Periodically, the City Council will adopt positions on proposed legislation that may have impacts on Saratoga. Legislation that the City Council has taken a position on recently are noted below.
Community members are also encouraged to share their thoughts with their State and Federal legislators. Contact State Senator Dave Cortese (Senate District 15) and Assembly Member Marc Berman (Assembly District 23) directly to share your opinions on proposed legislation or submit a position letter on State bills to the Committee considering the bill using the State’s Position Letter Portal. The community can subscribe to receive automatic email updates on proposed bills on the California State Legislature website.
Current Legislative Cycle
|Statewide Initiative Regarding Local Land Use/Our Neighborhood Voices
|If it qualifies for the November 2022 ballot and is approved by voters, this measure would amend the California Constitution to provide that local planning and zoning laws prevail over any conflicting state laws. The goal of the measure is to exempt local governments from a range of State laws, such as the recently approved Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows development of multiple units on lots zoned for single-family uses and SB 10 which allows City Councils to override local voter initiatives such as Measure G to approve specified types of housing development projects. Other state laws would also be affected by the measure.
Past Legislative Cycles
|Senate Bill 9 (Atkins)
|This bill, signed into law, requires local jurisdictions to ministerially consider proposed housing developments containing 2 residential units in zones where allowable uses are limited to single-family residential development. Ministerial consideration means there is no discretionary review or public hearing. Proposed housing could be constructed as a duplex or the lot could be divided into 2 equal lots.
|Senate Bill 6 (Caballero)
|This bill would authorize residential development on existing lots zoned for office and retail use that is not next to an industrial use. Eligible residential developments would need to meet or exceed density levels that the legislature has determined would accommodate housing for low-income households with a minimum density of 20 units per acre in suburban jurisdictions. Housing developments submitted under SB 6 would be eligible for SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval if the project meets SB 35 requirements and 50% or more of office or retail on the site has been vacant for a period of at least 3 years.
|Assembly Bill 215 (Chiu)
|This bill, signed into law, adds a new step in the housing element certification process that require 40 additional days; creates a new three-year statute of limitations for any action brought pursuant to the AB 72 enforcement process; and, allows the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) to appoint or contract with other counsel to represent the department when the Attorney General declines to represent HCD in an AB 72 enforcement action.
|Senate Bill 795 (Beall)
This bill would have generated $2 billion annually for affordable housing, housing assistance programs, and climate resiliency without impacting funding for schools.Status: Inactive/Dead
|Senate Bill 902 (Wiener)
This bill would have allowed zoning changes otherwise prohibited by local measures, like Measure G in Saratoga, and allow rezoning to allow up to 10 units per parcel in urban areas where residential development is permitted or in other areas that meet standards in the law.Status: Inactive/Dead
|Senate Bill 1120 (Atkins)
This bill would have required cities to ministerially consider proposed housing developments containing 2 residential units in zones where allowable uses are limited to single-family residential development. Proposed housing could be constructed as a duplex or the lot could be divided into 2 equal lots.Status: Inactive/Dead
|Assembly Bill 2167 (Daly, Cooley) & Senate Bill 292 (Rubio)
AB 2167 would have made it easier for insurers to write more insurance policies in high wildfire risk areas through creation of the Insurance Market Action Plan (IMAP) that insurers would file with the Insurance Commissioner for properties in eligible counties. SB 292 was a companion bill to AB 2167 and would have supported AB 2167 by establishing the criteria for mitigation required as part of IMAP filings.Status: Inactive/Dead
|AB 2178 (Levine)
AB 2178 would have allowed local jurisdictions and the State to recognize public safety power shutoffs as emergencies thereby allowing local jurisdictions to rapidly deploy resources or seek outside resources if needed.Status: Inactive/Dead
|AB 3256 (Garcia, Eduardo)
AB 3256 would have authorized the issuance of more than $6.9 billion in General Obligation bonds to fund economic recovery, wildfire prevention, safe drinking water, drought preparation, and flood protection programs and projects. A total of $1.6 billion in bonds would have been dedicated to wildfire prevention and climate risk reduction.Status: Inactive/Dead
|SB 431 (McGuire)
SB 431 would have required cell towers in high fire risk areas to have backup power systems that last a minimum of 72 hours where feasible. Additionally, it would have required customer notification when backup power systems are low or when the transceiver can no longer be supported by the backup system.Status: Inactive/Dead