City Manager’s Office
2022 Q3 Legislative Action Summary
Below is a summary of the actions that were taken during 2022 Q3 as they align with the City of Santa Clara’s 2022 Legislative Advocacy Positions (LAPs), guiding principles for legislative advocacy, approved City policies (e.g. City Council Goals and Priorities), or Council action. The letters and bill analysis are attached to this document.
City Council Pillar: Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
• July 12, 2022 Support letter to Chair Chris Holden, Assembly Appropriations Committee RE: SB 1407 - California Employee Ownership Act
Guiding Legislative Principle: Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities positions on priority bills that benefit Santa Clara • September 12, 2022 Request for veto letter to Governor Gavin Newsom RE: SB 1127 - Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions
Public Safety LAP
• August 4, 2022 Opposition letter to Chair Chris Holden, Assembly Appropriations Committee RE: SB 1000 - Law Enforcement agencies: radio communications.
Water Supply and Conservation LAP
• September 14, 2022 Support letter to Environmental Protection Agency RE:
Valley Water’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Application for Creek Clean Up and Trash Removal in High Priority Areas in Santa Clara County
• September 16, 2022 Support letter to Environmental Protection Agency RE:
Valley Water’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Application for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project with addition of Pond A4
Multiple Legislative Priorities
• Bill analysis for August 11, 2022 Cities Association Legislative Action Committee Meeting
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 6240
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1407 (Becker) California Employee Ownership Act.
City of Santa Clara – Notice of Support
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in support of Senate Bill 1407 (Becker), which will preserve California small business, bolster California workers, and create an overall more equitable economy by increasing awareness of and pathways to employee ownership.
Specifically, SB 1407 will establish a dedicated hub within the Office of Small Business Advocate that will help educate stakeholders about employee ownership, assist business owners and employees in navigating available resources, provide funding for education, outreach, and technical assistance, and streamline and reduce barriers to employee ownership.
Employee ownership, in the forms of worker cooperatives (co-ops) and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), are proven to benefit businesses, workers, and local economies. Worker-owned firms see stronger overall business performance and resilience during economic downturns. Workers at these firms see greater wealth-building opportunities and increased job security compared to their counterparts at traditional businesses. Both evidence and experience suggest that employee ownership is a particularly powerful wealth-building opportunity for workers and communities of color; providing additional pathways for workers of color to become employee owners is an essential component of any strategy to address the racial wealth gap.
The City of Santa Clara recognizes the benefits of employee ownership, and in March 2020, adopted a Resolution in Support of Worker Cooperatives. The City also implemented a Worker Cooperative Initiative to support business owners and their workers to transition to employee ownership as a succession option. The resources described in SB 1407 will support Santa Clara businesses, as well as businesses across the state.
Prior to the pandemic, California small businesses faced mounting pressures from an impending wave of retirement amongst business owners. A majority of business owners do not have a formal succession plan, and most owners who try to sell their businesses cannot find a buyer. These challenges have been compounded by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought mass business closures. This dual crisis requires immediate and bold action.
City of
Santa Clara
The Cente:r ofWhat11 Possible
•
: >: ,_ . -:o • •
• •••••••••
SB 1407 (Becker) California Employee Ownership Act
July 12, 2022
As California continues to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic, it has the opportunity to not only rebuild workplaces, but choose to invest in models that provide proven benefits to businesses, workers, and the community.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports SB 1407 (Becker) and respectfully requests your “Aye” vote in the Appropriations Committee hearings scheduled for August 3, 2022.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor, City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 12, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions
REQUEST FOR VETO
Dear Governor Newsom,
I am writing on behalf of the City of Santa Clara to request that you veto SB 1127 (Atkins), which proposes to truncate the claims review process required of employers without giving them the tools to make decisions more quickly. SB 1127 reduces the timeline for employers to make an informed decision about covering workers’ compensation claims covered by a presumption statute from 90 to 75 days, and it retroactively imposes penalties as high as $50,000 per claim if an employer “unreasonably” rejects liability for one of these workers’ compensation claims. Since there is no definition of an “unreasonable denial” each denial of a “rebuttable” presumption will be litigated as unreasonable- at a minimum drastically increasing costs and litigation for all employers.
The City of Santa Clara supports making better and faster decisions about workers’ compensation claims. However, the City believes, respectfully, that you should veto SB 1127 and encourage stakeholders to work together on reforms that actually achieve more timely claims resolution.
The laws of the State of California already provide for a fair and equitable system for all workers. Our workers’ compensation system is “no fault”, meaning that employers pay for benefits even if there was no specific negligence. Additionally, state law requires the workers’ compensation appeals board judges to “liberally construe” the laws of the state toward the provision of benefits. These two statutory requirements make our workers’ compensation system extremely accessible for injured workers.
SB 1127 DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS The Investigation Process
California law requires employers to “conduct a reasonable and timely investigation upon receiving notice or knowledge of an injury or claim.” The regulations expressly prohibit an SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions September 12, 2022
employer from restricting an investigation to “preparing objections or defenses to a claim.” Instead, employers must “fully and fairly gather the pertinent information, whether that information requires, or excuses benefit payment.” Finally, the employer is required to document the investigatory acts undertaken and the information obtained as a result.
Taken together, the law requires employers to conduct a thorough investigation of all relevant facts, which both protects their due process rights and the injured worker’s due process rights by creating a full, impartial record of the events.
SB 1127 requires employers to complete investigations more quickly but provides no remedy for the systemic limitations imposed by the state that prevent employers from achieving that outcome. The City of Santa Clara opposes changes to the investigation period because it undermines the due process rights of both the injured worker and the employer. Ensuring a fair, impartial investigation that protects the rights of both parties equally and fairly takes time, and, in some cases, it just takes longer than 30, 75, and sometimes 90 days.
Disproportional Impact on Public Employers
This bill places a costly burden on public employers who are responsible for administering claims for injured workers with presumptive occupational injuries. Presumption statutes apply to injuries and illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, and PTSD that are complex in causation and sometimes difficult for workers to connect to employment. That is, in fact, why the legislature has historically chosen to impose a presumption that shifts the legal burden of proof away from employees and instead requires an employer to prove that the claimed injury was not caused by employment. Presumptions might be rebuttable in name, but they already impose a near-impossible task by requiring employers to “prove a negative” (e.g., that a cancer is not caused by employment). This requires a more thorough investigation that, as will be discussed below, cannot be completed in 90 days, let alone
75. Hurts Injured Workers by Providing Less Employer-Funded Medical Care During the investigative period, the injured worker receives up to $10,0000 of medically necessary treatment, free of charge to them. This employer funded medical treatment ensures that the injured worker is not adversely impacted by this investigative period. Even if the employer is found later to not be liable and the claim is denied, the injured worker does not need to pay a cent back. This balances the rights and responsibilities of employers and injured workers, maintaining a fair and equitable system.
NEW PENALTIES MAKE TAXPAYER-FUNDED CLAIMS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE SB 1127 proposes harsh new penalties for employers who “unreasonably” reject liability for clams covered by presumption statutes, yet it does not define that term making each rebuttable presumption claim, fodder for litigation. SB 1127 mandates a penalty of five times the value of benefits delayed or denied, with a maximum penalty of $50,000. This bill impacts public and private employers because these penalty provisions apply not only to SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions September 12, 2022
the severe injuries and illnesses found in the public safety presumption statutes, but also to the COVID-19 presumption. Similarly, all these claims will be held to the 30-day investigation period, which all but guarantees that a legally sufficient investigation cannot be conducted within the allotted timeframe.
Finally, the new penalties in SB 1127 apply retroactively to all injuries without regard to the date of injury. This means that the penalty portion of the bill would apply retroactively to decisions that were made prior to the date of enactment. This is fundamentally unfair to employers and will add significantly to the litigation and friction associated with the bill.
MORE THAN DOUBLES TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS
SB 1127 more than doubles the period of temporary disability that is available to firefighters and police officers covered by the cancer presumption. The peace officers and firefighters covered by the cancer presumption are also eligible for one year of complete wage replacement benefits instead of temporary disability, and disability retirement benefits that are unavailable to other workers. We oppose the vast expansion of temporary disability benefits as proposed by SB 1127 because we are unaware of any data that would suggest this is necessary or desirable.
If signed, this bill threatens litigation and penalties for doing the work of appropriate claims investigation. In addition to tax-free wages and pensions available to safety officers, this bill proposes baseless multipliers and creates a taxpayer-funded bonus for “delays” outside of the employer’s control.
Dramatic changes to employer-funded medical care and benefits, largely bankrolled by taxpayers, requires data, thoughtful review, and more robust stakeholder engagement.
Until that time, please veto SB 1127.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor, City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
August 4, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 0 Street, Suite 6240
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communications.
City of Santa Clara - Notice of Opposition
Dear Assembly Member Holden,
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in opposition to SB 1000, which would require law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to de- encrypt their radio communications to allow for unfettered public access, thereby creating significant safety and cost burdens on local LEAs. Additionally, this measure contradicts recent requirements set forth by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding public access to California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (CLETS).
In October 2020, DOJ distributed an information bulletin regarding the transmission of confidential information. The bulletin requires LEAs and criminal justice agencies authorized to access CLETS to adhere to the requirements established by federal and state law enforcement agencies. DOJ’s bulletin informs LEAs that, generally, transmission of confidential information must be protected pursuant to FBI Security Policy and may only be provided to authorized individuals. Compliance with this requirement can be achieved through the encryption of radio traffic or establishing a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restricted information.
In response to DOJ’s bulletin, and with the understanding that oftentimes public safety response communications involve high-stakes and sensitive information, law enforcement agencies were given two options, under a tight timeline, to address the information bulletin. Local agencies adopted one of the two suggested approaches, which was to fully encrypt their radio communications. This required comprehensive upgrades to radio system infrastructure, costing millions of dollars county -wide in equipment upgrades and the diversion of staff resources to implement the change according to the required timeline.
SB 1000 defies the rationale provided by federal law enforcement agencies by requiring all law enforcement radio communications be generally available to the public while also ensuring that personally identifiable information is not broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public.
The bill further specifies that law enforcement agencies would be required to provide access to encrypted communications to any interested person, upon request and for a reasonable fee.
This would require that law enforcement agencies comply with the public access requirement by a variety of means, such as allowing radio communications to be broadcast on a radio frequency that is able to be monitored by commonly available radio scanning equipment. This creates an operational challenge in numerous scenarios, including when encrypted communications are patched into unencrypted channels, thereby rendering all channels unencrypted. This may also The Honorable Chris Holden
Re: SB 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communications August 4, 2022
cause local law enforcement officials to switch to different channels to communicate, which would impact the efficiency of multi-agency public safety collaboration and pose significant officer safety issue. Uniformity in requirements across these critical channels of communication is necessary to ensure that public safety actions protect community members and those servicing their communities alike.
While the City certainly understands the author’s intention to promote transparency between law enforcement agencies, the media and our stakeholders, SB 1000 would be a step backwards for public safety professionals.
To attempt to comply, each agency would incur considerable added costs to implement new technology and/or to hire additional staff to address the new SB 1000 proposed workflow. It will also require agencies to reeducate every police officer and public safety dispatcher on the filtering of CJIC and Personal Identifying Information (PII). It is also unclear what the penalties would be for violating SB 1000 – it is not specified.
Introducing a combination of encrypted and unencrypted radio channels or using a telephone or other mobile device to transmit data involves a significant additional workload on 911 dispatch center staff. Creating requirements for additional dispatch duties such as a 2-channel solution to protect people’s personal identifying information will likely result in increased calls into Communication Centers and the degradation of 9-1-1 call answering times which would further impact public safety.
Finally, the bill is contradictory. It undermines the exemptions by stating “upon request and for a reasonable fee, providing access to encrypted communications to any interested person” [Section 13675 (a)(2)(C)]. Therefore, any person can gain access to encrypted radio communications, voiding all the exemptions in SB1000 for tactical operations or exigent circumstances.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara opposes SB 1000.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 14, 2022
Ms. Luisa Valiela
Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Letter of Support for San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant – Creek Clean Up and Trash Removal in High Priority Areas in Santa Clara County
Dear Ms. Valiela,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) is applying to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Grant to improve water quality and to restore the watershed and wetlands in the Santa Clara and San Jose Bay Area by addressing problem areas along high priority reaches of several creeks throughout Santa Clara County. These efforts are laudable and worthy of grant funding support.
The objectives of the proposed grant will be to support this ambitious endeavor. Grant funds are needed to fund cleanups of trash and debris in the creeks. The debris is impeding the flow of water and introducing water quality impediments. This situation is negatively impacting the ecosystem. The problem has been exacerbated by the existence of unhoused individuals and communities along most of the major creeks in Santa Clara County. The creeks Valley Water will focus on include: Berryessa Creek, Coyote Creek, Saratoga Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Lower Silver Creek, Thompson Creek, Guadalupe Creek, and West Branch Llagas Creek.
Although Valley Water has invested in significant creek cleanup efforts that have had a positive impact, additional funding is needed. Valley Water lacks the funds to carry this out on its own and needs partners. In addition to the creek cleanup, the project will repair and preserve the eroding creek banks, restore the riparian vegetation and habitat, and expand the County’s homeless outreach program.
I urge your favorable review of Valley Water’s grant application. I believe this is a valuable project that will be a privilege to help preserve the creeks while enhancing the quality of life for people.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 16, 2022
Luisa Valiela
EPA Region 9, Watersheds office (WTR-3-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Letter of Support for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project (Project) with addition of Pond A4
Dear Ms. Valiela,
The City of Santa Clara is pleased to offer its support for the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley W ater) grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF). Valley Water is applying for SFBWQIF grant funding to support environmental review, permitting, and design of the Project.
The Project’s primary objective is to restore up to 1,500 acres of tidal marsh at A8 Ponds and additional 320 acres of tidal marsh at Pond A4, which is owned and operated by Valley Water. In addition to the ecological benefits of restoring large areas of tidal marsh, the Project will provide resilient protection against sea level rise (SLR) and improve water quality. As part of Project planning, Valley Water will evaluate the potential use of Pond A4 for nature-based treatment of wastewater, which would provide both water supply and quality benefits. As the first creek - marsh reconnection project in Lower South San Francisco Bay, the P roject will be a pathbreaker for additional tidal marsh restoration projects. The Project will advance the science of tidal marsh restoration and nature-based treatments for wastewater.
Valley Water is a nationally recognized leader in water resource management, and would lead this project in collaboration with project partners , including the California State Coastal Conservancy; the United States Fish and Wildlife Services, major partners of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSPRP); Caltrans, the owner of Harvey Marsh ; and other major stakeholders including the County of Santa Clara and the Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. Valley Water will be applying its technical expertise and resources to advance this project, including dedicated operation of Pond A4 for future habitat restoration and water quality improvements.
The City of Santa Clara supports Valley Water’s efforts to advance tidal marsh restoration, provide resilient protection against SLR, and explore the feasibility of nature-based treatment for wastewater, including reverse osmosis concentrate produced during advanced water purification. This grant proposal will enhance and contribute to the climate action goals of our organization.
Letter of Support for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project (Project) with addition of Pond A4
September 16, 2022
EPA SFBWQIF funding will accelerate the CEQA/NEPA and design for this multi -objective and collaborative project. Therefore, I strongly endorse this application and urge your favorable review. Both the City of Santa Clara and Valley Water share the goals of restoring natural habitat and improving the wate r quality of San Francisco Bay, and are committed to seeing innovative restoration and resilience projects that further these goals , such as the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project, are successfully and efficiently implemented.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
1 August 11, 2022 Cities Association
Board of Directors - Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
Board of Directors Meeting
Note, Staff has heard that the Cities Association dues will significantly increase. The City paid $13,046 in dues for 2021-2022 and $34,044 in dues for 2022-2023. This amount may increase to $64,802 for 2023- 2024.
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
Item 2. Discuss and Consider Bills for Potential Action Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 833
(Dodd)
Would require the
California Energy
Commission to
develop and
implement a grant
program to make
energy resiliency
awards to local
governments; and
maintain an online
community energy
resilience toolkit to
support local
government’s
development of
community resilience
plans.
Support Energy Legislation, Regulations, and
Issues LAP (Provide local public agencies
with financial resources to prepare for, and
mitigate the impacts from, planned power
outage events)
Additional Notes: SB 833 would require the
CEC to develop and implement a grant
program to award grants through a
noncompetitive process for local
governments to develop community energy
resilience plans that help achieve energy
resilience objectives and state clean
energy and air quality goals. This bill
creates a voluntary program and cities
have the option to participate or not.
AB 1985 (R.
Rivas)
Would create an
online database of
organic waste
products on the
market so local
governments can
connect with local
farmers and
community members
seeking their organic
waste products and
continue to the
conversation to
address the
procurement
Support Sustainability and Environmental
Protection LAP (Support efforts to
streamline permitting and construction of
compost and other facilities that enable
jurisdictions to comply with SB 1383 and
efforts to broaden procurement
requirements for local jurisdiction to comply
with SB 1383)
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
requirements in the
SB 1383 regulations.
AB 916
(Salas)
Would increase the
height limit
allowance for ADUs
to 18 feet, or 25 feet
if within one-half mile
of a major transit
stop or high-quality
transit corridor.
Would also prohibit a
city/county from
adopting/enforcing
an ordinance
requiring a public
hearing for
reconfiguring existing
space to increase
the bedroom count
within an existing
dwelling unit.
Oppose Housing LAP (reduces local control).
Additional Notes: The bill proposes to allow
up to two additional bedrooms to all
residential units without a public
hearing/discretionary review. Proposed in
the Zoning Code Update is a new provision
to require minimum common living area for
residential units. This will help deal with
overcrowding concerns that have been
expressed, particularly in the Old Quad
neighborhood. This bill would not allow us
to implement this intended change to the
Zoning Code.
Also, the City recently adopted new
standards for Architectural Review, a public
hearing is required for single family home
applications based on the number of
bedrooms created. This bill would not allow
us to implement this threshold for public
review.
AB 2011
(Wicks)
Would require
specified housing
development
projects to be a use
by right on sites
zoned for retail,
office, or parking if
certain requirements
are met related to
the development, as
well as the use of a
skilled and trained
workforce.
Strongly
Oppose
Housing LAP (Reduces local control)
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 897
(Wieckowski)
Makes numerous
changes to existing
ADU law - including
requiring local
governments to allow
ADUs to be
constructed with a
height of up to 25
feet.
Oppose
Legislative Guiding Principal – Protect
and/or increase local government
discretion
Additional Notes: The proposed Zoning
Code update will include increasing the
height of ADUs up to 25 feet in height.
However, the more problematic portion of
this bill states that local agencies could not
prohibit/deny existing ADUs based on them
having zoning or building code violations.
AB 2097
(Friedman)
Prohibits a local
government from
imposing or
enforcing a minimum
automobile parking
requirement, on
residential,
commercial, or other
development if the
development is
located on a parcel
near public transit.
Oppose Housing LAP (Reduces local control)
Additional Notes: Reduces local control
over parking which is a community
concern.
Item 3. Other Bills for Consideration, Time Permitting
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 917
(Becker)
Requires transit
agencies in MTC
service area to
establish a regional
transit coordinating
council. Requires
council to work with
MTC to adopt a
Connected Network
Plan, adopt an
integrated fare
structure, and
develop a regional
transit mapping and
wayfinding system.
Support Transportation Issues LAP (Integrate fare
payments/schedules/transfers/technology
across transit agencies)
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
AB 1985 (R.
Rivas)
Would create an
online database of
organic waste
products on the
market so local
governments can
connect with local
farmers and
community members
seeking their organic
waste products and
continue to the
conversation to
address the
procurement
requirements in the
SB 1383 regulations.
Support Sustainability and Environmental
Protection LAP (Support efforts to
streamline permitting and construction of
compost and other facilities that enable
jurisdictions to comply with SB 1383 and
efforts to broaden procurement
requirements for local jurisdiction to
comply with SB 1383)
AB 2120
(Ward)
Bill is no
longer active
(held on Asm
Approps
Suspense
File)
Would ensure that
Highway
Infrastructure
Program funds
received by the state
from the IIJA, for the
purpose of local
bridge repair, is
divided between the
state and local
agencies consistent
with past practice.
Support Transportation Issues LAP (funding for
diverse transportation projects)
SB 932
(Portantino)
Requires every city
and county to
develop and
implement bicycle
plans, pedestrian
plans, and traffic
calming plans and
provides that failure
to implement the
plan (beginning in
2025) creates a
cause of action for
victims of traffic
violence in certain
counties, including
Santa Clara County.
Oppose Unless
Amended
Guiding Principle – Support Cal Cities on
priority legislation
Cal Cities is part of a local government
coalition that has taken an Oppose
Unless Amended position on SB 932.