CITY OF SAN MATEO
Legislative Committee
April 1, 2026
6:00 PM
City Hall, Conference Room C
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Mayor Adam Loraine
Deputy Mayor Nicole Fernandez
AGENDA
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD IN AN IN-PERSON ONLY FORMAT.
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
NEW BUSINESS
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the Legislative Committee’s consideration of this item.
1. April 1, 2026, State Legislative Update
Receive and file the 2026 Legislative Update presented by the City's legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group (CPPG), and provide direction to staff on any legislative positions for bills identified herein.
CEQA: This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
ADJOURNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENDAS
: Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org.
Any supplemental material distributed to the Commission after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
– Can be received in the following ways (Time limits will apply) :
Prior to the meeting in writing
: Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
In Person
: Complete a yellow request to speak slip and provide to the Clerk.
ACCESSIBILITY
: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk Martin McTaggart at [email protected] or (650) 522-7042.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
1 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: File ID: 26-11044 TO: City Council Legislative Committee
FROM: Zachary Reda
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: April 01, 2026
SUBJECT:
April 1, 2026, State Legislative Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the 2026 Legislative Update presented by the City's legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group (CPPG), and provide direction to staff on any legislative positions for bills identified herein.
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 2026, the City Council formally adopted the 2026 City of San Mateo Legislative Platform. The Platform was developed through a coordinated, cross-departmental process led by the City Manager's Office in partnership with CPPG, the City's state legislative consultant. The Platform reflects input from multiple City departments including Community Development, Planning and Housing, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development and Sustainability, the Police Department and Homelessness Services, and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. Additionally, elements of key City-guiding documents including the City's Housing Element, Strategic Plan, General Plan 2040, adopted equity and inclusion policies, and prior City Council resolutions were also included.
The 2026 Legislative Platform is organized around major policy subject areas, including Community Development and Housing; Transportation and Public Works; Parks, Recreation, and Community Services; Governmental Transparency and Public Meeting Access; Utilities, Infrastructure, and Climate Adaptation; Administration and Fiscal Sustainability; Public Safety and Homelessness Services; and Fire and Emergency Medical Services. Each section contains guiding principles intended to preserve local authority, promote fiscal sustainability, advance equity and inclusivity, protect public safety, and support the City's ability to deliver essential services to the community.
The Platform is intended to function as a living document, reviewed and updated periodically to reflect evolving City priorities, changes in state policy, and emerging legislative issues. Adoption does not limit the City Council's authority to act on matters outside the Platform; rather, it provides an organizing framework that supports consistent, timely, and informed engagement with state legislative and regulatory developments.
The City Council Legislative Subcommittee meets periodically throughout the legislative year to review and provide direction on active state legislation affecting San Mateo.
Legislative Calendar Context
The Legislature is currently in session, with Spring Recess beginning upon adjournment on March 25, 2026. The Legislature reconvenes on April 6, 2026. Key upcoming milestones include the Governor's May Revision of the state budget (mid- May), the Legislature's deadline to pass the primary budget bill (June 15), the Governor's deadline to sign the primary budget bill (June 30), and the start of Summer Recess on July 2, 2026.
2 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Restoration
CPPG continues to advance work with San Mateo County in a multi-pronged legislative, legal, and political strategy to restore VLF revenues to the County and its local taxing agencies. Efforts include building a coalition of labor organizations and public agencies, engaging a grassroots communications consultant, and submitting a VLF letter request to the appropriate legislative principals.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Initiative: Impact on Local Tax Authority The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) has submitted a statewide ballot initiative (AG File No. 25-0006) that, if approved by voters, would significantly curtail local tax authority in California. HJTA has claimed submission of over one million signatures, with 886,000 valid signatures required to qualify. The Secretary of State is expected to announce qualification status in mid-April 2026. If the measure qualifies, the Legislature is expected to engage HJTA in negotiations toward a legislative resolution, likely through the state budget process.
The initiative would affect local tax authority in the following ways:
Transfer Tax Authority: Under current law, charter cities may set their own transfer tax rates above the standard documentary tax rate. For example, the City of San Mateo currently assesses rates of 0.5% and 1.5%. Under the initiative, charter city transfer taxes would be permanently eliminated, leaving only the standard documentary split of 0.055%.
Special Tax Vote Threshold: Under current law, a simple majority through citizen initiative is sufficient to enact a special tax, as upheld by recent court rulings. Under the initiative, a two-thirds supermajority would be required for all special taxes, with no exceptions.
Existing Parcel Taxes: Parcel taxes currently valid under prior court decisions approving simple majority votes would be invalidated on December 31 of the second year following statewide passage, resulting in an estimated loss of approximately $300 million annually statewide.
Local Democratic Control: The initiative would override locally voter-approved measures. As an example, San Mateo's Measure CC was approved by 71.8% of voters but could be invalidated under the initiative's provisions.
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS — DEFINITIONS
Support: A Support position indicates to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders that the City is in favor of the proposed legislation in question.
Sponsor: A Sponsor position indicates to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders that the City is not only in strong support of the legislation in question but is publicly leading the advocacy effort. This position is only used when a Member of the Legislature has agreed to author a specific legislative proposal on behalf of the City.
Oppose Unless Amended: An Oppose Unless Amended position indicates to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders that the City is against the proposed legislation in question, unless requested changes are adopted to address the City's policy-based concerns.
Oppose: An Oppose position indicates to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders that the City is against the proposed legislation in question. This position is often used only when amendments or other policy compromises cannot be reached.
Neutral: A Neutral position indicates to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders that the City has formally removed a prior adopted position due to changes made to the legislation or proposal. A Neutral position therefore indicates that the City is impartial on the legislation in question.
Watch: A Watch position is an internal designation indicating that the City is closely monitoring and evaluating the legislation in question. Should factors change, the City reserves the right to adopt a formal external position.
3 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
BILL SUMMARIES, RECOMMENDED POSITIONS, AND SUPPORTING PLATFORM STATEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WORKS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AB 2111 (Papan) — Electricity: Transmission Planning and Transmission Facilities: This bill requires the portfolios of public utilities to maintain ratepayer affordability across diverse future scenarios. The ISO, a nonprofit, manages the transmission grid. The bill proposes that guidance to the ISO should include infrastructure enhancements to support resource competition and procurement, increasing interconnection capacity based on resource availability.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation that strengthens the City's ability to maintain and enhance local utilities and infrastructure.
SB 922 (Laird) — Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways: As amended March 11, 2026, this bill would clarify the decision in Rogers v. City of Redlands (2025), in which the Court of Appeal held that embedding road repair costs into solid waste rates violated the Vehicle Code's prohibition on local charges for the privilege of using streets or highways. SB 922 would clarify that this prohibition applies specifically to weight-based charges, and would explicitly affirm that local agencies may impose fees, charges, or surcharges to recover the costs of street maintenance and repair, as well as other related public service costs, without such charges being characterized as prohibited taxes or charges for the use of streets. The bill also removes outdated statutory references and makes technical corrections.
Status: Senate Floor
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation and ballot measures that protect the City's fiscal health, responsibilities, legal authority, and operations; uphold existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; and enhance programs, services, or infrastructure that benefit San Mateo residents.
HOUSING AND LAND USE
AB 1820 (Schiavo) — Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Permit Fees: This bill would regulate the development of EV charging stations through 2036, capping permit fees at $100 plus additional per-kilowatt charges for residential installations, and $500 plus per-kilowatt charges for commercial installations. Fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service unless justified by documented evidence. The bill declares itself a matter of statewide concern and applies to all cities, including charter cities. No state reimbursement to local agencies is required for new obligations imposed by its provisions.
Status: Assembly Committee on Local Government
Recommended Position: Oppose (pending applicability/impact) Platform Statement: Oppose legislation and ballot measures that threaten the City's financial stability, responsibilities, legal authority, or operations; conflict with existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; or diminish programs, services, or infrastructure serving the San Mateo community.
SB 1117 (Cervantes) — Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units: This bill would require that any impact fees charged by a city on an ADU be calculated only on the basis of interior livable space in excess of 750 square feet. By modifying the duties of local agencies with regard to calculating fees for ADUs, the bill would impose a state-
4 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
mandated local program.
Status: Senate Committee on Housing
Recommended Position: Oppose (pending applicability/impact) Platform Statement: Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
SB 1014 (Grayson) — Development Projects: Onsite and Offsite Improvements: This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to provide an applicant for a housing development project with a list of required onsite and offsite improvements, along with a cost estimate for those improvements, within 30 days of receipt of a preliminary application — or, where no preliminary application is submitted, within 30 days of receipt of the primary project application.
Status: Senate Committee on Local Government
Recommended Position: Oppose Unless Amended to provide flexibility around unforeseen critical infrastructure improvements
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
AB 1903 (Wicks) — Construction Defects: This bill would establish an alternative process for certified buildings. A builder could obtain certified building status by undergoing private inspection, repair, and reinspection during construction by a licensed private architect, engineer, or general contractor. Once certified, the building's status could not be challenged.
The bill would authorize the builder of a certified building to establish its own process for handling post-construction claims.
Status: Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation that expands affordable homeownership opportunities to foster economic mobility.
AB 2433 (Alvarez) — Housing Development: Affordable Homes Bonus (As Amended 3/26/26): As amended, this bill would make several substantive modifications to existing law, including automatically applying the bonus program whenever an applicant proposes a qualifying housing development rather than requiring the applicant to affirmatively seek it; requiring local agencies to notify applicants of their eligibility; clarifying that density bonuses, concessions, incentives, and waivers of development standards shall not be discretionary and shall not require CEQA review; and allowing base density to be calculated using a site's entire floor area ratio when residential FAR is established under applicable zoning.
Status: Assembly Committee on Local Government
Recommended Position: Watch
Platform Statement: Support incentives for housing production across all income levels — market rate, middle, low, very low, and extremely low — while maintaining local land use authority.
Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
AB 748 (Harabedian) — Single-Family and Multifamily Housing Units: Preapproved Plans: This bill would require local
5 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
agencies to post preapproved plans and applicant details online, and to approve or deny ministerial applications within 30 days where specified conditions are met. Local agencies would be required to submit annual reports detailing progress on regional housing needs, and beginning April 1, 2028 (large jurisdictions) or April 1, 2030 (small jurisdictions), the number of units approved through preapproved plans must be included. CEQA does not apply to these ministerial projects. The bill declares itself a matter of statewide concern, applicable to all cities including charter cities. No state reimbursement is required for specified reasons.
Status: Senate Rules Committee
Recommended Position: Watch
Platform Statement: Review and evaluate legislation that would increase housing production ministerially, ensuring adequate opportunities for community engagement and City Council oversight.
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
AB 1383 (McKinnor) — Public Employees' Retirement Benefits: Safety Members: This bill mandates that retirement systems under PEPRA align pensionable compensation limits with federal standards. The bill proposes new retirement formulas of 2.5%, 2.7%, or 3% at age 55 for employees hired after January 1, 2027. Employers would be required to update these formulas for members hired after January 1, 2013, based on existing offerings. Public employers and employee organizations are authorized to negotiate changes to these safety member formulas.
Status: Senate Rules Committee
Recommended Position: Watch
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation and ballot measures that threaten the City's financial stability, responsibilities, legal authority, or operations; conflict with existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; or diminish programs, services, or infrastructure serving the San Mateo community.
SB 1159 (Cabaldon) — Artificial Intelligence: Transparency and Governance: This bill would specify that, for purposes of the California Public Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and other applicable statutes, terms such as "person," "interested person," "participant," and "member of the public" do not include artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, robots, or other nonhuman entities, whether physical or digital. The bill would make findings and declarations related to these provisions.
Status: Senate Privacy and Consumer Protection
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation and ballot measures that protect the City's fiscal health, responsibilities, legal authority, and operations; uphold existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; and enhance programs, services, or infrastructure that benefit San Mateo residents.
Support legislation that enhances public trust, confidence, and access to public meetings while recognizing the fiscal and operational constraints of local government.
E-BIKES
AB 2595 (Papan) — Vehicles: Electric Bicycles: This bill, known as the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo — or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas — to adopt an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 12 years of age from operating a Class 1 or Class 2 electric bicycle.
6 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
AB 1557 (Papan) — Vehicles: Electric Bicycles: This bill would redefine the e-bicycle classes, changing the speed limit to 16 mph for both Class 1 and Class 2 bicycles while retaining the 750-watt motor power limit. Electric bicycles manufactured before January 1, 2027, that meet existing standards would retain their classification. The bill prohibits manufacturers and retailers from selling electric bicycles with motors exceeding 750 watts, or from equipping Class 1 and Class 2 bikes with motors over 250 watts capable of enabling speeds over 16 mph. Violations would result in civil penalties of up to $15,000 for a first offense and $50,000 for subsequent offenses, with such violations not constituting criminal offenses.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation that regulates e-bike battery and motor specifications to promote safe bicycle traffic for all residents in San Mateo.
AB 1614 (Dixon) — Vehicles: Bicycles: This bill would make existing safety provisions applicable to the operation of a bicycle upon highways also applicable to a Class I bikeway. By expanding an existing infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) — Electric Bicycles: Registration and Special License Plates: This bill would mandate the registration of Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles with the DMV, requiring them to display a special license plate. Non- compliance would result in fines. The bill establishes the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund in the State Treasury, into which all collected fees would be deposited to offset DMV administrative costs. A General Fund loan would be provided to seed the fund. The bill specifies that no reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
AB 2284 (Dixon) — Vehicles: Electric Bicycles: This bill would require the California Highway Patrol, in partnership with biking nonprofit groups, to compile a list of electric two-wheeled devices that do not comply with the definition of any single class of electric bicycles and that are labeled, advertised, or commonly perceived by riders or peace officers as electric bicycles or electric bicycle products.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
7 of 41
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
0 4
Platform Statement: Support legislation that regulates e-bike battery and motor specifications to promote safe bicycle traffic for all residents in San Mateo.
AB 2346 (Wilson) — Vehicles: Electric Bicycles and Speed Limits: This bill would require all Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale to be equipped with a speedometer. The bill establishes a 5 mph speed limit on sidewalks and a 15 mph speed limit for Class IV bikeways. New Vehicle Code requirements introduced by the bill would be treated as criminal violations if breached, creating a state-mandated local program.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation, programs, and funding that advance the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, as outlined in the San Mateo General Plan 2040.
SB 1167 (Blakespear) — Vehicles: Electric Bicycles: This bill would amend the types of vehicles that are prohibited from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles — including, among others, motor-driven cycles and mopeds. The bill would additionally make a violation of this provision a misleading statement for purposes of the false advertising provisions of the Business and Professions Code.
Status: Senate Committee on Transportation
Recommended Position: Support
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. Any future actions taken in response to specific legislative positions, including formal correspondence or advocacy efforts, may be absorbed within the existing City Manager's Office and CPPG contract budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Presentation
STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Reda, Senior Management Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 435-0823
8 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM City of San Mateo
Legislative Update
Dane Hutchings, CEO + Founder
Updated as of 3/26/26
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM
9 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM State Policy Priorities
Policy Themes
• Local Government Revenue,
• E-bikes
• Housing And Land Use
• Local Agency Fees
• Factory Built Housing (FBH)
• Election Year Politics,
• Real Property Transfer Tax
• Response To Federal Immigration Tactics.
• S&P 500 Dips Below State Forecast Assumptions
• Federal / State Interplay + Fallout Of HR 1
10 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Timing, VLF
and HJT
11 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative State Timing
• March 25: Spring Recess begins upon
adjournment
• April 6: Legislature reconvenes from Spring
Recess
• Mid-May: Governor releases the May
revision of the state budget
• June 15, June 30: Legislature must pass the
primary budget bill; Governor must sign the
primary budget bill
• July 2: Summer Recess begins upon
adjournment
12 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM VLF Update
• Building coalition of labor and public agencies
• Working with grassroots communication consultant
• Multi-pronged legislative, legal, and political strategy • VLF letter request submitted
13 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Howard Jarvis Initiative: Impact on Local Tax
Authority
CURRENT LAW UNDER THIS INITIATIVE (AG File No.25-0006)
TRANSFER TAX AUTHORITY
Charter city may set its own rate above the standard documentary tax (e.g., San Mateo: 0.5% / 1.5%)
Charter city-only transfer taxes permanently eliminated. Only standard documentary split (0.055%) remains.
SPECIAL TAX VOTE THRESHOLD
Simple majority via citizen initiative (upheld by recent court rulings) Two-thirds supermajority required for all special taxes — all pathways, no exceptions
EXISTING PARCEL TAXES
Valid if approved by simple majority under prior court decisions Invalidated Dec. 31, two years after statewide passage (~$300M lost annually statewide)
LOCAL DEMOCRATIC CONTROL
Local voters can set local tax policy through initiative or council action Statewide initiative overrides local voter-approved measures (e.g., San Mateo Measure CC — 71.8% yes)
14 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Howard Jarvis Initiative: Impact on Local Tax
Authority (Cont.)
• Signatures gathered and submitted by February 28, 2026 deadline • HJT Claims they have submitted over 1M signatures (886K valid signatures required)
• Mid-April SOS will announce if the measure has qualified for the November 2026 ballot
• If the measure qualifies the Legislature will try and engage HJT to negotiate a legislative “deal” . Likely done through the State Budget process
15 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation for
Consideration
16 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Transportation, Public Works, and Infrastructure
AB 2111 (Papan) Electricity: transmission planning and transmission facilities.
This bill requires the portfolios of public utilities to maintain ratepayer affordability across diverse future scenarios. The ISO, a nonprofit, manages the transmission grid. The bill proposes that guidance to the ISO should include infrastructure enhancements to support resource competition and procurement, increasing interconnection capacity based on resource availability.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation that strengthens the City’s ability to maintain and enhance local utilities and infrastructure.
Recommended Position: Support
17 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Transportation, Public Works, and Infrastructure
SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways. (As Amended March 11, 2026) Clarifies the decision in Rogers v Redlands that the prohibition of fees for using streets or highways specifically applies to weight-based charges. It states that local agencies are allowed to impose fees or surcharges to cover costs of street maintenance and repair, as well as other related public service costs, and these are not considered prohibited taxes or charges. The bill also updates the language by removing outdated references and making technical corrections. This bill would clarify the decision made in Rogers v. Redlands.
Rogers V. Redlands (2025)
• The Court of Appeal held that Redlands' practice of embedding road repair costs into solid waste rates violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8's prohibition on local charges for the privilege of using streets or highways. holding that Prop. 218 did not create new authority to override the preexisting prohibition in section 9400.8.
Status: Senate Floor
Platform Statement: Support legislation and ballot measures that protect the City’s fiscal health, responsibilities, legal authority, and operations; uphold existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; and enhance programs, services, or infrastructure that benefit San Mateo residents.
Recommended Position: Support
18 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM SB 922 Continued
Senate Committee on Local Government Analysis of SB 922 • First, it seeks to restore local agencies’ ability to include road repair costs in their waste hauling fees, which the Rogers decision prohibited.
• Second, it seeks to limit the prohibition on fees for the privilege of using roads to weight fees so that other charges do not face legal challenges.
• States that fees, charges, or surcharges for local agencies to recover costs of street maintenance, repair, and other costs to provide public services do not count as a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways.
• Explicitly allows local agencies to impose such a fee, charge, or surcharge. The measure also allows local agencies to impose taxes, permit fees, or other charges for the privilege of using its streets or highways, provided they are not based on weight.
19 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
AB 1820 (Schiavo): Electric vehicle charging stations: permit fees This bill regulates the development of EV charging stations until 2036, setting fee caps at $100 plus additional charges per kilowatt for residential and $500 plus per kilowatt charges for commercial stations. These fees should not surpass the reasonable cost unless justified with evidence. The bill, regarding a matter of statewide concern, applies to all cities, including charter cities, and does not require state reimbursement to local agencies for new obligations imposed by its provisions.
Status: Assembly Committee on Local Government
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation and ballot measures that threaten the City’s financial stability, responsibilities, legal authority, or operations; conflict with existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; or diminish programs, services, or infrastructure serving the San Mateo community.
Recommended Position: Oppose (pending applicability/ impact)
20 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
SB 1117 (Cervantes): Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
This bill would additionally require any impact fees charged by a city to be based only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space. By changing the duties of local agencies with regard to calculating fees for ADUs, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Status: Senate Committee on Housing
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
Recommended Position: Oppose (pending applicability/impact)
21 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
SB 1014 (Grayson): Development projects: onsite and offsite improvements.
This bill would require a city, county, or city and county, within 30 days of receipt of a preliminary application, or if a preliminary application is not submitted, within 30 days of receipt of an application for a housing development project, to provide a list to the development proponent of any required onsite or offsite improvements and an estimate of the cost for those onsite or offsite improvements.
Status: Senate Committee on Local Government
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
Recommended Position: Oppose Unless Amended to provide flexibility around unforeseen critical infrastructure improvements
22 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
AB 1903 (Wicks): Construction defects.
This bill would establish an alternative process for certified buildings. The bill would authorize a builder to obtain a certified building status for a building by undergoing private inspection, repairs, and reinspection during construction and would require the inspector to be a private licensed architect, engineer, or general contractor. The bill would prohibit future challenges to the status of the building as a certified building once certified. The bill would authorize the builder of a certified building to establish its own process for handling postconstruction claims.
Status: Assembly Judiciary
Platform Statement: Support legislation that expands affordable homeownership opportunities to foster economic mobility.
Recommended Position: Support
23 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
AB 2433 (Alvarez): Housing development: affordable homes bonus (As amended 3/26/26) The make several substantive modifications to the law, including: automatically applying the bonus program whenever an applicant proposes a qualifying housing development (rather than requiring the applicant to affirmatively seek it); requiring local agencies to notify applicants of their eligibility; clarifying that density bonuses, concessions, incentives, and waivers of development standards shall not be discretionary and shall not require CEQA review; and allowing base density to be calculated using a site's entire floor area ratio when residential FAR is established under applicable zoning.
Status: Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development Platform Statement:
• Support incentives for housing production across all income levels—market rate, middle, low, very low, and extremely low—while maintaining local land use authority.
• Oppose legislation that restricts or caps local development fees associated with housing projects at any income level.
Recommended Position: Watch
24 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Housing and Land Use
AB 748 (Harabedian) Single-family and multifamily housing units: preapproved plans.
The bill stipulates that local agencies should post preapproved plans and applicant details online. It requires agencies to approve or deny ministerial applications within 30 days if certain conditions are met.
Annual reports must be submitted by local agencies detailing progress on regional housing needs, and as of April 1, 2028 (large jurisdictions) or April 1, 2030 (small jurisdictions), the number of units approved through preapproved plans must be included. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to these ministerial projects.
The bill asserts its statewide concern, affecting all cities, including charter cities. No state reimbursement is required under this act for specified reasons, despite the state-mandated responsibilities imposed on local agencies.
Status: Senate Rules
Platform Statement: Review and evaluate legislation that would increase housing production ministerially, ensuring adequate opportunities for community engagement and City Council oversight.
Recommended Position: Watch
25 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Governmental Operations
AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits: safety members.
The proposed bill mandates that the retirement systems under PEPRA must align pensionable compensation limits with federal standards. The bill proposes new formulas of 2.5%, 2.7%, or 3% at age 55 for employees hired after January 1, 2027. Employers are required to update these formulas for members hired after January 1, 2013, based on existing offerings. Public employers and employee organizations are authorized to negotiate changes to these safety member formulas.
Status: Senate Rules
Platform Statement: Oppose legislation and ballot measures that threaten the City’s financial stability, responsibilities, legal authority, or operations; conflict with existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; or diminish programs, services, or infrastructure serving the San Mateo community.
Recommended Position: Watch
26 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Governmental Operations
SB 1159 (Cabaldon) Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.
This bill would specify that, for purposes of the California Public Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown and others, “person, ” “interested person, ” “participant, ” “member of the public, ” as applicable, and any other similar terms under each act referring to those who may engage with governmental agencies, do not include artificial intelligence, as defined, systems, autonomous agents, robots, or other nonhuman entities, whether physical or digital. The bill would make findings and declarations related to these provisions.
Status: Senate Rules
Platform Statement: Support legislation and ballot measures that protect the City’s fiscal health, responsibilities, legal authority, and operations; uphold existing City policies, prior actions, or current City Council strategic priorities; and enhance programs, services, or infrastructure that benefit San Mateo Residents.
Support legislation that enhances public trust, confidence, and access to public meetings while recognizing the fiscal and operational constraints of local government.
Recommended Position: Support
27 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 2595 (Papan): Vehicles: electric bicycles.
This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
Recommended Position: Support
28 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 1557 (Papan):Vehicles: electric bicycles.
This bill would redefine the e-bicycle classes, changing the speed limit to 16 mph for both class 1 and class 2 bicycles while keeping the power limit for the motor at 750 watts. Electric bicycles manufactured before January 1, 2027, meeting existing standards, would retain their classification. The bill also imposes restrictions on manufacturers and retailers, prohibiting them from selling electric bicycles with motors exceeding 750 watts or equipping class 1 and class 2 bikes with motors over 250 watts that enable speeds over 16 mph. Violations would result in civil penalties up to $15,000 for a first offense and $50,000 for subsequent offenses, not constituting criminal offenses.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation that regulates e-bike battery and motor specifications to promote safe bicycle traffic for all residents in San Mateo.
Recommended Position: Support
29 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 1614 (Dixon) Vehicles: bicycles.
This bill would make safety provisions applicable to the operation of a bicycle upon highways also applicable to a Class I bikeway. By expanding an existing infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
Recommended Position: Support
30 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) Electric bicycles: registration and special license plates.
This bill would mandate the registration of class 2 and class 3 electric bicycles with the DMV , requiring them to display a special license plate. Non-compliance would result in fines. This bill also establishes the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund in the State Treasury, where all fees collected from these registrations would be deposited to support the DMV's administrative costs. Additionally, the bill would provide a loan from the General Fund to kickstart the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund. The bill specifically states that no reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts affected by this mandate.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
Recommended Position: Support
31 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 2284 (Dixon) Vehicles: electric bicycles.
This bill would require California Highway Patrol, in partnership with biking nonprofit groups, to compile a list of electric two-wheeled devices that do not comply with the definition of any single class of electric bicycles and that are labeled, advertised, or commonly perceived by riders or peace officers as electric bicycles or electric bicycle products.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation that regulates e-bike battery and motor specifications to promote safe bicycle traffic for all residents in San Mateo.
Recommended Position: Support
32 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
AB 2346 (Wilson) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits.
This bill would require all class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale to be equipped with a speedometer. The bill establishes a 5 mph speed limit on sidewalks and 15 mph for Class IV bikeways. It introduces new Vehicle Code requirements, considered criminal if violated, creating a state- mandated local program.
Status: Assembly Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation, programs, and funding that advance the City’s Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, as outlined in the San Mateo General Plan 2040.
Recommended Position: Support
33 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM E-Bikes
SB 1167 (Blakespear) Vehicles: electric bicycles.
This bill would amend the type of vehicles that are prohibited from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles, including, among others, motor-driven cycles and mopeds. The bill would additionally make a violation of this provision a misleading statement for purposes of false advertising provisions of the Business and Professions Code.
Status: Senate Committee on Transportation
Platform Statement: Support legislation establishing clear regulations for electric bike use and reinforcing local enforcement authority.
Recommended Position: Support
34 of 41
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Questions / Thank You!
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM
35 of 41
April 1, 2026
Dear Mayor Lorraine and San Mateo City Council:
On behalf of Move San Mateo and its hundreds of members, we are writing to provide input on the City’s 2026 Legislative Platform , especially as it relates to safer streets.
E-Bike Legislation
The rise of e-bikes represents the most significant shift in urban mobility in a generation, transforming the bicycle from perceived tool of leisure into an egalitarian instrument for daily transportation. By neutralizing traditional barriers like hills, long distances, and physical exertion, e-bikes have invited a vast and diverse segment of the population—including seniors, parents, and commuters—to choose two wheels over four.
Within our own community, the sheer volume of residents already utilizing e-bikes for school runs, grocery trips, and commuting is a testament to their utility and popularity. These vehicles offer a clear path toward a more sustainable and less congested future, delivering less congestion, cleaner air, parking relief, and more social streets.
Electric bicycles sales in the U.S. continue to out-pace electric cars and trucks. Of course, with increasing e-bike penetration we have seen an increase in crashes on our streets. We thank the Council for entertaining state legislation that can address this important issue.
Nevertheless, we worry that many proposals around e-bike legislation are based on fear instead of data and will not deliver greater traffic safety for our community.
Here are some initial thoughts:
● Lack of data - Per the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California report (commissioned by the State
36 of 41
of California), data on crashes involving e-bikes does not exist. We have limited understanding:
○ Is the recent rise in e-bike crashes simply due to increasing e-bike adoption and miles ridden?
○ Are most e-bike crashes due to bad drivers and unsafe streets (an issue that we have been bringing to Council for several years)?
○ Are there educational efforts that have had a measured impact? ○ How old are e-bike collision victims?
○ Have e-bike regulations so far been successful in achieving their goals? ○ What is the safety impact of fewer kids riding bikes and more kids driving cars? ● Our streets aren’t safe - Pedestrians and traditional cyclists are dying at record levels; thus, it isn’t surprising that e-bike riders are dying, too. In the past decade, there have been 26,000 (reported) crashes in San Mateo County. This has resulted in 328 deaths and 1,944 serious injuries. Fatalities are rising nationally, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, due to distracted driving, impaired driving, speeding, and other unsafe driver behavior. San Mateo has yet to install the protected bike lanes necessary for kids to ride safely on our streets. According to the Mineta Institute, the number of e-bike crashes is miniscule compared to crashes involving cars, pedestrians, and traditional bicycles. ● E-motos vs. e-bikes - While many casually say this is an “e-bike” issue, experts point out that existing data indicates that e-motos are the true problem. “E-moto” is a term used to describe higher powered, poorly regulated, and (largely) off-road devices that are illegal to operate on California roads. (E-bikes are lower powered, well regulated, and legal on our streets.) Per the Mineta report, over 87% of devices on the campuses of San Mateo middle and high schools are e-motos, not e-bikes. (Many teens are attracted to the motorcycle-ish looks and power of e-motos instead of the traditional look of many e-bikes.) Thus, it is not surprising that well publicized crashes involve e-motos, not e-bikes - 16-year-old in Half Moon Bay , 17-year-old in Walnut Creek , and 15-year-old in Petaluma . Note that many news outlets have mislabeled these crashes as involving e-bikes, leading to much of the current confusion. Note that very few of the bills discussed involve e-motos.
● Existing laws can work, but we lack sufficient enforcement - Many of the current challenges can be addressed with existing laws. Again, most e-motos are illegal on City streets. Helmets are required for Class I and II e-bike riders under 18 and for Class III riders of all ages. The California Vehicle Code already prohibits unsafe operation of all vehicles on the road, including e-bikes. Reflectors and/or lights are required on all e-bikes. Sadly, enforcement of dangerous road violations by all users is infrequent due to a lack of Traffic cops on our streets (due to hiring difficulties and prioritization of other policing actions).
● Parents don’t know what they are buying - Most parents who purchase e-motos for their children don’t understand what they are buying. State laws fail to protect parents from manufacturers and retailers who promote dangerous e-motos as safe e-bikes. We have started to educate the public on this nuance, but it will take time to influence sales of new devices. Hopefully, if parents purchase safer, lower powered devices we will not see as many crashes.
37 of 41
● Conflicting proposals - There are a plethora of proposals pending at the state and local level. It is important that we take a smart approach to avoid conflicting regulations.
We also don’t want to create local laws that simply restate state laws, which are in flux. ● Kids operate safely - It is likely that the majority of e-bike riders are riding legal devices in a safe manner. Many kids are being unfairly villainized. In the crash that killed 4-year-old Ayden Fang on a sidewalk in Burlingame, the young e-bike riders have faced blame even though the Police indicated that they were riding legally and that the 19-year-old SUV driver was at fault for driving onto the sidewalk and into a restaurant.
Given the positive impacts of e-bikes, we should make sure not to punish safe and legal riders/devices given the negative actions of a few.
● Equity - Many who ride e-bikes on our streets are lower income, people of color. Many cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of buying and maintaining a car ($50,000 + $10,000/year). Many lower income parents get their kids e-bikes as they don’t have the time and money to drive their kids to and from school. Fines are a regressive, blunt force tool. In addition, further enforcement could result in inequitable application across racial groups; this already occurs for jaywalking and bike riders. ● Hurt selves - While every e-bike crash is regrettable, there are few (if any) reports of people on e-bikes hurting others. When we create more laws around e-bikes, we are asking our overstretched Police Departments to increase enforcement against e-bike riders, even though they primarily endanger themselves. This means they have less time available to enforce laws that protect community members from those who callously choose to drive drunk, distracted, or above the speed limit. In our opinion, the primary responsibility of law enforcement is to protect the public from bad actors (not from ourselves).
● E-bikes are necessary for meeting our City goals - Per David Hunt’s email to Council, San Mateo is pursuing General Plan 2040 goals that depend on mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. E-bikes are central to that vision. Policies that make compliant e-bikes more expensive, more complicated to own, or harder to sell in California would undermine those efforts and limit access to affordable, low-carbon transportation, especially for lower-income residents who benefit most. ● Consult the experts - We encourage the City to consult experts on this complex topic.
The Mineta Institute has proposed a list of suggested reforms. Various BPACs in the County have already studied the issue. (BTW, why doesn’t the City have a BPAC?) In addition, Move San Mateo includes several e-bike owners and experts and understands the needs and pain points of San Mateo residents who own e-bikes.
Thus, here are our recommendations on the e-bike bills mentioned in today’s packet:
● AB 2595 - We do not agree with the “Support” recommendation. The problem is unsafe riding and overpowered e-motos, not e-bikes. Some Class I and II e-bikes are low powered and should not be age restricted. This Class II bike has only a 100W motor and maxes out at 9 mph. Parents should be able to determine whether it is safe for their kids to ride such bikes.
38 of 41
● AB 1557 - While we agree with the goal of eliminating the “peak power loophole”, this bill would have unintended consequences. The power restrictions could make some cargo bikes illegal. Cargo bikes need additional power given their weight (for carrying multiple small kids or cargo). Note that moms and dads ride cargo bikes, not kids. Also, the decrease in max speed, from a reasonable 20 mph, might discourage many who hope to replace their cars for medium-range commutes.
● AB 1614 - We endorse safe riding on Class I paths, regardless of the device. On our roads, we don’t ban cars with top speeds of 200 mph; instead, we limit their operation.
We should do the same on our paths. There is no reason to prohibit safe riding on two wheels.
● AB 1942 - We vehemently oppose registration and license plates for any e-bikes. This will create unnecessary bureaucracy. Voters will be irate that they bought a bike which was legal but now are being asked to register it, at additional cost. It will increase barriers to riding, especially for those who are undocumented and rely on e-bikes to get around safely at low cost. We do not need Police pulling over kids on bikes because they haven’t got an updated registration sticker.
● AB 2284 - We agree with the intent of this bill - helping law enforcement identify illegal e-motos (not e-bikes). Nevertheless, we don’t believe that this will be effective. It will be difficult to maintain this list with hundreds of manufacturers releasing multiple new products each year. Perhaps SMPD should weigh in on how they currently make this determination and whether this would be helpful.
● AB 2346 - Requiring speedometers will increase costs for consumers. We also believe that the current 20 mph max speed for Class I and II are OK. We do like, however, the 5 mph speed limit on sidewalks (when pedestrians are present) as opposed to an outright ban on safe sidewalk riding, as proposed by the County. ● SB 1167 - We support this bill as it will attack the primary problem on the market - deceptive marketing of high powered e-motos to confused consumers. The manufacturers (and regulators) are largely to blame for the proliferation of dangerous, illegal devices. Let’s go after them instead of those who ride safe e-bikes in a responsible manner.
In addition, we do not support the current County of San Mateo model ordinance in its initial form. We hope that the next iteration addresses the following issues:
● Sidewalk riding - The ordinance bans all e-bike sidewalk riding, even in locations where roads are fast and dangerous and lack safe bike infrastructure. We should not be requiring kids to ride in these dangerous conditions. We discourage sidewalk riding when possible, but prefer that we regulate speeds on the sidewalk, depending on the conditions (i.e., in the same manner that we regulate cars on the road). ● Restating of state laws - We recommend that the County ordinance not restate current state law for emphasis. State law is in flux and we don’t want to restate laws that may soon change.
● Unsafe operation - Again, state law already prohibits unsafe operation of all road vehicles. Redefining this will cause confusion and additional complexity.
39 of 41
● Penalties - The fines of up to $500 are too high and punitive. Distracted drivers face fines of only $20 for their first offense, even though distracted driving kills thousands of other road users every year. The diversion program could be beneficial but there are few details here.
● Serial numbers - Tampering with, destroying, or mutilating serial numbers is already illegal.
Finally, in the interests of safer streets, we encourage the City to endorse other state legislation that will have an even greater impact on safety, especially for those who walk or ride traditional bikes:
● AB 1837 (Gonzalez) - Support - This bill would improve policing of illegal parking in bike (and transit) lanes. This is a major danger and frustration for people who bike and enforcement is currently very difficult due to staffing issues and the need for rapid response.
● AB 2276 (Soria) - Support - This bill would require convicted super speeders to install intelligent speed systems on their cars.
● AB 2560 (Schultz) - Support - This bill would codify the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) goals into statute. It would align transportation funding with California’s climate goals and ensure that infrastructure projects prioritize reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Thank you very much for considering our input and please let us know if you would like to discuss it in person.
Sincerely,
Mike Swire, Max Mautner, Allison Felder, and Seema Patel Co-Leads of Move San Mateo
40 of 41
1 Martin McTaggart
From: David Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 9:06 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: E-bike safety bills
San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to urge you not to pass resolutions in support of AB 1557 or AB 1942 at your upcoming April 1, 2026 state legislative update.
While I share the goal of improving e-bike safety both of these bills target the wrong problem. They impose new burdens on legal, low-speed electric bicycles while doing nothing to address the illegal, overpowered devices that actually pose the greatest safety concerns.
AB 1557 would redefine the electric bicycle power standard in a way that conflicts with existing federal law and the framework used by nearly every other state, creating confusion for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers without meaningfully improving safety.
AB 1942 would require DMV registration and license plates for Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes. This would cover the vast majority of legal e-bikes on the road, adding bureaucratic friction and cost to what is currently one of the most accessible and affordable forms of clean transportation. The bill's own author has described it as targeting devices that "go 60 or 70 mph,” [1] but by definition, Class 2 and Class 3 e- bikes are limited to 20 and 28 mph respectively. The bill as written does not reach the illegal high-speed devices the author has described. It reaches everyday commuter and family e-bikes instead.
The real safety problem is well documented. The Mineta Transportation Institute's 2025 report found that nearly 90% of electric two-wheelers parked at Northern California middle and high schools may not meet legal e-bike standards, with some devices delivering up to eight times the legal power limit [2]. Neither AB 1557 nor AB 1942 addresses these illegal devices. The answer is enforcement of existing law and clearer e-moto classifications, not new registration schemes and redefined standards that burden law- abiding riders.
San Mateo is pursuing General Plan 2040 goals that depend on mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. E-bikes are central to that vision. Policies that make compliant e-bikes more expensive, more complicated to own, or harder to sell in California would undermine those efforts and limit access to affordable, low-carbon transportation, especially for lower-income residents who benefit most.
Organizations including CalBike, Bike East Bay, People for Bikes, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition have raised serious concerns about these bills. I urge the Council to listen to those voices and withhold support for AB 1557 and AB 1942. Instead, I encourage the Council to advocate for policies that directly address the real safety challenges: better enforcement against illegal e- motos, consumer protection and
education against misleading marketing, and most importantly continued investment in the safe infrastructure that makes cycling viable for everyone.
Thanks,
David Hunt
Hayward Park resident
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/02/19/new-california-bill-to-require-license-plates-for-electric-bikes/
[2] https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/2423-Agrawal-Electric-Bicycle-Safety-Data-Policy.pdf
41 of 41