City-led advocacy needed for state budget asks; key transportation, Brown Act, and cannabis bills

With Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget proposal and the results of the first suspense file announced, California’s legislative session is in full swing. Cal Cities is closely engaging lawmakers on several key issues, including its state budget ask and three key bills related to transportation, Brown Act, and cannabis. City support is needed to pass — or stop — these measures.

Cal Cities’ advocacy efforts are strongest when joined by the voices of city leaders. Now is the time to let your elected representatives know how these bills could impact your community. To learn how you can take action after reading this article, visit the Action Center for a list of priority legislative proposals and sample letters of support or opposition.

$1.6 billion for housing, organic waste recycling, and unfunded mandates

One of Cal Cities’ top advocacy priorities is its $1.6 billion state budget ask, which would provide funding for a new housing program, organic waste recycling, and certain unfunded mandates. Earlier this month, the Governor announced that the state’s estimated budget surplus has grown to an unprecedented $97.5 billion.

Cities throughout the state have long cited the lack of consistent state funding as a major barrier to increased housing. Cal Cities is calling on the state to allocate $500 million for a new Housing and Economic Development Program. The program would encourage partnerships between state and local agencies by providing matching funds to cities that adopt local tax increment financing tools that support affordable housing, essential infrastructure, and economic development.

Cal Cities is also urging lawmakers to include $933.5 million in the budget for unfunded state mandate costs incurred after 2004. Of that amount, $466.6 million is owed to cities.

The pandemic demonstrated the vital role that cities play in California's economy and the important services they provide to the public. A strong city budget creates strong, resilient communities and this allocation would help ensure that cities can continue to meet shared local and state priorities and continue to provide essential services to their communities.  

Additionally, Cal Cities is calling for a $180 million allocation to help cities and counties develop and implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016) organic waste recycling programs. This funding would help local governments implement collection, education, outreach, edible food recovery, procurement activities, and capacity planning, and minimize the financial burden these regulations could have on taxpayers.

Transportation bill mandates a one-size-fits-all approach to active transportation and climate change

A transportation bill with potentially negative impacts to cities is working through the Legislature, AB 2237 (Friedman).

The Cal Cities-opposed bill proposes an overly prescriptive approach to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008). The bill — which is based on incomplete data — would strip away local flexibility and divert funding away from local streets and roads projects.  

The bill would impose new and sometimes unclear state funding requirements and allow the California Air Resources Board to reallocate those funds for active transportation projects regardless of the needs of a community. It would also institute a zero-tolerance threshold for transportation projects that may increase vehicle miles traveled, threatening many fix-it-first and safety projects.

AB 2237 is based on incorrect conclusions from the California Transportation Assessment Report which excluded many local expenditures and local project-level data. Additionally, a zero-tolerance policy for vehicle miles traveled or greenhouse gas emissions is an impractical and unworkable one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, projects should be evaluated based on greenhouse gas reductions relative to existing infrastructure and safety needs.

Senate bill could drastically impact local cannabis ordinances and decision-making

Cal Cities also opposes SB 1186 (Wiener), which would eliminate cities’ ability to prohibit medical cannabis retail activities, regardless of the needs of their residents. It would also restrict the ability of many cities to set local regulations developed in a public process and would require every city to prepare regulatory ordinances in anticipation of retail delivery applicants.

The ability of local jurisdictions to regulate cannabis retailers was central to the passage of both the original Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and Proposition 64 and is integral to the combined Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.

The Legislature worked closely with stakeholders to create a regulatory framework for medical cannabis more than a year before Proposition 64 was enacted. That framework later served as the foundation for the regulatory structure provided in the adult-use scheme. In the construction of both frameworks, the crafters recognized the critical need for local control, primarily as part of cities' and counties' land-use authority. 

SB 1186 would undermine that carefully negotiated framework between the Legislature and local governments. Changing the local rules while the state is still in the implementation phase of the regulatory framework will impede the gradual, but consistent, progress that local jurisdictions have made toward expanding cannabis retail permitting throughout the state. The bill would also severely undermine cities’ ability to regulate cannabis and imposes a significant cost on local governments in the process. 

Assembly bill proposes Brown Act Reform

The pandemic highlighted many opportunities for meaningful reform, including California's open meetings law, the Brown Act. The pandemic showed that remote participation can be effective, transparent, and encourage participation from a broader portion of the public.

Although current law does allow for teleconferencing outside of a declared state of emergency, it imposes several requirements, some of which pose serious public safety concerns. For example, cities must post the location an individual is teleconferencing from, and members of the public must be allowed to participate in the meeting at the same location.

Lawmakers have introduced a number of bills that would modernize the Brown Act, including   AB 1944 (Lee and C. Garcia), which Cal Cities supports. The bill finds the right balance between expanding public access to local government meetings and addressing health and safety concerns.

AB 1944 would allow members of local legislative bodies to virtually attend public meetings without making their address public when certain requirements are met. It would require legislative bodies that choose to opt-in to AB 1944 to make a livestream of the meeting available to the public and allow for virtual public participation.