The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 10-13-2025 Searchable PacketMonday, October 13, 2025 6:05 PM CITY OF CUPERTINO Non-Televised Closed Session (6:05) and Televised Special Meeting (Legislative Update Session 6:45) 10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b) (2): The Venetian Hotel, 3355 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89109 City Council LIANG CHAO, MAYOR KITTY MOORE, VICE MAYOR J.R. FRUEN, COUNCILMEMBER SHEILA MOHAN, COUNCILMEMBER R "RAY" WANG, COUNCILMEMBER IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING AGENDA 1 CC 10-13-2025 1 of 30 City Council Agenda October 13, 2025 IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways: 1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to address the City Council may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person for Closed Session in City Hall, Conference Room C or for Open Session in Cupertino Community Hall. A. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for each agendized item. B. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon. C. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the microphone when recognized by the Mayor. D. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Mayor may reduce the speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A speaker representing a group between 2 and 5 members of the public in attendance may have up to 2 minutes per group member to speak, up to 10 minutes maximum. E. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in one of the following ways: a) At the overhead projector at the podium, or b) E-mail the document to cityclerk@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the Page 2 2 CC 10-13-2025 2 of 30 City Council Agenda October 13, 2025 slides/share the documents during your oral comment. 2) Written Communications as follows: A. E-mail comments to the City Council for Closed Session or Open Session at publiccomment@cupertino.gov as follows: a. E-mail comments must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to be forwarded to the City Council before the meeting. b. Emailed comments received following agenda publication but prior to, or during, the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting. c. These e-mail comments will also be received by each City Councilmember, the City Manager, and the City Clerk’s Office. Comments on non-agenda items sent to any other email address will be included upon the sender's request. B. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: City Council, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 3) Open Session Teleconference in one of the following ways: A. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_H_32ctZaSumLxnCkiG20Hw a) Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. b) Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak. c) Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser, such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. B. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join the meeting as follows: a) Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 829 1541 3333 b) To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6 c) Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number. C. Via an H.323/SIP room system: Join from an H.323/SIP room system: Page 3 3 CC 10-13-2025 3 of 30 City Council Agenda October 13, 2025 H.323: 144.195.19.161 (US West) 206.247.11.121 (US East) Meeting ID: 829 1541 3333 SIP: 82915413333@zoomcrc.com SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 6:05 PM 10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2): The Venetian Hotel, 3355 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89109 CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Public Employee Appointment Consideration; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b)(1); Title: City Manager 2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; California Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54954.4(c): (1 case) RECESS OPEN SESSION - 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue and via Teleconference; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2): The Venetian Hotel, 3355 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89109 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY Page 4 4 CC 10-13-2025 4 of 30 City Council Agenda October 13, 2025 STUDY SESSION 3.Subject: Legislative Updates from California State Senator Josh Becker and California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens Recommended Action: Receive a summary and updates on work during the 2025 California legislative session from the following representatives: A. California State Senator Josh Becker, 13th Senate District B. California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, 26th Assembly District ACTION CALENDAR 4.Subject: Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Measure A: Measure A would authorize a retail transactions and use tax (sales tax) of 0.625% (five-eighths of one percent) in Santa Clara County for a limited period of five (5) years. Measure A states that it is being proposed to address significant federal funding cuts created by the congressional enactment of H.R. 1 on July 4, 2025. H.R. 1 cut federal support for public service, including substantial reductions for Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (known as CalFresh in California). (Continued from September 16, 2025) Recommended Action: Accept the Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation to oppose Measure A and authorize the Mayor to send position letter (Attachment B) to the State and County A - Subcommittee Report from September 16, 2025 City Council Meeting B - Measure A Draft Opposition Letter C - Argument in Favor of Measure A D - Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure A E - Argument Against Measure A F - Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure A ADJOURNMENT Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists. For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email cityclerk@cupertino.org; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is Page 5 5 CC 10-13-2025 5 of 30 City Council Agenda October 13, 2025 announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. Page 6 6 CC 10-13-2025 6 of 30 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject:Public Employee Appointment Consideration; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b)(1); Title: City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/9/2025Page 1 of 1 7 CC 10-13-2025 7 of 30 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject:Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; California Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54954.4(c): (1 case) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/9/2025Page 1 of 1 8 CC 10-13-2025 8 of 30 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Legislative Updates from California State Senator Josh Becker and California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens Receive a summary and updates on work during the 2025 California legislative session from the following representatives: A. California State Senator Josh Becker, 13th Senate District B. California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, 26th Assembly District CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/9/2025Page 1 of 1 9 CC 10-13-2025 9 of 30 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject:Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Measure A:Measure A would authorize a retail transactions and use tax (sales tax) of 0.625% (five-eighths of one percent) in Santa Clara County for a limited period of five (5) years. Measure A states that it is being proposed to address significant federal funding cuts created by the congressional enactment of H.R. 1 on July 4, 2025. H.R. 1 cut federal support for public service, including substantial reductions for Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (known as CalFresh in California). (Continued from September 16, 2025) Accept the Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation to oppose Measure A and authorize the Mayor to send position letter (Attachment B) to the State and County CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/9/2025Page 1 of 1 10 CC 10-13-2025 10 of 30 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. 11 CC 10-13-2025 11 of 30 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 12 CC 10-13-2025 12 of 30 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. 13 CC 10-13-2025 13 of 30 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 14 CC 10-13-2025 14 of 30 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 15 CC 10-13-2025 15 of 30 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 16 CC 10-13-2025 16 of 30 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 17 CC 10-13-2025 17 of 30 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 18 CC 10-13-2025 18 of 30 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 19 CC 10-13-2025 19 of 30 • 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. 20 CC 10-13-2025 20 of 30 • 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. 21 CC 10-13-2025 21 of 30 • 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. 22 CC 10-13-2025 22 of 30 September 16, 2025 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 RE: Measure A – Affordable Housing Bond (November 2025 Ballot) Notice of OPPOSITION Dear County Board of Supervisors: On behalf of the City of Cupertino, I am writing to express our opposition to Measure A, the proposed 0.625 percent countywide sales tax increase appearing on the November 2025 ballot. While we recognize the fiscal challenges facing the County and the importance of sustaining healthcare services, we believe Measure A places an undue burden on residents and lacks the accountability and transparency that voters deserve. Sales taxes are among the most regressive forms of revenue, disproportionately affecting low- income households, working families, and seniors on fixed incomes. At a time when many residents are already struggling with high costs of living, an additional tax would deepen financial strain. Moreover, because Measure A is structured as a general tax, the revenues are not dedicated specifically to healthcare services. Without clear safeguards, funds could be diverted to other purposes, undermining public trust and failing to ensure that the measure addresses the very healthcare challenges it is intended to resolve. The timing of this proposal is also problematic. Placing such a significant revenue measure on a special election ballot reduces public awareness and limits voter participation, which does not reflect the level of engagement this issue deserves. Even if Measure A is approved, the 23 CC 10-13-2025 23 of 30 The City of Cupertino fully supports efforts to sustain and strengthen healthcare access for all residents, but we believe Measure A is not the right approach. We urge the Board to pursue alternatives that are more equitable, transparent, and sustainable, and to engage cities as true partners in developing solutions. We stand ready to work collaboratively toward strategies that protect public health without placing an excessive burden on our residents. For these reasons, the City of Cupertino opposes Measure A. Sincerely, Liang Chao Mayor City of Cupertino cc. Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga, District 5 The Honorable Josh Becker The Honorable Patrick Ahrens projected revenues will cover only a portion of the County’s long-term healthcare funding shortfall, leaving critical gaps unaddressed and creating uncertainty for the future of our public hospital system. 24 CC 10-13-2025 24 of 30 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A Vote YES on Measure A: Keep Our Local Hospitals Open Our local hospitals are in crisis. Reckless decisions in Washington, driven by President Trump and Congress, have led to devastating and unprecedented cuts in critical healthcare funding, leaving Santa Clara County with a massive one-billion-dollar shortfall. If we don't take action, hospitals may be forced to shut down, and other critical County services will be slashed. This would result in longer wait times, fewer doctors, and longer drives to receive care. Measure A oAers a balanced and responsible solution. The funding gap will be covered by a combination of County spending cuts and short-term local funding from Measure A that remains right here in Santa Clara County. This issue aAects more than just a few hospitals or those on Medi-Cal; it will impact everyone. When emergency rooms close, patients do not simply disappear—they crowd into the nearest hospital. This leads to skyrocketing wait times, increased costs, and a decline in the quality of care. Even those with private insurance will experience longer wait times, higher costs, and greater distances to travel when every minute counts. The funding shortfall is likely to gravely a Aect Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, which serves one in four county residents, operates two of only three local trauma centers, and provides nearly half of all emergency room visits in Santa Clara County. If it struggles, the entire healthcare system is at risk. Measure A is temporary: it will last for ﬁve years and includes strict oversight and independent audits so that voters can see how the funds are utilized. Importantly, the federal government cannot take a single cent of this funding. Vote YES on Measure A to keep our hospitals open, protect access to care for everyone, and ensure help is available when we need it most. Join us at SaveOurLocalHospitals.com Daniel A. Nelson MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center’s Department of Emergency Medicine Chair Emiko Rivera RN, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Burn Center Sara Cody MD, Santa Clara County Public Health Director, Retired Otto Lee President, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 25 CC 10-13-2025 25 of 30 Douglas G. Sporleder Fire Chief, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Retired 26 CC 10-13-2025 26 of 30 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A VOTE NO ON MEASURE A Santa Clara County doesn't need a bigger bite out of your wallet—it needs to go on a diet. The County faces a ballooning annual deﬁcit projected to reach $3 billion by 2030, and Measure A's $330 million a year won't even scratch the surface. What it will guarantee is more tax hikes in the future. Vote NO on Measure A. This sales tax hits hardworking families the hardest, while giving politicians a blank check with no oversight or accountability. Vote NO on Measure A because it isn't a plan—it's a last-minute band-aid covering decades of ﬁscal mismanagement. The County rushed it through in a hastily called meeting with almost no public notice. Don't believe the "temporary" label. In Santa Clara County, taxes sold as temporary become permanent all too frequently—e.g., the 1994 library parcel tax and the 1996 half- cent sales tax were both extended long after their original promises. Vote NO on Measure A! The County's path forward should be E A iciency—not higher taxes. Rishi Kumar Councilmember, Saratoga (Former) Liangfang Chao Mayor, Cupertino Lydia Kou Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto Liz Lawler Mayor, Monte Sereno (Former) Kansen Chu Assemblymember, California (Former) 27 CC 10-13-2025 27 of 30 ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A Vote NO on Measure A—It costs too much, does too little, and solves nothing. It's time for the county to tighten its belt, not reach into your pocket. Measure A is a regressive sales tax. This new tax hits low-and middle-income families the hardest during a time of crushing inﬂation. It's an open-ended slush fund with no binding oversight, making ours one of the most heavily taxed counties in California. Vote NO on Measure A because it's: A bailout for failure—The county's recklessly expanded hospital system lost $600 million last year, is projected to lose $1 billion next year, and $1.4-$3 billion by 2030. Measure A's $330 million per year won't even scratch the surface, guaranteeing future tax hikes. Proof the County can't ﬁx its problems—A Santa Clara County Grand Jury found the Valley Transportation Authority (bus and light rail) has lost billions over the years, covering only 7-10% of costs through fares. Yet county leaders refuse to ﬁx these failing programs before demanding more money from taxpayers. A legal loophole—The county has known about this deﬁcit for years, yet rushed Measure A onto the ballot with just 24 hours' notice as an "emergency" general tax. Not a dime will be dedicated to healthcare, and the funds can be spent on anything. It can pass with just 50% plus one vote (instead of the two-thirds required for a dedicated tax) and has no binding oversight to ensure promises are kept. Measure A isn't a plan—it's a last-minute band-aid that hides decades of ﬁscal mismanagement and guarantees further taxes. Demand real reform, ﬁscal discipline, and leadership that lives within its means. Rishi Kumar Councilmember of Saratoga (Former) Liang Fang Chao Mayor of Cupertino Elisabeth V. Lawler Mayor, Monte Sereno (Former) Lydia Kou Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto Rowena Turner Mayor, Monte Sereno (Former) 28 CC 10-13-2025 28 of 30 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A Measure A is a ﬁve-year, locally controlled solution to a healthcare crisis already putting lives at risk. It protects emergency rooms, trauma care, mental health services, stroke and lifesaving treatment for everyone in Santa Clara County. Opponents suggest "waiting" or "tightening our belts" while hospitals close and care slips out of reach. That's not a plan—it's a gamble with our safety. Washington's HR1 cuts billions from healthcare nationwide, taking $1 billion from Santa Clara County. That funding pays for doctors, nurses, emergency care and mental health services. The County is making painful cuts to help ﬁll the gap. But without Measure A, those cuts will go deeper and care will suAer. Measure A keeps local dollars here, with independent audits and public oversight so voters can see exactly how every dollar is spent. We know sales taxes aAect everyone. That's why Measure A is temporary and focused on preventing devastating cuts that hit working families hardest. Losing hospitals means more crowded ERs, longer waits and higher costs for all. If Measure A fails:  Medi-Cal patients will lose urgent care options and regular doctors  Private insurance patients will face longer ER waits, fewer hospitals and higher premiums  All of us will have a weaker healthcare network when disaster strikes Santa Clara Valley Healthcare runs two of the County's three trauma centers and treats nearly half of all ER patients—750 a day. That is why the people we trust most—doctors, nurses, emergency responders, local leaders and community advocates—support Measure A. Vote Yes on Measure A. Katherine Schott Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Vice President Gloria DelaMerced RN, St. Louise Regional Hospital Executive Liz Kniss Former Santa Clara County Supervisor, RN 29 CC 10-13-2025 29 of 30 Dennis Low Santa Clara Valley Medical Center StaA President (Ret.) Kiki Chang MD, Co-Founder, Stanford PANS Clinic 30 CC 10-13-2025 30 of 30