State Bills in Brief: May 15-23

A weekly primer on the bills and committee hearings that have a direct impact on cities

By Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor. Additional contributions by the Cal Cities Advocacy Team

The Legislature’s twice-annual culling of bills is set for Thursday. Each year, committees place hundreds of bills with major financial impacts on the suspense file. Some make it out and live to fight another day. The rest die a quiet, albeit sometimes temporary, death.

Cal Cities is tracking over 300 of the nearly 800 bills that lawmakers need to get past the powerful appropriations committees. The appropriations chairpersons told CalMatters they expect to approve fewer bills this year due to the state’s massive budget shortfall. Lawmakers will repeat the process later this year when bills switch houses.

That’s a lot of bills. So for this week’s State Bills in Brief, we’re focusing on the ones with the biggest possible impacts to cities — including local government revenues, public safety, and housing plans. Some of them are the subject of recent action alerts. A more detailed report will be available next week.

For information about bills scheduled for a committee hearing through May 23, keep reading. To learn what each section means — or to access a previous State Bills in Brief — visit the archive page.

Hot bills

Cal Cities is tracking over 300 bills referred to the suspense file. These are the most important ones.

Expanded unemployment benefits for striking workers

• Unemployment benefits for 26 weeks. SB 1116 (Portantino) would allow striking workers to draw unemployment benefits after two weeks. Cal Cities opposes the measure due to the severe, downward pressure it would apply to city budgets.
• Didn't this already fail? When the Governor vetoed a similar measure last year, he said, “Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt.” This should hold true this year, as the state is grappling with a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Strike bill jeopardizes city services

• Undermining MOUs and services. AB 2404 (Lee) would make sympathy striking and honoring the picket line a human right. It would also allow nearly any employee to strike regardless of their job duties and employer agreements. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• This sounds familiar. As it should. Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a similar measure last year, citing its potential to seriously disrupt or even halt the delivery of critical public services, particularly in places where public services are co-located.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Constricting government contracts

•  A prohibition in all but name. AB 2489 (Ward) would sharply curb cities’ ability to hire government contractors with unnecessary and inflexible requirements. This comes as the state asks local agencies to do less with more. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• But why? This bill proposes sweeping changes to the basic, administrative functions of local government.
• When was the hearing? May 15 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Well-intended ‘granny flat’ bill leaves cities holding the bag

• Robbing Peter to pay Paul. SB 1164 (Newman) would exempt new accessory dwelling units (ADU) from property tax assessment for 15 years if the owner makes a “good faith effort” to ensure the unit will be used as residential housing. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• Unfounded claim. The author argues that an increase in property tax is a “substantial disincentive” to the construction of new ADUs. The numbers do not back this claim.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Development fee restrictions would restrict critical services

• What would the bill do? AB 1820 (Schiavo) would require cities to provide an itemized list during the preliminary application process within 20 days of a developer’s request. Cal Cities will oppose the measure unless the author provides a longer timeline, clarifies which fees it affects, and states that such estimations are nonbinding.
• Why it matters. Local governments cannot raise property taxes. With very few ways to fund services, they must rely on impact fees to build new roads, sewer lines, fire stations, and even affordable housing.
• When was the hearing? May 15 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Inflexible contract requirements

• A de facto prohibition. AB 2557 (Ortega) would dramatically curb local agency service contracts due to its onerous obligations and costs. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• Nearly 5,000 impacted agencies. AB 2557 would require cities and contractors to adopt sweeping new notification, reporting, and auditing measures. If passed, it would directly undercut statewide policy goals and partnerships, including the Homeless Housing and Prevention program.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Builder’s remedy safeguards come with a price

• The good. AB 1893 (Wicks) would place some guardrails on builder’s remedy projects by restricting their location and density. Cities could also use objective development standards in some circumstances.
• The bad. Cities could no longer reject certain housing developments if they have met or exceeded their state housing goals. Cal Cities has taken an oppose unless amended position on AB 1893. The state should specify how cities can get a compliant housing element to avoid things like the builder’s remedy before further restricting local control.
• When was the hearing? May 15 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Major retail theft bill heads to suspense

• What would it do? AB 2943 (Rivas and Zbur) would create a new crime of “serial retail theft,” allow police to arrest shoplifters without witnessing the crime, and allow prosecutors to aggregate certain offenses, increase probation terms, and extend the Organized Retail Theft Statute. Cal Cities supports the measure if it is amended.
• Possible changes. Cal Cities is seeking changes that bring the bill in line with case law (People v. Bailey), allow police to use unsworn statements if they demonstrate probable cause, and clarify what successful probation looks like.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Retail theft aggregation

• Grand theft larceny. AB 1794 (McCarty) would clarify that prosecutors can aggregate the value of items stolen in multiple thefts into a single felony charge. Cal Cities supports the measure.
• Now you see me, now you don’t. Thieves often steal small amounts of items under $950 across multiple businesses to avoid penalties.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Retail theft damages

• Enhanced sentencing. AB 1960 (Soria) would impose stiffer penalties for property loss or damage that occurred during a felony. Cal Cities supports the measure.
• Why it matters. Some shoplifters are destroying property to cause a distraction or gain easier access to high-value goods.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Stronger penalties for fentanyl traffickers

• Stiffer penalties. AB 3171 (Soria) would increase the penalties for holding smaller quantities of fentanyl — specifically for those with the intent to sell. Cal Cities supports the measure.
• A continued crisis. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Protection named fentanyl the deadliest drug in the U.S. Many people are unaware that they are even taking fentanyl, making them more susceptible to overdose or even death.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Controlled substance list update

• Proactive measure. SB 1502 (Ashby) would create penalties for the illicit position, use, sale, and trafficking of xylazine — also known as “tranq.” Cal Cities supports the measure.
• A dangerous combination. A non-opiate sedative and muscle relaxant, xylazine can be deadly when combined with opioids. Officials have linked the drug to a growing number of overdose deaths in California.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Better recovery housing oversight

• A Cal Cities-sponsored measure. SB 913 (Umberg) would allow cities to collaborate with the state to investigate and enforce existing recovery home licensing laws.
• Why it matters. Residential recovery housing provides a range of benefits to some of California’s most vulnerable residents. Their needs must be prioritized over profits.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Improper recovery home reporting

• Improved reporting. AB 2574 (Valencia) would expand reporting requirements for licensed treatment facility operators operating as an integral part of a licensed treatment facility located elsewhere in the community. Cal Cities is sponsoring the measure.
• What’s good for the goose. Some licensed facilities provide services to the residents of a sober living home but do not include the sober living home in the facility’s licensure, causing regulators to treat them like businesses.
• When was the hearing? May 15 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Cal Cities-sponsored measure would help reduce methane emissions

• No wasted efforts. SB 972 (Min) would require CalRecycle to strengthen its assistance efforts to help cities actively working to reduce organic waste in landfills and methane emissions. The agency would also need to report back to the Legislature on the organic waste diversion progress and how to better align the law with the state’s other climate goals.
• Room for improvement. A 2023 report found that the amount of organic waste in landfills increased by a million tons between 2014 and 2020. If the state wants to reverse this trend, it needs to provide greater local assistance and accountability.
• When is the hearing?  May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

A voluntary, streamlined path for wildfire preparedness

• A Cal Cities-sponsored measure. AB 2330 (Holden) would streamline the process for environmental permitting of fuel management in Fire Hazard Severity Zones near urban communities while upholding environmental laws and permitting authorities.
• Catastrophic wildfires. The size and severity of wildfires in California have increased, with seven of the 20 largest wildfires and the top two most destructive wildfires occurring over the past seven years. However, long timelines are delaying local efforts in areas most at risk of catastrophic wildfires.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Local agency ethics training

• Every two years. AB 2631 (Fong) would ensure that an ethics training course remains free online indefinitely. Cal Cities is co-sponsoring the measure with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
• Why now? The FPPC may no longer be able to provide the program due to budget restraints. Additionally, about 2,000 new agencies and several thousand agency officials will become subject to these training requirements starting in 2025.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Retention bill ignores external factors

• An unfunded mandate. AB 2561 (McKinnor) would require local agencies to produce, implement, and publish plans to reduce union vacancy rates that exceed 10% for over six months. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• Right problem. Flawed approach. Many cities are actively taking steps to reduce vacancy rates and address retention challenges. Cities are committed to working collaboratively on the issue, but diverting staff away from core service delivery to produce reports on vacancy rates will not fill key city positions.
• When is the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Another familiar labor bill

• What would the bill do? AB 2421’s (Low) would restrict internal investigations to the detriment of employees and the public. It could limit investigations into workplace harassment, misconduct, and safety as well as silence witnesses. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
• What the last Governor said. When Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure in 2013, he noted it would put a union agent on equal footing with one’s spouse, priest, doctor, or lawyer.
• When was the hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (suspense file).

Other bills to watch

Lawmakers also plan to adopt amendments to a self-driving car oversight bill.

Autonomous vehicle oversight

• What would the bill do? SB 915 (Cortese) would allow some cities to regulate autonomous vehicle services. It would also allow local law enforcement and first responders to intervene when a driverless vehicle interrupts an emergency response.
• What is Cal Cities’ position? Cal Cities supports the measure.
• When is the next hearing? May 16, upon adjournment of session, Senate Appropriations Committee (Suspense File).

View all tracked bill hearings.