Which bills survived the suspense file slash?
By Cal Cities Staff
Friday morning, lawmakers hacked their way through some 1,000 bills on the aptly named suspense file. As usual, the biannual culling had mixed results for cities, with most of Cal Cities’ priority bills — good or bad — advancing to the next legislative hurdle.
Most of Cal Cities’ sponsored bills passed through the gauntlet, including ones that would provide greater clarity in the housing element review process, address encampments, increase oversight of unlicensed sober living homes, and help cities prepare for disasters. Cal Cities also scored some big wins with measures that threaten local budgets.
As a reminder, the Assembly and Senate appropriations committees meet twice a year to review the impact of hundreds of measures on the state’s coffers. Holding a bill in the suspense file effectively kills it for the year. But those that make it off the suspense file are hardly safe — especially this year. The state is on its third consecutive budget shortfall.
Given that lawmakers held essentially the same number of bills they did last spring, they will likely need to axe a few more before the year ends.
-Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor
Revenue and Taxation
The suspense hearing produced mixed results for the Revenue and Taxation portfolio, as both SB 86 (McNerney) and SB 710 (Blakespear) passed off the suspense file. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee altered both bills.
The committee changed SB 86, a bill that would permanently extend and raise the annual cap of a sales and use tax exclusion administered by CAEATFA, to include a five-year sunset provision and reduce the amount of the sales and use tax exclusion. SB 710, which seeks to indefinitely extend the property tax exemption for installing behind-the-meter solar energy systems, only received technical amendments despite having an estimated $11 million fiscal impact on property taxes. However, Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s office has committed to addressing the concerns raised by Cal Cities.
Even with these amendments, it will be interesting to see how the Legislature squares the remaining fiscal impacts of these bills with the looming $12 billion budget deficit.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 265 (Caloza) Small Business and Nonprofit Recovery Fund Act
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - AB 330 (Rogers) Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - SB 696 (Alvarado-Gil) Sales and Use Tax Law: exemptions: firefighting equipment
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Held in Committee)
- Ben Triffo, legislative advocate
Environmental Quality
Surprisingly few of Cal Cities’ priority environmental bills were held, suggesting favorable odds for future policy negotiations on key legislation related to disaster preparedness, water supply, environmental review, and more.
The two Cal Cities-sponsored disaster and wildfire preparedness bills — AB 262 (Caloza) and AB 846 (Connolly) — passed off the Assembly suspense file with minor changes. AB 262 would now make proposed clarifications to California’s disaster assistance funding contingent upon a future appropriation. Legislators took out a mapping requirement in AB 846 to provide fiscal relief to the state. The measure would still provide local agencies with a voluntary, streamlined path to secure permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife for vegetation management.
On the water supply front, SB 454 (McNerney) sailed through Senate Appropriations. Co-sponsored by Cal Cities, the bill would establish a fund to help remove PFAS from water supplies, contingent on a future funding allocation.
Another bill sponsored by Cal Cities, AB 996 (Pellerin), also survived the suspense file. It would help coastal and bay cities comply with required sea level rise planning but no longer includes a coastal planning fund. The measure would still create an early consultation process between cities developing sea level rise plans and the California Coastal Commission, as well as clarify that existing sea level rise information or plans may meet one or all the components of the mandated sea level rise plans.
Other priority bills include:
- SB 682 (Allen) Product safety: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - SB 607 (Wiener) CEQA: categorical exemption: infill projects
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
- AB 222 (Bauer Kahan) Data centers: energy usage reporting: electricity rates
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - AB 261 (Quirk-Silva) Fire safety: fire hazard severity zones: State Fire Marshal
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
- AB 986 (Muratsuchi) State and local emergency: landslides and climate change
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - AB 1313 (Papan) Water quality: permits
Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended (Status: Passed)
- Melissa Sparks-Kranz, legislative advocate
Community Services
In recent weeks, the spotlight has been on homelessness, as the Governor released a model ordinance urging swift action on encampments — without committing any new funding to support cities' efforts. At the same time, the administration placed an inflated price tag on a Cal Cities co-sponsored bill that would increase coordination between state agencies and cities when addressing encampments. Despite the high price tag, SB 569 (Blakespear) passed out of appropriations with only one no vote coming from Sen. Aisha Wahab.
However, Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s SB 16 advanced out of appropriations without Cal Cities' requested changes. The bill mandates detailed homelessness data in housing elements for all but 14 cities. Cal Cities opposes the measure unless amended to instead include smaller cities in the existing regional planning process. While the author’s office has indicated a willingness to address Cal Cities' concerns, the bill has not yet been amended.
After failing in appropriations last year, SB 35 (Umberg) passed off the suspense file. The Cal Cities-sponsored bill would require the Department of Health Care Services to conduct more timely and thorough investigations of unlicensed sober living homes accused of violating state licensure law. The department claimed SB 35 would cost millions to implement to stop the bill. Following advocacy from Southern California cities, SB 35 now heads to the Senate floor.
Other priority bills include:
- SB 329 (Blakespear) Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor/Support (Status: Passed) - SB 692 (Arreguín) Vehicles: homelessness
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
- AB 543 (González) Medi-Cal: street medicine
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
- Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate
Housing, Community, and Economic Development
The Cal Cities-sponsored AB 650 (Papan) passed with unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, continuing its trend of moving forward without impediment. This measure would allow local governments to begin the housing element process six months earlier and provide greater certainty in the review process. The measure goes to the Assembly Floor next and must pass by June 6.
On the other hand, several bills that disregard state-certified housing elements also made it out, including SB 79 (Wiener). The measure would force local governments near specific rail transit stations to approve tall, high-density residential housing by-right and grant land use authority to transit agencies without any requirement for affordable housing. The measure passed with a 4-2 vote.
Senate Appropriations Chair Anna Caballero said amendments to the bill will revise the definition of an “urban transit county,” add a severability clause, delete Surplus Land Act provisions, and remove light industrial zones from the bill. Cal Cities will review the changes when they are in print. In the meantime, cities should reach out to their senators expressing opposition to the measure. SB 79 now heads to the Senate Floor, where it will need to pass by early June.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 610 (Alvarez) Housing element: governmental constraints: disclosure statement
Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended (Status: Passed) - AB 906 (Gonzalez, Mark) Planning and zoning: housing elements: affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended (Status: Passed) - AB 1294 (Haney) Planning and zoning: housing development: standardized application form.
Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended (Status: Passed)
- Brady Guertin, legislative advocate
Transportation, Communications, and Public Works
Despite flying out of both Senate Environmental Quality and Senate Transportation with bipartisan support, the Senate Appropriations Committee held SB 496 (Hurtado). This was somewhat surprising, given that most members of the Senate Appropriations Committee supported the bill in either of the two policy committees.
The Cal Cities-sponsored bill would have created an appeals board within the California Air Resource Board to review denials to cities’ requests for extensions when complying with the Advance Clean Fleet rule. It also would have broadened the definition of an “emergency” as it relates to exemptions and deleted the “pay-to-play” provision that forces cities to buy a zero-emission vehicle to qualify for an extension to build out the infrastructure to electrify that vehicle.
On a positive note, the Cal Cities-sponsored AB 476 (Gonzalez) passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure cleared prior committee hearings with unanimous support, sending a strong signal to the Senate. The bill would establish enhanced enforcement and reporting mechanisms to combat copper and other non-ferrous metal theft within public infrastructure.
Cal Cities convinced the committee to hold AB 1022 (Kalra). The measure sought to strip away one of the few remaining tools cities have to enforce parking laws. Cal Cities argued that the legislation would result in a cascade of fiscal damage: lost revenue, increased administrative costs, decreased compliance, harm to local businesses, public safety risks, and overall reduced effectiveness of municipal government operations.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 911 (Carrillo): Emergency Telecommunications medium-and-heavy duty zero-emission vehicles
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - AB 620 (Jackson): Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Fleet Purchasing Assistance Program: rental vehicles
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - SB 431 (Arreguin): Assault and battery: Public works employees
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
SB 283 (Laird): Battery Energy Storage Systems
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)SB 74 (Seyarto): Infrastructure Gap Funding
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor (Status: Held)
- Damon Conklin, legislative advocate
Public Safety
The majority of Cal Cities’ public safety bills passed, including key measures on home hardening and fire insurance. However, Senate Appropriations held one of the few bills that would have helped implement Proposition 36, last year’s public safety ballot measure. Cal Cities supported SB 38 (Umberg), which would have allowed behavioral health and collaborative courts to receive funding distributed by the Board and State Community Corrections from Prop. 47 savings.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 1 (Connolly) Residential Property Insurance: Wildfire Risk
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - AB 888 (Calderon) California Safe Homes Grant Program
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed) - SB 6 (Ashby) Controlled Substances: Xylazine
Cal Cities Position: Support (Status: Passed)
Jolena Voorhis, legislative advocate
Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations
In a win for cities, Assembly Appropriations turned AB 1383 (McKinnor) into a two-year bill and held AB 465 (Zbur) on the suspense file. AB 1383 would have made several major changes to public employees’ retirement benefits and led to increased pension costs for local governments. AB 465 would have required a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between a local agency and a union to incorporate due process rights for disciplined employees. This would have included a "grievance procedure" that culminates with compulsory final and binding arbitration for all disputes over the interpretation or application of the MOU.
Unfortunately, AB 339 (Ortega) passed with amendments. This bill, like previous unsuccessful proposals, would undermine local agencies’ ability to contract for public services. This sweeping change to the fundamental work of local governments would require cities to give a union no less than 120 days written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classifications.
AB 339 undermines existing provisions in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act that ensure negotiating parties can reach a final agreement on an MOU and deters local agencies from working in partnership with local community organizations that provide critical local services.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 340 (Ahrens) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications
Cal Cities Position: Oppose (Status: Passed)
- AB 614 (Lee) Claims against public entities
Cal Cities Position: Oppose (Status: Held)
- AB 1337 (Ward) Information Practices Act of 1977
Cal Cities Position: Oppose (Status: Passed with Amendments)
- Johnnie Pina, legislative advocate
Next steps
Lawmakers have until June 6 to get their bills to their colleagues in the other house. After that, legislators repeat the policy committee process, with July 18 marking the last day for committees to meet.
Bills that make it to the floor of the second house usually make it to the Governor’s desk. That means this summer is the best time to stop bad bills in their tracks and ensure helpful bills pass. To learn how you can make your voice heard, contact your regional public affairs manager.