Click Below for Important Information
Senate Appropriations
· AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry) Communications: broadband services: California Advanced Services Fund ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 33 (Ting) Energy Conservation Assistance Act of 1979: energy storage systems and electric vehicle charging infrastructure: Native American tribes ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 43 (Friedman) Traffic safety ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 46 (Rivas, Luz) California Youth Empowerment Act ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 48 (Gonzalez, Lorena) Law enforcement: kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents｜ Cities position: Oppose
· AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer) Peace officers: minimum qualifications ｜ Cities position: Oppose
· AB 215 (Chiu) Housing element: regional housing need: relative progress determination ｜ Cal Cities position: Oppose
· AB 339 (Lee) Local government: open and public meetings ｜ Cal Cities position: Oppose
· AB 500 (Ward) Local planning: coastal development: affordable housing ｜Cal Cities position: Oppose
· AB 585 (Rivas, Luz) Climate change: Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 602 (Grayson) Development fees: impact fee nexus study ｜Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend
· AB 758 (Nazarian) Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985: electric utilities: rate reduction bonds ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 816 (Chiu) Homelessness: Housing Trust Fund: housing projects ｜Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend
· AB 838 (Friedman) State Housing Law: enforcement response to complaints ｜Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend
· AB 897(Mullin) Office of Planning and Research: regional climate networks: regional climate adaptation and resilience action plans ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 1311 (Wood) Recycling: beverage containers ｜Cal Cities position: Support
· AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and commercial development: remodeling, renovations, and additions: parking requirements ｜ Cal Cities position: Oppose
Priority Bill Summaries
Cal Cities strongly supports AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry), the subject of a broadband action alert. The measure would prioritize the deployment of broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities throughout California through the ongoing collection of the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) surcharge. The bill would also expand the definition of “unserved” to include areas with speeds slightly faster than dial-up, which is obsolete in an internet-driven economy.
Unfortunately, AB 48 (Gonzalez, Lorena) would severely limit the tools at a police officer’s disposal to protect public safety. The bill’s broad restrictions do not consider the dynamic and sometimes unruly nature of public demonstrations. Cal Cities opposes the measure as peace officers need non-lethal options for atypical situations that involve violence or significant risk to infrastructure.
Cal Cities also opposes AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer), which would increase a police officer candidate’s age from 18 to 25, unless they have obtained a college degree prior to being hired. The measure would narrow the pool of eligible candidates to unattainable levels for smaller agencies. Moreover, due to different rates of college enrollment and graduation, the requirements would also hinder the recruitment of officers of color.
AB 339 (Lee) would require city councils and boards of supervisors in jurisdictions with over 250,000 residents to provide in-person and a two-way telephonic option or a two-way internet-based service option for the public to attend their meetings. While this measure has been amended significantly from when it was introduced, it still contains fatal flaws that potentially hinder cities’ ability to be transparent and accessible. As such, Cal Cities opposes the bill.
Two housing-related bills are up for consideration. AB 215 (Chiu) would create a new, mid-cycle regional housing needs progress determination process that does not account for variation in local economies. Moreover, the measure would require cities with “low progress” in meeting those housing targets to consult with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adopt new pro-housing policies. Cal Cities opposes the bill, as it turns what was meant to be an incentive program into a mandatory requirement for some jurisdictions.
Finally, Cal Cities opposes AB 1401 (Friedman), as its definition of “public transit” would give developers and transit agencies — who are unaccountable to local voters — the power to determine parking requirements. Additionally, the bill could negatively impact the State’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring them to include affordable housing units in the project.