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 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
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Timing, VLF
and HJT
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
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
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)
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 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation for
Consideration
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
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
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.
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) 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) 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Questions / Thank You!
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM