show
how those funds are being allocated. AB 101 was the large budget trailer bill that had
some provisions that related to SB 35 through HCD. Currently the bulk of the trailer bills
have already been approved and signed by the governor, but there are still a handful
that may be amended into print by the end of session, which will be the last chance to
make any modifications to this year’s state budget until January. Once those bills are in
print, they would have to be voted on by the two houses.
Action Taken:
None
6. Subject: Consider adopting a position on AB 1210 (Low) - Crimes: package theft
(Continued from July 23rd meeting)
Recommended Action: Adopt a position supporting Assembly Bill 1210 and authorize
the Mayor to send a letter of support to the State Legislature
TPA explains that AB 1210 makes it a crime to enter into a patio or property adjacent to
a dwelling with the intent to steal a package that has been delivered to that dwelling.
Under current law, it is only a theft if you steal a package that was delivered by the
postal service, but there are some provisions that would make it a grand theft
depending on what’s in a package. This bill would make this crime a felony or a
misdemeanor at the discretion of the judicial system. It was made into a two-year bill, so
it will come back to the legislature in January.
Opposition to this bill are primarily from the ACLU and the Public Defenders
Association since the voters approved Prop 47, which moved a number of nonviolent
crimes to misdemeanors. They feel that this bill goes against Prop 47, and essentially the
will of the voters.
Public Comment:
Liana Crabtree noted that it would be problematic if a person stole a low-cost item and
then got registered as a felon. TPA explains that this bill does allow for discretion for the
attorneys to decide the appropriate punishment for offenders. The committee agreed
that package theft is a huge problem in Cupertino and have decided to adopt a position
of support for AB 1210.
Page 5
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
Action Taken:
The Vice Mayor makes a motion to support AB 1210 and send a letter of support to the
State Legislature. The Mayor seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Subject: Discuss AB 101/SB 102 (Committee on Budget) - Housing Development and
Financing
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide input on AB 101/SB 102
This item was not conducted since it was discussed in item 3.
8. Subject: Consider adopting a position on AB 1487 (Chiu) - San Francisco Bay Area
housing development
Recommended Action: Consider adopting a position on AB 1487 and authorizing the
Mayor to send a letter to the State Legislature
TPA is currently anticipating amendments possibly tomorrow. This bill would create the
Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Authority, which would give authority to the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) to generate revenue for affordable housing, among other things.
Both ABAG and MTC created a list of recommendations for amendments. The author is
working with Senator McGuire, the chair of the Governance and Finance Committee in
the Senate. These are not yet in print, however TPA has heard that the money will come
from Business and property taxes from cities and 80% will be returned to the County,
which is called return-to-source funding. The three largest cities, San Jose, San Francisco,
and Oakland would get their cut off the top from the County’s funds and then other
cities would apply for the rest. The details of this will be clearer once the bill is in print.
Public Comment:
Jennifer Griffin thinks that this bill is only benefitting the larger cities, especially San
Francisco.
The committee discussed the possible implications of the return to source payment to
the County. They want to ensure that cities will get the proper return of their tax dollars.
TPA explains that they will be able to take a formal position once the bill is in print,
however the LRC could still send over a letter that expresses their interest in this bill.
Action Taken:
The Mayor makes a motion to send a letter expressing their interest and concerns to the
State Legislator. Vice Mayor Seconds. The motion carries unanimously.
9. Subject: Consider adopting a position on AB 1482 (Chiu) - Tenancy: rent caps
Recommended Action: Consider taking a position on AB 1482 and authorizing the
Mayor to send a letter to the State Legislature
TPA explains that this bill aims to limit rent gouging by putting a max on annual rent
increases of 7% plus inflation to a maximum of 10% for housing over 10 years old. This
Page 6
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
bill would also prevent landlords from evicting their tenants without statement of just
cause. This bill would not have any impact on any local control ordinances. The
committee does not agree with the differentiation between old and new buildings.
Katy Nomura, the Assistant to the City Manager, points out that the LRC’s legislative
platform does not allow them to take a position on this bill without taking it to Council.
Public Comment:
Jennifer Griffin believes this bill is senseless and wants the city to oppose this bill.
Kitty Moore believes that the committee should take a position on this bill or the City
will look like it is not concerned about housing security.
Action Taken:
The Mayor said he would add this item to the City Council agenda.
10. Subject: Consider adopting a position on SB 6 (Beall) - Residential development:
available land
Recommended Action: Adopt a position supporting Senate Bill 6 and authorize the
Mayor to send a letter of support to the State Legislature
TPA explains that this bill would require a new database of state surplus properties as
well as sites that have been identified as suitable for residential development. This
would be available to the public. The Vice Mayor likes that the database is limited to
housing element sites that the City adopts thorough the legislative process.
Public Comment:
Jennifer Griffin feels nervous that land in Cupertino would be under the prying eyes in
Sacramento because they may take away potential park land in Cupertino. TPA
explains that lands that are not in the housing element will not be on the database.
Liana Crabtree asks what the purpose of the database is if it is private property? TPA
explains that this bill is trying to take inventory information that would already be
available through each individual City and putting that information into one database.
She also asks what constitutes a “surplus land” and TPA responds that there is a State
Surplus Land Act that categorizes surplus land properties based on future uses, design
uses, underutilization, and other factors.
Rahul Vasanth asks if it is already required to rezone to accommodate the RHNA
program.
Action Taken:
The Mayor makes a motion to support SB 6 and authorize the Mayor to send a letter of
support to the State Legislature. The Vice Mayor seconds. The motion carries
unanimously.
11. Subject: Consider adopting positions on SB 54 (Allen) and AB 1080 (Gonzalez) -
California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act
Page 7
Legislative Review Committee Draft Minutes August 27, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt positions supporting Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill
1080 and authorize the Mayor to send letters of support to the State Legislature
TPA explains that these two bills are identical, and they work towards the reduction of
single use plastic. Both are currently in the suspense file in the Appropriations
Committee. CalRecycle would be charged with adopting regulations to implement the
reduction. In 2024, their goal is to reduce single use plastic by 20% and by 2030 they
want to be at 75% reduction.
Public Comment:
Jennifer Griffin wants the committee to remember that the elderly and handicap
community have difficulties with opening packaging now and this bill might them more
difficult to open in the future. Vice Mayor would like to add this consideration to the
letter for the State Legislature.
Action Taken:
The Vice Mayor makes a motion to support SB 54 and AB 1080 and authorize the Mayor
to send a letter to the State Legislature. The Mayor seconds. The motion carries
unanimously.
12. Subject: Future bill ideas
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide input on future bill ideas
This item was not conducted.
13. Subject: Discussion of future meetings and agenda topics
Recommended Action: Recommend future meetings and agenda topics
TPA will work to create request for veto and request for support letters
to the Governor.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday October 29th at 5pm
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: 2019 Legislative overview of signed, vetoed, and two-year bills
Receive legislative overview and provide input
File #:19-6383,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/23/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 29, 2019
Subject
2019 Legislative overview of signed, vetoed, and two-year bills
Recommended Action
Receive legislative overview and provide input
Summary
The Legislature concluded the first year of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session on September
13th, which was the last day to pass bills in either house. After the Legislature adjourned
session, Governor Newsom had one month to act on the measures that were approved by
the Legislature. Ultimately, of the 1,042 bills that were sent to the Governor, 870 were
signed into law, while 172 were vetoed. Governor Newsom’s veto rate of 16.5% was
slightly higher than Governor Brown averaged in his last two terms, but generally in line
with the veto rate of previous Governors whose party was in control of the Legislature.
While the Legislature approved 1,042 bills during the legislative session, 2,625 were
introduced over the course of the session and those that were no t approved are now
considered two-year bills. While the Legislature will not advance the majority of the
nearly 1,600 two-year bills, it is important to understand what measures may be
considered when the Legislature returns in January 2020.
While the 2020 legislative calendar has not yet been released, it is likely that two-year bills
that remain in their house of origin will need to be considered by the Policy Committee,
Fiscal Committee, and voted out of their house of origin by the end of January. Those
measures that remain in their house of origin after January will be ineligible for additional
consideration. That said, legislators will likely have until late-February to introduce new
legislation, so it is possible that two-year bills that do not advance may be reintroduced
for legislative consideration in 2020.
With that in mind, below is a summary of key bills that were signed into law by the
Governor, vetoed by the Governor, and those that are two-year bills eligible for
consideration in January 2020.
Legislation Signed Into Law
Below are key bills that were signed into law by Governor Newsom.
AB 68 (Ting) – Accessory Dwelling Units
City Position: Oppose
This measure expands to the types of ADUs that must be permitted, regardless of local
regulations, and makes numerous other changes to ADU law. These changes include:
allows up to two ADUs on lots with single-family homes and multiple ADUs on lots with
multi-family dwellings, changes to ministerial approvals of ADUS, and prohibits local
ADU ordinances from imposing minimum lot size requirements, setting maximum ADU
dimensions less that outlined in the bill, requiring replacement parking, and requiring
certain setbacks.
AB 881 (Bloom) – Accessory Dwelling Units
City Position: Oppose
This measure expands the types of ADUs that a local government must permit and, until
January 1, 2025, prohibits local agencies from requiring owner occupancy of ADUs,
among other changes. The measure limits the criteria by which local jurisdictions can
limit where ADUs are permitted; clarifies that ADUs must be ministerially approved if
constructed in existing garages; and eliminates, for five years, the potential for local
agencies to place owner-occupancy requirements on the units.
AB 1483 (Grayson) – Housing Data
This measure requires cities and counties to post specified housing-related information
on their websites. This information includes a current schedule of mitigation fees,
exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the city, county, or special district
applicable to a housing development project, zoning ordinances and development
standards, and an archive or impact fee nexus studies conducted after January 1, 2018.
The bill also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to
establish a working group to develop a strategy for state housing data.
AB 1487 (Low) – Bay Area Housing Finance Authority
This measure establishes the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) and sets
forth the governing structure and powers of the BAHFA Board, allowable financing
activities, and allowable expenditures of the revenues generated.
AB 1763 (Chiu) – Affordable Housing Density Bonus
This measure revises the density bonus law to require a city or county to award a
developer additional density, concessions and incentives, and height increases if 100% of
the units in a development are restricted to low- and moderate-income households.
SB 6 (Beall) – Residential Development: Available Land
City Position: Support
This measure requires the Department of General Services, in coordination with the
Department of Housing and Community Development, to create a public inventory of
locally identified sites suitable for residential development, along with state surplus
lands.
SB 13 (Wieckowski) – Accessory Dwelling Units
City Position: Oppose
This measure expands to the types of ADUs that must be permitted, regardless of local
regulations, and makes numerous other changes to ADU law. These changes include:
allows up to two ADUs on lots with single-family homes and multiple ADUs on lots with
multi-family dwellings, changes to ministerial approvals of ADUS, changes to how and
when impact fees can be charged for ADUs, and prohibits local ADU ordinances from
imposing minimum lot size requirements, setting maximum ADU dimensions less that
outlined in the bill, requiring replacement parking, and requiring certain setbacks.
SB 330 (Skinner) – Housing Crisis Act of 2019
City Position: Oppose
This restricts the actions of cities and counties that would reduce the production of
housing until January 1, 2025. This bill requires a city or county to approve a housing
development project that complies with the minimum local general plan, zoning
standards, and criteria that were in effect at the time the application was deemed to be
complete. Cities and counties must approve it on the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density, and to base its decision upon written findings supported by
substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist and places the burden
of proof on the local agency. The act requires a court to impose a fine on a local agency
under certain circumstances and requires that the fine be at least $10,000 per housing unit
in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. It
would also specify that an application is deemed complete if a preliminary application
was submitted.
SB 344 (McGuire) – Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act
This measure extends the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act until
January 1, 2021. This act requires sellers of prepaid wireless telecommunications services
to collect local utility users’ taxes which help fund state and local 911 emergency response
systems.
Legislation that was Vetoed
Below are key bills that were vetoed by Governor Newsom.
AB 344 (Calderon) – New Beginnings California Program
This measure would have established the New Beginnings California Program within the
Department of Community Services and Development to provide matching funds of up
to $50,000 annually, to up to 50 cities, counties, or continuums of care to implement,
expand or continue employment programs for homeless individuals. The Governor’s
veto message indicated that the intent of the bill was laudable, but given the impact to the
state’s general fund, it should be considered as part of the budget process.
SB 5 (Beall) – Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
City Position: Support
This measure creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment
program for local agencies to use existing local property taxes for affordable housing and
housing related projects. This program would have provided local governments with
state funding, gradually increasing to $2 billion annually, to assist with the construction
of affordable housing and related infrastructure. The Governor’s veto message indicated
that such a significant fiscal impact to the state, as would have resulted from this measure,
needs to be considered as part of the budget deliberations, so that it can be considered in
light of other state priorities.
SB 268 (Wiener) – Local Tax Ballot Measures
This measure would have allowed the proponents of a local initiative measure, or a local
jurisdiction submitting a local ballot measure, that imposes or increases a tax with more
than one rate, or authorizes the issuance of bonds, to choose how specific information will
appear on the ballot label. The Governor’s veto message indicated that the Governor was
concerned that the bill would reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures.
SB 531 (Glazer) – Local agencies: retailers
This measure would prohibit a local agency from entering into any agreement that results
in a rebate of local tax revenues to a retailer in exchange for that retailer locating within
that agency’s jurisdiction. The Governor’s veto message indicated that he believed
removing these tax options from local agencies was the wrong approach, but he did feel
there needed to be increased transparency and understanding of the economic outcomes
from these types of agreements.
Two-Year Bills
Below are key bills that did not advance out of the Legislature and are eligible for
consideration in 2020.
AB 67 (Rivas) – Homeless Integrated Data Warehouse
Last Location: Held on Senate Appropriations Suspense File
This measure would require the Department of Housing and Community Development
to crate a statewide homeless integrated data warehouse in coordination with state and
local partners. The measure would require specified state agencies to draft and carry out
a strategy to integrate available information to provide longitudinal, cost-based studies.
AB 516 (Chiu) – Authority to Remove Vehicles
City Position: Oppose
Last Location: Held on Senate Appropriations Suspense File
AB 516 modifies existing law that authorizes peace officers to tow vehicles that have been
left parked for 72 hours or more. The bill requires officers to first place a notice on the
vehicle for a minimum of 5 days prior to being towed and disallows officers from towing
a vehicle that has five or more unpaid parking tickets.
AB 1080 (Gonzalez)/SB 54 (Allen) – Solid Waste Packaging and Products
City Position: Support
Last Location: AB 1080 was moved to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor. SB 54 was not
taken up for a vote on the Assembly Floor
These identical measures would enact the California Circular Economy and Pollution
Reduction Act, to be administered by CalRecycle, which would impose a comprehensive
regulatory framework on producers, retailers, and wholesalers of single-use packaging
and priority single-use products.
AB 1210 (Low) – Package Theft
City Position: Support
Last Location: Assembly Public Safety Committee
This measure would make it an alternate felony/misdemeanor to enter the property
adjacent to a dwelling with the intent to steal a package that has been delivered by a public
or private carrier.
AB 1279 (Bloom) – Housing Development: High-Resource Areas
Last Location: Senate Housing Committee
This measure would require certain development sites in high-resource areas to allow for
more density and height and make these sites subject to “use by-right” approval. The bill
would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to designate
areas in the state as “high-resource areas” based on provisions set forth in the measure.
AB 1286 (Muratsuchi) – Shared Mobility Device Agreements
Last Location: Senate Judiciary Committee
This measure would require shared mobility service providers to enter into an agreement
with, or obtain a permit from, the local jurisdiction in which the providers’ devices are
used. These agreements and permits must require certain minimum levels of liability
insurance and must require a prohibition on contractual provisions between providers
and users that limits a user’s legal rights or remedies. The measure also requires cities
and counties authorizing providers to establish rules governing the operation, parking,
and maintenance of these devices.
AB 1356 (Ting) – Retail Commercial Cannabis Activity
Last Location: Moved to the Inactive File on the Assembly Floor
This measure would require a local jurisdiction, in which more than 50% of the electorate
voted in favor of Proposition 64, to issue a minimum number of local licenses that
authorize medical cannabis commercial activity equal to one license for every six on -sale
general license types for alcoholic beverage sales that are currently active in the
jurisdiction.
SB 12 (Beall) – Youth Mental Health Services
City Position: Support
Last Location: Held on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense File
This measure requires the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability
Commission to administer a program to award grants to local governments to establish
mental health drop-in centers for youth.
SB 50 (Wiener) – Housing Development: Streamlined Approval
City Position: Oppose
Last Location: Held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File
This measure would require local governments to provide an “equitable communities
incentive” to developers that construct residential developments in “jobs-rich” and
“transit-rich” areas, which may include certain exemptions to specified requirements for
zoning, density, parking, height restrictions, and floor area ratios.
SB 592 (Wiener) – Housing Accountability Act
City Position: Oppose
Last Location: Assembly Rules Committee
This measure extends provisions of the Housing Accountability Act to accessory dwelling
units and certain ministerial decisions, as well as adds new provisions related to
enforcement of the Act. SB 592 approved by the Assembly Housing and Community
Development (6-0) as well as the Assembly Local Government Committee (8-0). The
measure is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee awaiting hearing. On
August 12th, the bill was amended to remove the provisions allowing for a plaintiff to seek
compensatory damages for a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
_______________________________
Prepared by: Townsend Public Affairs
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Discussion of possible sponsored legislation for 2020
Discuss and provide input on possible sponsored legislation for 2020
File #:19-6395,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/23/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Discussion of future meetings and agenda topics
Recommend future meetings and agenda topics
File #:19-6389,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/23/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™