What happened in the last, chaotic days of the legislative session?

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

It might be more appropriate to ask what didn’t happen last week. The fact that legislators had hundreds of measures left to pass is not unusual — that's just politics. But instead of the usual last-minute dash, the final week was dominated by gamesmanship, sudden proposals, and close votes. And it all came to a head on Saturday.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire batted down a special session on gas prices, high-profile bills stalled, and legislators in both houses literally held measures hostage. When it became clear that there wasn’t enough time to pass every item, Democratic leaders limited debate — much to the anger of their Republican colleagues.

In many ways, it was a fitting end to what has been an unusually chaotic year, punctuated with Hail Mary attempts on big policy shifts. Here are six key lessons for city leaders from the waning hours of the 2024 session.

Warehouse bill passes, but not without a fight

Mere days before the session ended, lawmakers proposed major restrictions to new warehouses and warehousing expansions in the form of AB 98 (Carillo, Juan and Reyes). The bill drew fierce opposition from Cal Cities, other local government associations, manufacturers, agricultural organizations, business groups, and even local chambers of commerce. Many legislative staff urged their bosses to vote no.

This last-minute rally forced those who negotiated the deal on the bill to hire even more lobbyists to get the measure out of both houses. Many lawmakers expressed concerns about the bill, citing the need for greater local flexibility, but few wanted to push back against a leadership priority.  

In the end, AB 98 is emblematic of policymakers' worst instincts: Ram through a big policy change with almost no vetting through the full, transparent legislative process. The final Senate votes were won based on the promise that clean-up legislation the following year would smooth things over. However, the fight is far from over, as Cal Cities and many others are requesting a veto from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

City advocacy pays off

Lawmakers also resurrected AB 1082 (Kalra) in the final days of the session. The measure would have removed cities’ ability to enforce parking rules and made it cheaper for people to accrue tickets than pay for parking. The bill drew wide opposition from cities and others, prompting key senators to change their votes to no.

Although AB 1082 ultimately died, lawmakers did pass AB 1777 (Ting). The bill would have treated driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel if it violated traffic laws. However, last-minute amendments mean the bill would now effectively prohibit law enforcement from ticketing reckless driving. Despite robust opposition, the bill squeaked off the Assembly Floor and onto the Governor’s desk.

Several other notable transportation measures made it out of the Legislature. The Cal Cities-opposed SB 1418 (Archuleta) would force all cities to expedite permits for hydrogen applications. Two measures that would make it easier for cities to comply with the state’s Advance Clean Fleet rule, AB 3179 (Carrillo) and AB 637 (Jackson), also passed. Cal Cities is requesting the Governor sign both AB 3179 and AB 637.

Labor and housing measures passed by tighter-than-expected votes

Key labor and housing measures faced tighter votes than usual, although that might be more reflective of budget concerns and shifting priorities from Democratic leadership than anything else.  

Sen. Aisha Wahab designed SB 399 to protect workers from adverse action if they refuse to attend a meeting about politics or religion. Although not directed at cities, the bill’s broad definition of “political matter” would treat many routine government functions as political matters, interfere with basic government operations, and create new legal risks for cities.

AB 2561 (McKinnor), a measure aimed at reducing vacancy rates, also passed. The measure would impose expensive and unnecessary requirements that would detract from efforts to recruit and retain workers. Notably, the final version would require all local agencies to have a vacancy rate hearing regardless of the vacancies in their cities.

On the housing side, SB 1037 (Wiener) passed, as did AB 2023 (Quirk-Silva). SB 1037 would allow the attorney general to seek new legal penalties if a city fails to plan for enough housing. AB 2023 would make it harder for a city to challenge claims that its housing element is out of compliance and reset the public review period for any new amendments requested by the state for a draft housing element.

Both housing measures had tighter votes than expected due to Cal Cities’ advocacy during the last week of session, but the measures still passed and are now headed to the Governor’s desk. Cal Cities is requesting a veto on all four measures.

Builder’s remedy measures advance, as do Cal Cities’ arguments

Two measures aimed at clarifying the builder’s remedy also moved to the Governor’s desk. AB 1886 (Alvarez) would ban cities from self-certifying housing plans that are “in substantial compliance with housing element law.” AB 1893 (Wicks) would prohibit objective standards on builder’s remedy projects and limit cities’ ability to reject some development projects.

Cal Cities is requesting a veto on both measures, in part because they set cities up to fail — even those acting in good faith. In its opposition, Cal Cities noted that the housing element process is broken: New laws often conflict with old ones, cities frequently receive unclear (or little) guidance, and many streamlining provisions are ambiguous at best.

This barrage of ambiguity creates uncertainty for developers and local agencies alike. Although it’s not clear if legislators will have the appetite to change this process next year, those arguments are starting to take hold.

Retail theft wrapped up ... for now

The two houses also passed AB 1960 (Rivas, Robert), a bill that would impose stiffer penalties for property loss or damage that occurred during a felony. Cal Cities supports the measure.

Earlier this year, Rivas elected to hold the measure, noting that it would duplicate other policies and conflict with this November’s Proposition 36. Asm. Esmeralda Soria previously carried the bill but removed her name in response to an ill-fated attempt to block Prop. 36.

Election security reform moves to Newsom’s desk (again)

Last, but not least for many elected officials: Lawmakers approved AB 2041 (Bonta, Mia), which would make it easier to use campaign funds for security expenses. Asm. Mia Bonta told KQED she introduced the bill due to the harassment she faced when running for office, a sentiment shared by many current and former local elected officials.

Although Gov. Gavin Newsom axed a similar proposal last year — also supported by Cal Cities — the measure has taken on clarifying amendments to address concerns raised in last year’s veto message.  

What’s next?

Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto any measures. This year, watch out for three factors. First, of course, is the election. Newsom leans to the center on economic and public safety issues, often to the chagrin of his progressive allies. And although California is a solidly blue state, the national political conversation will no doubt influence his actions.

Second, the Governor has readily and frequently vetoed bills with big price tags, citing the state’s economic misfortunes. Expect that trend to continue again this year. Perhaps most importantly: Legislators are growing frustrated with Newsom’s last-minute legislative proposals.

For more information about the remaining priority bills, sign up for Cal Cities’ Sept. 9 webinar on the top measures pending before the Governor.