2026 Q2 Legislative Action Summary
Below is a summary of the actions that were taken during 2026 Q2 in alignment with the City of Santa Clara’s 2026 Legislative Advocacy Positions (LAPs), guiding principles for legislative advocacy, approved City policies (e.g., City Council Goals and Priorities), and/or Council action.
Public Safety LAP
• May 27, 2026 Letter of support for a State Budget request to provide an additional $400 million to support implementation of Proposition 36, including funding for probation services, recovery support services, and substance use treatment to Chair of Senate Budget Subcommittee #5, Senator Laura Richardon and Chair of Assembly Budget Subcommittee #6, Assemblymember James Ramos (Please note, the subcommittee assignments for Senator Richardson and Assemblymember Ramos are listed incorrectly on the submission letter that is provided below. The subcommittee assignments listed above are correct.) Regional Issues and Collaboration LAP
• April 24, 2026 Letter of support for AB 1674 (Ahrens) — Food Affordability Act to Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens.
Transportation Issues LAP
• June 22, 2026 Letter of support for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Central Bikeway Project application for Cycle 8 Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding to the California Transportation Commission
Water Supply and Conservation LAP
• June 4, 2026 Letter of support for Pure Water Silicon Valley’s Demonstration Facility and Education Center to Santa Clara Valley Water District Interim Chief Executive Officer, Melanie Richardson
Legislative Advocacy Guiding Principle: Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities positions on priority bills that benefit Santa Clara
• May 29, 2026 Californians Against Waste sign-on letter of support for AB 762 — Disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device: prohibition and penalties (Irwin & Wilson), which seeks to ban the sale of single-use disposable vaporizer products statewide to the California State Senate
• May 29, 2026 National Stewardship Action Council sign-on letter of support for SB 936 — Nitrous oxide: sales (Blakespeare & Umberg), which seeks to ban sales of nitrous oxide statewide to the California State Senate Public Safety Committee
Multiple Legislative Priorities
• April 9, 2026 Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee Discussion Bills (Community Services, Human Resources and Public Sector Employment, Regional Issues and Collaboration, Sustainability and Environmental Protection, Transportation Issues LAPs; and Guiding Principles:
Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities on priority bills that benefit Santa Clara, and Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates; and Resolution No. 21-9037 Support the Efforts of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to Preserve Sargent Ranch/Juristac as Open Space)
• May 14, 2026 Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee Discussion Bills (Community Services, Emergency Management, Housing, Human Resources and Public Sector Employment, Transportation Issues LAPs)
Council Approved Legislative Action
• June 9, 2026 Letter of support for AB 2231 — California Environmental Quality Act: hospital projects (Ahrens) to Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
May 27, 2026
The Honorable James Ramos
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #5
1021 O Street, Suite 7340
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Laura Richardson
Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #6
1021 O Street, Suite 8310
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Proposition 36 Funding - Support Request for $400 Million in Funding for Recovery Support Services and Substance Use Treatment
Dear Honorable Members:
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in support for the budget request led by Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen and Senator Catherine Blakespear to provide $400 million in additional funding for probation services and other essential programmatic needs necessary to support the implementation of Proposition 36.
With the passage of Proposition 36 (2024), the Homelessness, Drug, Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, California voters signaled a clear expectation that the state take a more comprehensive approach to addressing substance use, homelessness, and retail theft. The measure enacted significant statutory changes, including the creation of a treatment-mandated felony framework designed to connect individuals to services while reinforcing accountability.
As part of the Bay Area, where communities continue to face complex and interrelated challenges related to substance use, homelessness, and retail theft, the City of Santa Clara recognizes that successful implementation will depend on the availability of treatment options, supervision resources, and coordinated local infrastructure.
The proposed funding would allow jurisdictions to build out critical components of this framework, including expanding access to treatment beds, strengthening supervision capacity, and supporting individualized intervention strategies. These elements are essential to ensuring that the policy functions as intended and produces meaningful outcomes for both individuals and the broader community.
In the absence of adequate resources, local governments will face significant challenges in delivering the balanced approach envisioned by Proposition 36. Sustained investment is necessary to align accountability measures with realistic pathways to rehabilitation.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara respectfully urges the Legislature to include this funding in the FY 2026–27 State Budget. This investment is essential to achieving the goals of April 24, 2026
The Honorable Patrick Ahrens
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 6110
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1674 (Ahrens): Food Affordability Act
City of Santa Clara – Notice of Support
Dear Assembly Member Ahrens:
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I am pleased to write in strong support of AB 1674 (Ahrens), which establishes the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program to expand access to healthy, affordable food in underserved communities.
Access to nutritious food is a fundamental component of public health, economic stability, and community well-being. Yet many communities, particularly low -income and low -access areas, continue to face significant barriers to accessing full -service grocery stores. Food deserts are generally understood as communities with both higher poverty levels and limited access to full - service grocery stores, conditions that can significantly impact residents’ ability to obtain healthy food.
AB 1674 takes a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to addressing these disparities. By creating a state-administered grant program funded through federal, private, and other nonstate sources, the bill provides critical financial support for grocery stor e operators and developers to establish or sustain food retail in underserved areas. This includes funding for site development, equipment, staffing, and operational costs ; tools that are essential to overcoming the financial barriers that often prevent grocery stores from locating in food deserts.
Importantly, this measure also addresses an often-overlooked challenge: the loss of grocery retail space in new housing developments. By requiring that new housing projects in food deserts either maintain site capacity for grocery stores or provide equivalent mitigation, AB 1674 helps ensure that efforts to expand housing do not unintentionally reduce access to healthy food. This balanced approach supports both housing production and food security, two critical and interconnected priorities for California communities.
AB 1674 provides communities with meaningful tools to support equitable development. The program will help attract and retain grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and improve health outcomes for residents. Additionally, by prioritizing projects that integrate grocery access into new housing developments, the bill promotes more complete, livable communities.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports AB 1674 (Ahrens).
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
Honorable James Ramos
Honorable Laura Richardson
Re: Proposition 36 Funding - Support Request for $400 Million in Funding for Recovery Support Services and Substance Use Treatment
May 27, 2026 │ Page 2 of 2
Proposition 36 and ensuring communities statewide have the resources to improve public safety and expand access to treatment.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
June 22, 2026
California Transportation Commission
c/o Active Transportation Program
1120 N Street, MS-52
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Letter of Support for the VTA Central Bikeway Project, ATP Cycle 8 (Large Infrastructure)
Dear Chair and Commissioners,
As the Mayor of the City of Santa Clara, I am pleased to offer my strong support for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) application to the Active Transportation Program (ATP) for the Central Bikeway Project (Project).
The Project will deliver approximately 10.8 miles of continuous, separated bikeway connecting Santa Clara and San José. I am especially mindful of what this corridor means for my own community. It would tie Santa Clara more closely to its neighbors and to the regional transit network, including Berryessa BART and multiple VTA light rail and bus routes. According to VTA, the corridor serves approximately 208,000 residents and connects employment centers, schools, parks, and major transit hubs.
I have spent much of my public life working to reduce traffic and the pollution it causes, and to give residents real alternatives to driving. This Project advances exactly those goals. A VTA-led feasibility study, grounded in corridor-level technical analysis and extensive community engagement, identified tens of thousands of daily trips under five miles along the corridor, a distance well suited to bicycling. Yet current conditions discourage people from making that choice. According to the study, 74% of respondents identified safety as a primary barrier, and many segments today combine high traffic volumes, complex intersections, and limited existing bikeway infrastructure. On April 4, 2024, the Santa Clara City Council approved a resolution that adopted the VTA’s Central Bikeway Feasibility Study Final Report.
By providing physically separated facilities, improving crossings, and creating a safer and more predictable environment, the Project would reduce conflicts between travel modes and improve safety for all users, particularly families, youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. These are often the residents least able to rely on a car and most exposed to the gaps in today’s network.
California Transportation Commission
Re: Letter of Support for the VTA Central Bikeway Project, ATP Cycle 8 (Large Infrastructure) June 24, 2026
The Project also aligns closely with Santa Clara’s broader goals. Our city has adopted ambitious climate commitments, and shifting short trips from cars to biking and walking is among the most direct ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve local air quality. Safer, more connected active transportation also supports the shared regional priority of expanding housing near transit and reducing car dependence. The corridor serves equity priority communities, where safe and affordable transportation options are especially important.
This Project reflects strong partnerships among VTA and its local and state partners and builds on substantial prior planning and community engagement. ATP funding would support final design (PS&E), positioning the Project for construction and accelerating delivery of these improvements.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the California Transportation Commission to fund the Central Bikeway Project through the Active Transportation Program.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
June 4, 2026
Melanie Richardson
Interim Chief Executive Officer
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
RE: Support for the Pure Water Silicon Valley’s Demonstration Facility and Education Center
Dear Mrs. Richardson:
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I am writing to express support for Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) Pure Water Silicon Valley Demonstration Facility and Education Center.
Pure Water Silicon Valley is an important regional initiative that aims to meet 10% of Santa Clara County’s current and future water demand through non-potable and potable reuse, and this Demonstration Facility is an important step towards that goal. This project will enhance resilience to drought and climate change, while also reducing risks of land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. The construction of this project will help our region reach its long-term sustainability and resiliency goals, benefiting Santa Clara residents and businesses alike.
With California’s recent adoption of Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) regulations in 2024, the region is now better positioned to develop this drought-proof resource, and the City strongly supports Valley Water’s efforts to advance its Purified Water Program to a large-scale DPR project.
Building on the success of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC), and the important collaboration between Valley Water and the cities of San José and Santa Clara, the development of the Pure Water Silicon Valley project to produce up to 24,000 AFY of highly purified water is getting ever closer to reality. This facility will process treated wastewater effluent from the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) using advanced processes that include ozone, biological activated carbon (BAC), microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), ultraviolet advanced oxidation processes (UV-AOP), and chlorination, in compliance with recently established DPR regulations.
The first phase of the project, the demonstration facility and education center, will be critical to the success of the overall project. This phase involves the design and construction of a DPR demonstration facility (~200 gallons per minute) for testing, operator training, and regulatory data collection, to expedite full-scale implementation and reduce risks and costs. Santa Clara supports Valley Water’s work with the State Water Resources Control Board to create the first of its kind facility in California, including a learning center that will enhance public engagement and outreach.
Melanie Richardson, Interim Chief Executive Officer
Re: Support for the Pure Water Silicon Valley’s Demonstration Facility and Education Center June 4, 2026
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara strongly supports this project and efforts Valley Water is undertaking to get this critical water supply project across the finish line.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
May 28, 2026
The Honorable [ ] , Chair
Senate [ ] Committee
[ ] , Suite [ ]
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for AB 762 (Irwin and Wilson) – Ban on Disposable Vapes – COALITION SUPPORT Dear Senator [ ],
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write in strong support of AB 762 (Irwin and Wilson), which seeks to ban the sale of single-use disposable vaporizer products in California.
This critical legislation addresses the alarming environmental, safety, and public health risks posed by these hazardous products, protecting our communities, waste infrastructure, and natural ecosystems from their destructive impact.
Single-use vapes contain embedded lithium-ion batteries, making them not only an unsustainable source of electronic waste but also a significant fire hazard. When improperly discarded—as is often the case—these devices ignite fires in garbage cans, collection trucks, and material recovery facilities (MRFs). These lithium-ion battery fires can reach temperatures of up to 1200°C—equivalent to a welding torch—causing rapid and uncontrollable blazes. The U.K. has already linked disposable vape waste to a staggering 77% increase in waste facility fires over the last year alone. California waste and recycling operators are facing a similar crisis, with escalating fire risks and increased costs in managing this hazardous waste.
Beyond safety concerns, single-use vapes contribute to an egregious waste of valuable resources. The lithium discarded in these devices annually could otherwise power over 2,600 electric vehicles, underscoring the reckless depletion of critical materials. Additionally, the mining and manufacturing of lithium and cobalt—key components of vape batteries— exacerbate environmental degradation and perpetuate environmental justice issues in vulnerable communities.
Disposable vapes are rapidly becoming a dominant form of electronic litter, contaminating highways, parks, and beaches. The Marine Conservation Society reports that these products are now routinely found along coastlines, where they pose an immediate threat to marine life. Unlike cigarette butts, which take up to ten years to degrade, single-use vapes introduce long-lasting toxic pollutants into ecosystems, including residual nicotine, lead, and mercury, which can leach into soil and waterways.
The vast majority of consumers—72%—are unaware that these devices cannot be disposed of in standard recycling or garbage streams. The absence of a standardized, effective collection and recycling process means that single-use vapes are, in reality, unmanageable toxic waste. The current status quo places the burden on local governments and waste management operators, forcing them to treat these hazardous materials at exorbitant costs.
Disposable vapes have driven a troubling surge in youth nicotine addiction. According to recent CDC data, 14.1% of high school students and 3.3% of middle school students report using e-cigarettes, with a staggering 57.2% of high school users and 45.8% of middle school users favoring disposable vape products. Over 84.8% of teen users report using flavored vapes, including fruit, candy, and menthol varieties, further entrenching nicotine dependence.
Emerging research reveals that disposable vapes expose users to heightened levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic metals such as nickel, cadmium, mercury, and chromium—compounds linked to increased risks of cancer, cardiopulmonary disease, and neurological disorders. This growing body of evidence underscores the urgent need for intervention to protect public health, particularly among vulnerable youth populations.
California has long been a leader in environmental protection and consumer safety, and this bill aligns with global momentum to eliminate single-use disposable vapes. Countries including the U.K., France, Belgium, New Zealand, and Vietnam have already taken decisive action against these products, recognizing the irreversible harm they cause. California must act now to prevent further environmental degradation, public health crises, and economic burdens associated with their unregulated disposal.
For the sake of our environment, public health, and waste infrastructure, we urge you to support AB 762 and move it forward in the legislative process. We appreciate your leadership in tackling this urgent issue and stand ready to support efforts to pass this critical bill.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Organizations
Tony Hackett
Californians Against Waste
Joanne Brasch
California Product Stewardship Council
Fiona Hines
California Public Interest Research
Group
Joe La Mariana
RethinkWaste
Al Rich
ACR Solar
Laurent Huber
Action on Smoking and Health
Wes Reutimann
Active San Gabriel Valley
Laura Anthony
Albatross Coalition
Emily Wanous
Algalita Marine Research and
Education
Tigran Agdaian
Tomas Valadez
Azul
Cheryl Auger
Ban Single-Use Plastic
Tigran Agdaian
Breathe Southern California
Janet Nudelman
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Vanessa Forsythe, RN, MSN
California Nurses for Environmental
Health and Justice
Ector Olivares
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of
Stockton – Environmental Justice
Program
Andrew Keller
Chico Bag
Mayor David Newman
City of Thousand Oaks
Suzanne Hume
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Kathi King
Community Environmental Council
Irene Kao
Courage California
Andria Ventura
Clean Water Action
Maya Rommwatt
Defend our Health
Martin Bourque
Ecology Center
Dan Silver
Endangered Habitats League
Catherine Dodd, PhD, RN
Families Advocating for Chemical
and Toxics Safety (FACTS)
Jim Lindburg
Friends Committee on the Legislation of
California
Emily Parker
Heal the Bay
Patty Garbarino
Ivan Pislar
Ivan’s Recycling
Kelly Shannon McNeill
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Patty Garbarino
Marin Sanitary Service
Tim Dewey-Mattia
Napa Recycling and Waste
Services
Heidi Sanborn
National Stewardship Action Council
(NSAC)
Victoria Rome
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC)
Freddy Coronado
Northern California Recycling
Association
Wanda Redic
Oakland Public Works – Environmental
Services Division
Rebecca Aguilar
Oceanic Preservation Society
Alejandra Warren
Plastic Free Future
Dianna Cohen
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Scott Cassel
Product Stewardship Institute
Garen Kazanjian
Recology, Inc.
Felipe Melchor
ReGen Monterey
Michael Caprio
Republic Services
Julie Wedge
ReThink Disposable
John Kennedy
Rural County Representatives of
California
Patrick Mathews
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
Vi Thuy Nguyen, MD
San Diego Pediatricians for Clean
Air
Leslie Robinson
Santa Barbara County Resource
Recovery and Waste Management
Division
Katie Thompson
Save our Shores
David Lewis
Save the Bay
Gabriela Facio
Sierra Club California
Ivan Pislar
Simply Recycle
Curtis Larkin
Jack Eidt
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Curtis Larkin
Solid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA) Legislative Task
Force
Jackie Nuñez
The Last Plastic Straw
Jennifer Savage
The Surfrider Foundation
Alison Waliszewski
The 5 Gyres Institute
Lauren Bright
Torus Consulting
Jason Toro
TRI-CED Community Recycling
Kristin Kusanovich
tUrn Climate Crisis Awareness and
Action
Melissa Jung
Upstream
Christine Wolfe
Waste Management
Ashley Eagle-Gibbs
West Marin Environmental Action
Coalition
Charles Moine
Wilmington Recyclers
Kimberly Scheibly
Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers
Authority
Laura Anthony
Zero Waste Diego
Leslie Lukacs
Zero Waste Sonoma Joint Powers
Authority
Katie McCammon
350 Sacramento
Leslie Tamminen
7th Generation Advisors
Katie Huffling
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments
Tevin Hamilton
Physicians for Social Responsibility
– Los Angeles
Jonathan Simpson
Little Kamper
Emily Lam
City of San Jose
David Kreuger
RecycleSmart AKA Central Contra
Costa County Solid Waste
Authority
Jennifer Finton
Breathe California – Sacramento
Region
Jacob Sandoval
CA League of United Latin
American Citizens
Serena Alvarez
The Salvador E. Alvarez Institute for
Non-Violence
Martha Camacho Rodriguez
Social Eco Education
Judith Sorey
350 Bay Area Action
Briget Arndell
City of Arcadia
Hakim Rad
Bay Area Student Activists (BAStA)
Jan Sabriskie, Mayor
Town of Truckee
Timothy Burroughs
StopWaste AKA Alameda County
Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
Alex Braicovich
CR&R Environmental Services, Inc.
Dave Sikich
Atlas Disposal
Fawn Liebengood
Blue Ocean Warriors
Sam Pearse
The Story of Stuff Project
Sarah Bridge
Association of California
Healthcare Districts
Lynn Adams
Pacific Beach Coalition
Julia Alber
San Luis Obispo County Tobacco
Control Coalition
Jeffery Tillman
South Tahoe Refuse & Recycling
Services
Ramesh Srinivasan
Eco-Catalyst
Tamsyn Hunnewell
Sustainable Works
Gene Della Zoppa
Mill Valley Refuse Service
Emily Barnett
Caitlin Adler
Project Ropa
Jordan Wells
California State Association of Counties
Emily Barnett
Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Scott Scholz
Western Placer Waste
Management Authority
James Moore
Merced County Regional Waste
Management Authority
Shell Cleave
SeaHugger
Paul Freund
Tehama County Solid Waste
Management Agency
David Levine
American Sustainable Business Network
Kim Konte
Non-Toxic Neighborhoods
Jan Dietrick
350 Ventura County Climate Hub
Harry Wang, MD
Physicians for Social Responsibility –
Sacramento
Elisa Kalfayan
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Robert M. Gould, MD
San Francisco Bay Physicians for
Social Responsibility
Maria Westerbos
Plastic Soup Foundation
Cynthia Hallett, MPH
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights
Zahra Janoowalla
Parents Against Vaping
Paul Gao
California Electronic Asset Recovery
(CEAR)
Laura Suarez
Veolia North America
Michelle Leopold
Marin Residents for Public Health
Cannabis Policies
Natalie Herendeen
Monterey Waterkeeper
Dom Ferris
Trash Free Trails
Peggy Flynn
City of Petaluma
Chelsea Sutula
Sespe Creek Collective Inc.
Thomas Wheeler
Environmental Protection
Information Center (EPIC)
John Davis
Mojave Desert and Mountain
Recycling Authority
Jan Dell
Jan Dell
The Last Beach Cleanup
Jane Williams
Jane Williams
California Communities Against
Toxics
Bill Mott
The Ocean Project
Pauline Seales
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Peter Blair
Just Zero
Muriel Spooner
San Diego Bird Alliance
Michael Mulligan
NorCal Elders Climate Action
Richard Burke
SoCal Elders Climate Action
Vince De Lange
Delta Diablo
Illana Weisman
350 Contra Costa Action
E. Hardy Kern III
American Bird Conservancy
Marc Carrel
Breathe Southern California
Peter Drekmeier
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
Todd Benson
Faith in Action East Bay
Markos Major
Climate Action Now!
Luz Sotelo
Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education
Coalition
Jinesse Reynolds
PlasticFreeMarin
Marilyn Price
Sustainable Mill Valley
Alison Ventura, PhD
Cal Poly Center for Health Research
Robert C. Ferrante
Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts
Valerie Noble
California Health Coalition
Advocacy
Andrea Portenier
Smokefree Air For Everyone
Tedd Ward
Del Norte Solid Waste
Management Authority (Joint
Powers Authority)
Larry Selkow
Southern California Public Health
Association
Veronica Padilla
Pacoima Beautiful
Dr. Tamu Green
Equity and Wellness Institute
Sarah Gao
Sunrise Bay Area
Patricia Barahona
Youth Leadership Institute
Rebecca Fuoco
Green Science Policy Institute
Hamida Yusufzai
Alameda County Tobacco
Control Coalition
Maleek Oladunjoye
Tobacco Prevention Coalition (Contra
Costa)
Autumn Ross
Bay Area Pollution Prevention
Group
Veronica Pardo
Resource Recovery Coalition of
California
Robert Serrato
City of Oxnard
Melissa Sparks-Kranz
League of California Cities
Wanda Redic
California Resource Recovery
Association (CRRA)
Shirley Freriks
WasteNOT Nevada County
Sirine Rached
Global Alliance for Incinerator
Alternatives (GAIA)
Roland Williams
Roland Williams
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Bryan Mekechuk Mayor Rex Richardson
City of Long Beach
Santa Clara County Recycling and
Waste Reduction Commission
Susan S. Muranishi
County of Alameda
Staci Heaton
Rural Counties Environmental Services
Joint Powers Authority
Tyrone Jue
Tyrone Jue
San Francisco Department of the
Environment
Carley Clemons
Children Now
Mayor Lisa M. Gillmor
City of Santa Clara
cc: Members, Assembly Appropriations Committee
Members, Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxics Materials Committee Members, Assembly Business and Professions Committee
Authors, Asm. Irwin and Asm. Wilson
The Vision of NSAC
The United States attains a responsible, circular economy. 501(c)(4)
Organization
August 11, 2026
The Honorable Buffy Wicks, Chair
Assembly Committee on Appropriations
1021 O Street, Suite 8220
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SUPPORT: SB 936 (Blakespear and Umberg) Nitrous Oxide Sales Dear Chair Wicks,
We, the undersigned, write to express our strong support for SB 936 as amended July 2nd, 2026, co-sponsored by the National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC), the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), County of Orange, and San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan, which will ban sales of nitrous oxide in a container that is more than 8 grams or which is marketed or has the taste or smell of any food, which is widely used as an illicit recreational inhalant having devastating effects on users and public safety causing permanent health problems and even death for the users.
While the public health and safety impacts are extraordinary, the large nitrous oxide cylinders are showing up in publicly funded hazardous waste facilities and have quickly become an expensive waste management problem and additionally expose waste management workers to the danger of explosion as compressed gas cylinders can explode when compacted.
Local governments are responsible for the collection, processing, recycling and disposal of solid waste, including the operation of local household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs.
Local governments often contract with solid waste enterprises to provide hazardous waste collection services. These programs typically offer residents free drop-off of HHW; however, the cost to manage containers is significant, as these cylinders cost between $70-$120 each to properly puncture, evacuate, crush, ship and manage, and puts serious financial pressure on local governments that operate them. While some consumers properly dispose of nitrous oxide cylinders at the local HHW collection facility, others are found littered in the streets or placed in recycling carts because residents believe their metal content makes them recyclable or disposed of in the trash which is illegal. These must be diverted to the local HHW facilities. The cost for The Vision of NSAC
The United States attains a responsible, circular economy. local governments to manage nitrous oxide cylinders exceeds the initial purchase price that consumers pay at the point of sale as they can be purchased for $40-$70 each but typically cost local agencies almost double that to manage.
Local governments and the solid waste industry have no control over what products are introduced into the marketplace and for which we will ultimately be responsible for managing.
By banning the sale of large nitrous oxide containers, SB 936 will significantly reduce cost pressures and management challenges for local solid waste programs and increase the safety for their operators while also protecting public health.
There are too many stories of how people are addicted to inhaling “laughing gas”, which is no laughing matter, and it is resulting in permanent health impacts and death to users and to others who are dying because of drivers passing out at the wheel of vehicles. Abuse of N2O is destroying families, adding to litter problems, and in general is making life worse for Californians from public health and safety impacts to endangering sanitation workers and increasing costs and blight.
For these reasons, we are pleased to support your SB 936. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Heidi Sanborn, CEO
National Stewardship Action Council
Leslie Lukacs, Executive Director
Zero Waste Sonoma
Suzanne Hume, Educational Director &
Founder
CleanEarth4Kids.org
Catherine Dodd, Health Advisor
FACTS Families Advocating for Chemical
and Toxics Safety
Gio Cortes, Recycling Programs Specialist
City of Escondido
James Moore, Director
Merced County Regional Waste
Management Authority
Kimberly Scheibly, Executive Director
Zero Waste Marin
The Vision of NSAC
The United States attains a responsible, circular economy.
Jackie Nuñez, Founder
The Last Plastic Straw
Bryan Mekechuk, Chair
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste
Reduction Commission
Felipe Melchor, General Manager
ReGen Monterey
Kent Holm, Environmental Services
Director
Douglas County, Nebraska
Marketa Houskova, DNP, RN, CEO
American Nurses Association, California
David Button, President
South San Francisco Scavenger Co., Inc
Sasha Del Giorgio, Management Analyst
San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority
Shirley Freriks, WasteNOT Lead
Nevada County Climate Action Now
Tony Hackett, Policy Associate
Californians Against Waste
John Davis, Administrator
Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling
Authority
Todd Weber, Volunteer, Chapter Co-Leader
Elders Climate Action (ECA) Northern
California (NorCal) Chapter
Richard Burke, Founder, Chapter Leader
Elders Climate Action (ECA) Southern
California (SoCal) Chapter
Barbara Bella, Co-chair Neighborhood
Enhancement
Russian Hill Neighbors
Thomas Fox, Senior Legislative Counsel
Center for Environmental Health
The Vision of NSAC
The United States attains a responsible, circular economy.
Jeff Holden, Founder & Host
The NonProfit Podcast Network
Tracie Onstad Bills, Executive Director
California Resource Recovery Association
(CRRA)
Mayor Lisa M. Gillmor
City of Santa Clara
1 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
Item 3. Early Bill Review (Discussion and Potential Action) SB 1013 (Cervantes): Automated license plate recognition systems Summary:
Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.
Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that “public agency” does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require new, updated, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency’s collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense.
Enforcement:
The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 30 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2027, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 30 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: None
City Position: No Action - This measure falls outside of the City’s LAPs
SB 1159 (Cabaldon): Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance Summary:
This bill defines a person for the purposes of public processes including the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the Brown Act, Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and CEQA, as not artificial intelligence.
The California Constitution provides that people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business. Various provisions of existing law, including the California Public Records Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act, provide, with some exceptions, for public access to government records and
2 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
meetings of government bodies. Among those acts, the California Public Records Act defines “person” to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association.
This bill would specify that, for purposes of the California Public Records Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), “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.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Regional Issues and Collaboration LAP:
“Monitors legislation related to artificial
intelligence (AI) and its impact on communities
through the direct application of AI, the job and
economic opportunities generated through AI-
related employers, and the impact on regional
resources.”
See also, “Support efforts to modernize the Brown
Act, particularly as in pertains to the rules related
to usage of, and public notice requirements for,
remote videoconferencing technology for
meetings.”
City Position: Support
AB 1761 (Rogers): Electricity: calculation methodology: data disclosure Summary:
AB 1761 (Rogers) would improve data transparency on electricity bills by requiring the California Public Utilities Commission and Investor Owned Utilities to disclose all the data used to calculate Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee costs. The PCIA is paid for by Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) customers, but not all of the data used to calculate the costs are shared. Increasing transparency on this fee will help provide more eyes on the fee to make sure it is calculated correctly. This data also helps stakeholders understand the ratepayer impacts of any policy changes to the PCIA.
This bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that all data serving as a basis for any decision or ruling issued by the commission, or in any proposal or analysis provided by commission staff, for the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation- owned generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge and any other charge derived
3 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
from those costs, is made available to load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers.
The bill would require the commission to require an electrical corporation or other party, in submitting a proposal or analysis for the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation-owned generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge and any other charge derived from those costs, to make all data serving as a basis for that proposal or analysis available to load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers. The bill would require that data meets specified requirements, including that it is made through public disclosure, except for market-sensitive data.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: None
City Position: No Action - This measure falls outside of the City’s LAPs
AB 2517 (Calderon): Fire safety: fire hazard severity zones Summary:
Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state that are not state responsibility areas, commonly known as local responsibility areas, as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas.
Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to periodically review and make recommendations relative to very high fire hazard severity zones within local responsibility areas. Under current law, this review is required to coincide with review of state responsibility area lands every 5 years and, when possible, fall within the timeframes for each county’s general plan update.
Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving the recommendations from the State Fire Marshal.
Existing law authorizes a local agency to, at its discretion, include areas within its jurisdiction not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal as very high fire hazard severity zones and areas not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. Under existing law, a local agency is required to transmit a copy of an adopted ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption. Existing law provides that changes made by a local agency to the recommendations made by the State Fire Marshal are final.
This bill would require the State Fire Marshal to, no fewer than 180 days before finalizing the designation of local responsibility areas as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity
4 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
zones, post specified information on its public internet website, conduct regional public workshops to receive oral public comments and consider those comments, host a 30-day public comment period to receive written comments from interested stakeholders and respond to all written comments by local agencies within 30 days of the end of the public comment period, and coordinate with other state agencies to help educate the public during the public workshops, as specified.
The bill would also require, on or before January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, the State Fire Marshal to review the local responsibility area lands designated as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones and to recommend changes.
The bill would no longer require this review to, when possible, fall within the timeframes for each county’s general plan update. The bill would authorize a local agency to, at its discretion, increase the level of fire hazard severity applicable to a parcel in its jurisdiction if a parcel contains 2 or more designations, so that the higher level of fire hazard severity would apply to the entire parcel. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to publish within 60 days the local ordinance transmitted to the board, as described above, on its internet website.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: None
City Position: No Action - This measure falls outside of the City’s LAPs
SB 894 (Allen): Wildfire resiliency: financial assistance Summary:
This bill would establish the California Wildfire Resilience Loan Program and would require the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority to administer the program to provide financial assistance for projects and activities to reduce wildfire-related risks and losses including home hardening and defensible space improvements, as provided, and would make related changes.
Specifically, this bill would:
1) Add to the purposes of CAEATFA the advancement of increasing the adoption of wildfire resilience improvements that reduce wildfire-risk related risk and losses by promoting facilities, projects, improvements, and measures intended to reduce wildfire risk, enhance structure survivability, or improve community resilience to wildfire.
2) Establish the California Wildfire Resilience Loan Program (Loan Program) to be developed and administered by CAEATFA.
3) Establish the goals of the Loan Program as:
Reducing local and statewide wildfire losses through wildfire resilience improvements to residential, multifamily, mixed-use, nonprofit, or small business property. Improving insurability and resilience of
5 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
communities vulnerable to wildfire risk. Increasing the defensible space around and hardening of residential, multifamily, mixed-use, nonprofit, or small business property to mitigate wildfire risk, thereby reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from wildfires and associated air pollution.
Reduce the upfront and overall cost to eligible property owners of obtaining private financing for wildfire resilience improvements and expand access of eligible property owners to private financing tools for wildfire resilience improvements.
4) Establish that the Loan Program may include, but not be limited to, establishment of a loan loss reserve, interest rate buy-downs, and other credit enhancements.
5) Establish eligible wildfire resilience improvements, including:
Home hardening;
Smoke mitigation; and
Other risk reduction measures.
6) Make financial assistance under this Loan Program available to eligible properties statewide.
7) Authorize CAEATFA to enter into partnerships or referral arrangements to facilitate the referral of eligible applicants, aggregating demand, or facilitating bulk purchasing or contracting agreements.
8) Authorize CAEATFA to consult with the SFM to establish procedures for verifications of improvements financed through the program for the purposes of program integrity, evaluation, and continuous improvement.
9) Authorize CAEATFA to enter into agreements, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to design, develop, maintain, and operate a public-facing internet website for the Loan Program.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Sustainability and Environmental Protection LAP:
“Support legislation and funding for resiliency to
develop home hardening, defensible space at the
home and neighborhood level”.
City Position: Support
SB 899 (Grove): Fire prevention: Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force: wildfire smoke
6 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
Summary:
This bill would require the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force to assess the health costs and impacts of wildfire smoke, and to develop a model to determine the health benefits of achieving the goals of the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan.
Existing law requires the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy to track and ensure the achievement of the goals and key actions identified in the state’s “Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan,” as provided.
Existing law requires, on or before March 1, 2026, and every 5 years thereafter, the task force to update the action plan.
This bill would require the task force, on or before July 1, 2028, and in cooperation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the State Department of Public Health, to assess the health costs and impacts of wildfire smoke using existing wildfire smoke and health data, as provided. The bill would require the task force, in developing this assessment, to, among other things, develop a model to determine the approximate health benefits of achieving the goals identified in the action plan and make recommendations on how the action plan can increase its health benefits.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: None
City Position: No Action - This measure falls outside of the City’s LAPs
Additional Staff Comments/Dept.
Implications:
No direct impact to the City of Santa Clara.
Recommend watch position on this bill.
SB 949 (Becker): Environmental protection: Natural Resources Agency: resource of statewide Summary:
Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency, composed of departments, boards, conservancies, and commissions responsible for the restoration, protection, and management of the state’s natural and cultural resources.
This bill would designate the Santa Cruz Mountains, as defined, as a resource of statewide significance that requires special protection, as defined. The bill would require the Natural Resources Agency and its boards, departments, and conservancies, to the extent that resources are available, and when appropriate, to encourage collaborative stewardship approaches that support the protection, restoration, and preservation of the Santa Cruz Mountains, among other things.
This includes:
a) Protection, restoration, and preservation of the Santa Cruz Mountains’ natural ecosystems.
7 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
b) Restoration and preservation of wildlife habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. c) Promotion of healthy forest management in the Santa Cruz Mountains. d) Improvement of watershed management in the Santa Cruz Mountains. e) Development and maintenance of trails for public access and other recreational opportunities in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
f) Promotion of the long-term sustainability and conservation of working lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains to ensure they remain viable while contributing to the region’s overall environmental health. g) Collaboration with local tribes to protect tribal cultural resources, partner on restoration and management efforts, and support opportunities for tribal access, cultural practices, and the potential for co-management of ancestral lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains. h) Promotion of voluntary stewardship on public and private lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains through technical assistance, conservation easements, incentive programs, and multi-benefit projects that contribute to the landscape-level goals of ecological health and climate resilience.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Partial alignment to Community Services LAP:
“Supports legislation and funding that promotes
increased access to parks, open space, and outdoor
recreational opportunities.”
“Supports efforts to restore the nature environment
specially through parks: revegetation, reforestation,
and urban forestry programs.”
City Position: No Action - The bill includes multiple components that cannot be captured in its entirety by existing
City LAPs
Item 4. Propose Bills for Discussion at Next Legislative Action Committee Meeting
SB 922 (Laird): Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways Summary:
Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for an extralegal load unless the local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1, 1989.
This bill would expressly limit this prohibition to charges based on weight. The bill would also explicitly state that a fee, charge, or surcharge imposed by or for a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to
8 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
provide public services or public works is not a tax, permit fee, or other charge that is prohibited by the provision above. The bill would provide that nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting this fee, charge, or surcharge. The bill would delete obsolete references and make other technical changes.
This bill allows cities to assess fees or charges, as part of franchise fee agreements, to recover costs of street maintenance, repair, and other costs to provide a public service (such as waste hauling). This bill is a clarification, in response to a recent lawsuit, that cities maintain the authority to collect fees for these purposes. Without this clarification, additional cities may be subject to lawsuits that would eliminate the ability to utilize franchise fee revenue for street maintenance.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Transportation Issues LAP:
“Support legislation and efforts that provide
funding for diverse transportation projects, such as
local streets and roads improvements, shuttle
programs, public transit, railroad crossing
improvements, bicycle and pedestrian projects,
intelligent transportation system improvements,
corridor capacity improvements, and highway
interchange improvements.”
City Position: Support
AB 1821 (Pacheco): California Public Records Act: agency response time Summary:
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law.
Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days under unusual circumstances, as defined.
This bill would extend the time that local agencies have to respond to public records act requests, from 10 days to 14 business days.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Human Resources and Public Sector Employment LAP:
9 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
April 9, 2026
“Supports efforts to update the Public Records Act
process that balance public agencies’ resources
while maintaining transparency and
accountability”.
City Position: Support
1 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
Item 3. Early Bill Review (Discussion and Potential Action) AB 1821 (Pacheco) – Public Records Act: response time
Summary: This bill extends the deadlines for public agencies to provide an initial response to a public records request by converting the current “calendar day” deadlines to a “business day” standard.
The California Public Records Act requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law.
Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the reasons, therefore. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days under unusual circumstances, as defined.
This bill would instead require each agency to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person as described above within 10 business days of a request for a copy of records
Potential Impact:
Would provide City staff with additional time to respond to PRA requests.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Human Resources and Public Sector Employment LAP: Supports efforts to update the
Public Records Act process that balance public
agencies’ resources while maintaining
transparency and accountability.
City Position: Support
AB 2296 (Papan) – Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(CalCities Sponsored bill)
Summary: This bill extends various timelines in the regional housing needs determination and allocation (RHNA) process and requires HCD to provide specific analysis or text to local governments to remedy deficiencies in their draft housing elements.
Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:
• Extends the time by which each COG or delegate subregion must develop, in consultation with HCD, a proposed methodology for distributing the RHNA to local governments within the region or subregion, from at least two years prior to the scheduled housing element revision to at least two and one-half years prior, and for the seventh housing element cycle, applies this change to housing elements adopted after 2027.
2 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
• Extends the time by which each COG and delegate subregion must distribute a draft RHNA to each local government in the region or subregion and to HCD, and to publish the draft RHNA on its website, from at least one and one-half years before the scheduled housing element revision to at least two years prior and, for the seventh housing element cycle, applies this change to housing elements adopted after 2027.
• Requires HCD, if it finds a draft housing element or amendment does not substantially comply with housing element law, to do both of the following in a written communication to the planning agency:
o Identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft element or draft amendment, including a reference to each subdivision of specified law with which the draft does not comply.
o Provide the specific analysis or text that HCD expects the planning agency to include in the draft to remedy the deficiencies identified under item a, above. • Requires HCD to review any change made to a housing element and report its findings to the planning agency within 30 days of receipt of any change, instead of 60 days. • Requires a local government's legislative body to consider HCD's findings and the specific analysis or text required by HCD prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment.
Potential Impact:
Would provide City staff with additional time to analyze RHNA requirements and prepare housing elements. Would provide City staff with more detailed information from HCD during the housing element review process.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: LAP Guiding Principles: Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities
Housing LAP: Support legislation that would
require the Department of Housing and
Community Development to consistently provide
timely detailed review and clear, consistent and
specific requirements for achieving Housing
Element certification and pro-housing designation,
to further streamline the local jurisdictions’
housing policy review and adoption processes.
City Position: Support
SB 1167 (Blakespear) – E-Bikes
Summary: This bill would revise the definitions of electric bicycles (e-bikes), motor driven cycles, and mopeds, update the labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and sellers of these devices, and expand prohibitions on false advertising and unfair competition related to e-bikes.
Among other things, this bill would:
3 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
• Explicitly exclude from the definition of e-bike a vehicle with motor power of more than 750 watts, a vehicle capable of attaining a speed greater than 20 mph on motor power alone, a vehicle with a motor capable of providing assistance when the vehicle reaches a speed exceeding 28 mph without pedal assistance, a motorcycle, moped, motorized scooter, off- highway electric motorcycle (eMoto), pocket bike, or recreational off-highway vehicle, as specified.
• Specify that advertising or selling a motor-driven cycle as an e-bike, or a device that is explicitly excluded from the definition of an e-bike, shall constitute a misleading statement in violation of unfair competition and false advertising laws, as specified. • Add to the definition of a motor-driven cycle vehicles that are propelled by an electric motor of less than 3,750 watts that produces 5 brake horsepower or less, are designed for highway use, and comply with all applicable federal motor safety standards. • Clarify that an electric bicycle, moped, motorized scooter, pocket bike, or recreational off- highway vehicle is not a motor-driven cycle and shall not be advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as a motor-driven cycle.
• Require motor-driven cycles and mopeds propelled by an electric motor and manufactured after January 1, 2027, to be equipped with a lamp-type turn signal system, and require motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less to also have a lamp-type turn signal.
• Authorize a peace officer to remove a prohibited device described above if a person is operating the unauthorized device on a highway or public-right-of-way. • Require an e-bike label to include the name of the brand, the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of the e-bike, the e-bike classification number, and the top assisted speed and motor wattage of the e-bike.
• Require a moped or motor-driven cycle label to include the name of the brand, the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of the moped or motor-driven cycle, the word “moped” or “motor-driven cycle,” and the top assisted speed and motor wattage, if applicable, of the moped or motor-driven cycle.
• Require any incident report filed by a peace officer for an injury or crash involving an electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle to include all of the information provided on the device’s label. If the device does not have the marking or label, the incident report must indicate that a marking or label was not available. • Provide that it is unlawful for a person to sell an e-bike, moped, or motor-driven cycle in violation of these labeling and disclosure requirements.
Potential Impact: May lead to reduced incidents, and increased safety, surrounding the use of e-bikes in the City.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Transportation Issues LAP: Support legislation that promotes the safe operation of e-bikes,
including requirements for safety training, helmets
and safety equipment appropriate for the class of e-
4 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
bike being operated, and age-appropriate
restrictions for certain classifications of e-bikes.
City Position: Support
SB 949 (Becker): Environmental protection: Natural Resources Agency: resource of statewide Summary: This bill would establish the Santa Cruz Mountains as a landscape of statewide significance that requires special protection. The measure would require the Natural Resources Agency and its boards, departments, and conservancies to encourage collaborative stewardship approaches that support the protection, restoration, and preservation of the Santa Cruz Mountains’ natural ecosystems, wildlife, forest management, watershed management, and recreational opportunities.
Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency, composed of departments, boards, conservancies, and commissions responsible for the restoration, protection, and management of the state’s natural and cultural resources.
This bill would designate the Santa Cruz Mountains, as defined, as a resource of statewide significance that requires special protection, as defined. The bill would require the Natural Resources Agency and its boards, departments, and conservancies, to the extent that resources are available, and when appropriate, to encourage collaborative stewardship approaches that support the protection, restoration, and preservation of the Santa Cruz Mountains, among other things.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Santa Cruz Mountains covering portions of the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz.
Potential Impact: Ongoing environmental stewardship of regional open space and natural amenities
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Partial alignment with Community Services LAP:
“Supports legislation and funding that promotes
increased access to parks, open space, and outdoor
recreational opportunities.”
“Supports efforts to restore the nature environment
specially through parks: revegetation, reforestation,
and urban forestry programs.”
City Position: Watch - The bill includes multiple components that cannot be captured in its entirety by existing City
LAPs
AB 1708 (Solache) – HHAP Round 8: smaller jurisdictions
5 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
Summary: This bill, beginning with funding allocations under round 8 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) program, requires a round 8 regionally coordinated homelessness action plan to include certain components necessary to allocate a portion of the funding to smaller jurisdictions.
Specifically, this bill:
• Defines “smaller jurisdiction” to mean a city with a population under 300,000. • Requires HHAP round 8 to include a description of programs and interventions provided by smaller jurisdictions that serve the objectives and goals of HHAP. • Requires HHAP round 8 to include an analysis that contains, among other items, an analysis of how local, state, and federal funding can be allocated to support programs identified for smaller jurisdictions.
• Allows a region receiving funding under HHAP round 8 to allocate a portion of that funding to smaller jurisdictions to support the programs in the regional plan. • Requires a region to establish a transparent and publicly available process through which smaller jurisdictions may apply for or otherwise access funding that includes, but is not limited to, timelines, evaluation criteria, and decision-making formulas. • Requires a smaller jurisdiction to do the following to be eligible for HHAP round 8 funding: (a) have a compliant housing element, (b) have adopted a local encampment policy consistent with administration guidance, (c) demonstrate how its past actions, programs, and appropriation of funds have served the objectives and goals of the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan and the intent of the HHAP, and (d) adopt a resolution that commits to participating in, and complying with, the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan.
Potential Impact: Promotes regional collaboration for the state’s primary homelessness program and establishes a path for accessing program funding in future rounds.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Housing LAP: Support legislation and efforts that provide resources for small to medium sized cities,
including funding for staffing, to plan and
implement strategies that address the impacts of
homelessness on public facilities and services.
City Position: Support
SB 922 (Laird) – Local agency charges: use of streets or highways (CalCities Sponsored bill)
Summary: This bill 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 to recover costs for street repair and public services. The measure 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.
6 Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
May 14, 2026
This measure seeks to restore local agencies’ ability to include road repair costs in their waste hauling fees, which the Rogers v. Redlands 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 similar legal challenges to those in Rogers.
Potential Impact: Would allow the City to continue to utilize revenue derived from franchise fee agreements for local road maintenance and rehabilitation.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: LAP Guiding Principle: Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities;
Protect local revenue sources and prevent
unfunded mandates;
City Position: Support
AB 2385 (Petrie-Norris) – Local reconstruction agencies Summary: This bill authorizes local governments to establish a local reconstruction agency (LRA) with broad powers to coordinate recovery efforts in an area impacted by disaster. This bill allows an LRA to utilize property tax increment financing and to issue bonds. This bill specifies the board structure of an LRA and requires the LRA to specify a date on which it will cease to exist. This date must not be more than 45 years from the date on which a bond is issued, or the issuance of a loan is approved.
This bill also expands the ability of a disaster recovery plan, and ordinances a local government is already statutorily authorized to prepare in order to facilitate fast and efficient recovery and reconstruction following a disaster, to cover the full span of the recovery process. This bill specifies the elements that may be included in the contingency plan of action and organization and requires LCI and Cal OES to provide assistance with plans and ordinances.
Potential Impact: In the event of a disaster, would provide the City a means of generating long-term revenue to aid with the disaster recovery.
Enforcement: N/A
Legislative Advocacy Policy (LAP) Alignment: Emergency Management LAP: Supports federal and state efforts to help mitigate the economic
impacts from all-hazard emergencies on the City
and its’ businesses and residents.
City Position: Support
June 9, 2026
The Honorable Patrick Ahrens
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2231 (Ahrens): California Environmental Quality Act: Hospital Projects City of Santa Clara – Notice of Support
Dear Assembly Member Ahrens,
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I am pleased to express our support for AB 2231 (Ahrens), which adopts a targeted and time -sensitive approach to advancing the development of critical health care infrastructure in California. While projects of this scale have important local implications, including impacts on infrastructure, public, services, and long -term land use planning, AB 2231 preserves the City’s role in evaluating the project through its local land use discretionary authority and does not predetermine the outcome of any City entitlement, fiscal, operational, or mitigation decision.
AB 2231 would provide a streamlined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for qualifying hospital construction projects in the Cities of Emeryville and Santa Clara and would require project applicants to meet defined labor standards, including the payment of prevailing wages and the use of a skilled and trained workforce. This measure responds to the urgent need to expedite hospital construction timelines in the face of anticipated f ederal health care funding reductions and increasing demand for medical services.
Delays associated with litigation and extended judicial review can impose significant project delays and undermine the feasibility of essential hospital projects. By establishing a streamlined CEQA review process, alongside strong labor protections, AB 2231 is intended to balance the need to accelerate project delivery with the goal of maintaining high-quality workforce standards.
Sutter Health’s Santa Clara project represents a rare milestone, a net-new hospital for the State of California. At a time when many hospitals across the state are struggling and/or forced to reduce their services, this project will add entirely new inpati ent and emergency services to one of California’s fastest growing regions.
Santa Clara County currently has approximately 1.4 inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 residents, a level that reflects an already stressed patient access environment. As population growth and patient acuity continue to rise, the absence of new hospital capa city will further exacerbate challenges unless new facilities are brought online.
The Santa Clara campus is planned as a flagship medical hub, integrating acute inpatient care, emergency services, maternal health, and advanced specialty care in a coordinated setting. The hospital could reduce travel times, improve care coordination, and help relieve pressure on surrounding facilities that are already operating at or near capacity , subject to the City’s independent review of the project and its potential impacts through the discretionary land use entitlement process and without limiting the City’s authority to impose feasible conditions of approval, mitigation measures, community benefit agreement terms, or other requirements authorized by law. The hospital will not only serve Santa Clara County patients, but those from the broader region in addition to any complex patients that require hospital services.
Additionally, the Santa Clara campus will help retain the City’s diverse employment base, invest in modern medical facilities, and help meet the demand for services required to support new residential development and the existing community.
AB 2231 reflects a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to addressing emerging challenges facing California’s health care system. By enabling critical hospital projects to move forward more efficiently, the bill supports continued access to essential medical services, enhances regional capacity, and strengthens ov erall system resilience. At the same time, its focused geographic scope and clear labor requirements ensure that these benefits are achieved in a manner that remains consistent with broader public policy objectives, including workforce development and economic stability. The City’s support for the bill reflects this policy objective, while recognizing the importance of preserving local authority to evaluate and address project -specific impacts as well as long -term operational and fiscal sustainability through its discreti onary approvals and established implementation process. The City will continue to work in partnership with Sutter Health with the objective of ensuring the project is thoughtfully integrated into the community and implemented in a manner that supports long -term sustainability and addresses project -specific impacts.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports AB 2231 (Ahrens) and appreciates your leadership on this important issue, as well as your continued efforts to advance policies that strengthen California’s health care infrastructure and support our communities.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara