The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/7/2026 Item 6c, Luo Yiming Luo <yluo11@calpoly.edu> Sent:Sunday, April To:E-mail Council Website Subject:4/5/2025 comment Item 6c - Legislative Action Platform attached Attachments:20260405_CalLegPlatform.pdf Hi council, Please see the attached comment about the legislative action platform. Thanks, Yiming 1 Hi council and staff, I’m writing in as a resident of SLO and not of Cal Poly for the first time! I have some suggestions for additions to the proposed Legislative Action Platform. 1. Opposing restrictions on e-bikes and micromobility AB 1942 (Rebecca-Kahan) would require owners of Class 2 and 3 e-bikes to register with the DMV and display license plates, creating unnecessary barriers to active transportation which in fact align with climate and VMT goals.1 Another bill, AB 1557 (Papan) would enact a strict 750-watt peak power limit and a 250-watt continuous limit for Class 1 and 2 bikes, and lower the assistance cutoff from 20 mph to 16 mph.2 Enacting this 250 watt limit would make cargo e-bikes and e-bikes for multiple passengers effectively useless for people, for example, going to Cal Poly and riding up Grand Ave. Dropping the maximum speed from 20 mph to 16 mph actually makes riding more unsafe, as riders will not be able to keep up with traffic, and it increases the amount of conflict on the road when cars must constantly pass e-bikes. Under California Vehicle Code, SLOPD is already empowered to stop, cite, and impound illegal off- road vehicles, including e-motorcycles. When we are unable to enforce the laws we already have on the book against unsafe riding, the answer is not more legislation which targets legal e-bike riders, but rather increased enforcement, continued implementation of traffic calming measures, and Complete Streets projects to proactively encourage safe riding behavior. I request that the council add into the platform that the City will “oppose legislation or state mandates that impose mandatory licensing, registration requirements, or other restrictions on people using e-bicycles and micromobility.” 2. Supporting SB 1216 – housing leadership designation Another bill related to housing is SB 1216, which would establish a new “housing leadership designation” on top of the pro-housing designation that the city currently has. Cities with the designation could3: •exempt themselves from SB 9 •exempt themselves from state lot size/setback maximums •get a 90-day grace period to cure housing element/housing law violations •set a maximum height limit immune to density bonus; for example, a developer could still use the density bonus, but the city would be able to cap the height to 65 feet. To qualify for this designation, a city would have to have issued a number of building permits each year over in the past five years. This number is based on the ratio of median home price and median family income. Based on our ratio, we would need to permit ten units per 1,000 residents every year in the past five years to qualify for this classification.4 5 Our population at the 2020 census was 47,063, so that would mean 470 permits issued per year to meet this requirement. From 2020 to 2024, the city actually exceeded this target, permitting 2,453 total units, or 490.6 per year.6 This bill is a win-win for everyone, as it would return local control to the City based on building permits issued, creating a cycle of accountability and returning height limits and lot split controls back to the discretion of the City Council when we do permit more housing. The City should issue a position letter supporting SB 1216. 1 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1942 2 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1557 3 https://cayimby.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/SB-1216-Fact-Sheet-Housing-Leadership-Designation.pdf 4 https://www.realtor.com/local/market/california/san-luis-obispo-county/san-luis-obispo (HUD numbers are not available for FY 26) 5 https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2024.S2503?q=income&g=310XX00US42020 6 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard 3. Supporting legislation that strengthens DUI laws and protects the community from drunk drivers A recent CalMatters investigation found that California has “some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.”7 California law allows drunk drivers to get their license back after only three years after their third DUI, compared to a permanent revocation in Connecticut. CalMatters even found a person in Fresno that was still driving after sixteen DUIs. More than a decade ago, a 2016 bill was passed that required in-car breathalyzers for repeat DUI offenders.8 But worryingly, judges are allowed to use discretion on whether to require the devices or not, and according to a 2022 report, judges in SLO County ordered the installation of in-car breathalyzers for a whopping 0.7% of all DUI offenders, or nine out of 1274.9 AB 1830, recently introduced in the Legislature, would require all convicted DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device.10 Additionally, AB 1686 would allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony on their second offense within ten years.11 Right now, it takes an astonishing four DUIs with 10 years before prosecutors can charge someone with a felony. Our city exists at the intersection of a large student population and a region surrounded by wineries and other alcohol-focused tourism, which makes it even more important for our city to support these common sense measures. These proposed laws would fix loopholes and make SLO safer by reducing the incidence of drunk driving. A report by the California State Transportation Agency showed that “the recidivism reductions with 100 percent installation rates correspond to … 16.9 percent reduction for DUI recidivism, 25.9 percent reduction for crash recidivism, and 17.2 percent reduction for crash-with- injury recidivism).”12 The City should include in its legislative platform that it will “support legislation that strengthens and enhances driving under the influence (DUI) laws.” 4. Supporting legislation that requires state telework whenever possible Finally, the city should support bills that require state agencies to offer telework and work-from- home options, including but not limited to AB 1729, which requires agencies provide “detailed, written justification to the department and to the agency’s employees” if an agency requires its employees to report to a workplace.13 14 Working from home reduces VMT and GHG emissions, and has no negative effect on employee productivity. With gas prices these high, a return-to-office mandate is an effective pay cut for state employees. State employees working from home in SLO are able to buy groceries, eat out downtown, and spend their money here locally; if they are forced to move back to Sacramento, we lose those residents and that tax revenue. This is personal for me, as I got a remote internship working for a state agency recently, and I have continued this internship through the school year thanks to the telework option that the agency offered. Allowing state agencies the flexibility of telework opens up job opportunities at state agencies to residents of SLO and Cal Poly students without having to relocate to Sacramento or elsewhere. Thanks, Yiming 7 https://calmatters.org/investigation/2025/10/california-dui-failure/?series=license-to-kill 8 https://calmatters.org/investigation/2025/10/california-dui-failure/?series=license-to-kill 9 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2023/09/2022-DUI-MIS-Report.pdf 10 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1830 11 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1686 12 https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/ignition_interlock_evaluation-11-a11y.pdf 13 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1729 14 CHP, Cal Fire, and the Department of Corrections are exempted from this requirement.