Lawmakers introduced nearly 1,800 bills this year. Some should sound very familiar, especially for folks who followed last year’s legislative saga. There are bills on state homelessness funding, transit-oriented development, metal theft, wildfire liability, and local coastal plans. But legislators are also focused on a whole crop of new or new-ish issues.

Reconstruction agencies, offshore drilling, unsafe e-bike behavior, whippets, and public records requests have all risen to the top this year. And the Legislature has struck a slightly different tone in the housing space, with several bills focused on reducing construction costs, increasing factory-built housing, and spurring missing middle housing.

It’s a long list. But Cal Cities’ legislative team has sorted through the hundreds of bills and narrowed them down to a few dozen with the greatest impact. These are the most important bills to watch — and possibly act on — as the year unfolds.

-Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor

Community Services

The legislative session started with a proposed $500 million cut to the state’s flagship homelessness grant program. Cal Cities and its allies sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders urging them to restore the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program to its previous funding levels of $1 billion and commit to annual investments.

Cal Cities is also focused on ensuring that small and medium-sized cities can access those resources through a sponsored measure that would increase access to HHAP funding for cities with populations under 300,000. AB 1708 (Solache) would require regions to plan for funding homelessness programs and services in smaller cities and establish a clear, consistent process for cities to access funds. The bill passed out of the Assembly Housing Committee and is headed to the Assembly Human Services Committee.

Cities should also keep an eye on SB 866 (Blakespear). This bill would require all but 14 cities to add extensive homelessness reporting requirements to their housing elements — targeting cities that do not have access to state homelessness funding. Cal Cities has an oppose unless amended position on the measure and is advocating instead to include all cities in the existing regional planning processes. This would provide access to the same data SB 866 seeks to collect, but through the same process already used by the largest cities and counties.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 329 (Blakespear) Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations
  Cal Cities Position: Sponsor
• SB 490 (Umberg) Alcohol and drug programs
  Cal Cities Position: Sponsor

– Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate

Housing, Community, and Economic Development

The Legislature has struck a slightly different tone in the housing space, with several bills focused on reducing construction costs, increasing factory-built housing, and spurring missing middle housing through new subdivisions, condominiums, and townhomes. But lawmakers — and Cal Cities — are also focused on addressing other land use issues, including housing elements and the fallout from SB 79 (Wiener, 2025).

Sponsored by Cal Cities, AB 2296 (Papan) would improve the housing element review process by giving cities six more months to complete their housing elements. The measure would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide clearer direction in its review letters to local governments and schedule individualized technical assistance meetings with local planning staff during the 7th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Cycle, following the issuance of findings letters.

SB 79 (Wiener, 2025), one of Cal Cities’ priority bills last year, remains a focus in 2026. SB 79 squeaked through the Legislature after 13 rounds of amendments. So far, lawmakers have introduced five clean-up measures. Although the proposed legislation is a good start, Cal Cities believes the proposals do not do enough to help cities implement SB 79; the bill will officially become law in seven counties on July 1, according to HCD guidance released this March.

Cal Cities is advocating for the following changes to SB 79: Delay implementation until the 7th RHNA cycle, provide adequate time for each metropolitan planning organization to develop a map of transit-oriented development stops and zones, clarify Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing expectations, and require clear guidance and technical assistance from HCD.

Impact fees remain a topic of conversation, even after some bills stalled earlier this year due to Cal Cities’ advocacy. SB 1117 (Cervantes) would dramatically limit the amount of impact fees cities could collect for accessory dwelling units larger than 750 square feet. For example, if a project applicant proposes a 1,000-square-foot unit, local governments could only charge impact fees for 250 square feet. This would severely limit the funding for essential infrastructure and public services. Local agencies can only charge the amount necessary to provide services and infrastructure; these fees are not used to generate revenue. Cal Cities and a coalition of several local government groups oppose the measure.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 79 clean-up measures: AB 2415 (Hoover), AB 2576 (Harabedian), SB 677 (Wiener), SB 722 (Wahab), and SB 1361 (Durazo)
  Cal Cities Position: Varies
• AB 1621 (Wilson): Planning and zoning law: postentitlement phase permits: housing accountability act
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended
• AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva): Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended
• AB 1997 (Lee) Land use: housing development approvals: timelines and processes
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• AB 1567 (Ta) General plan: annual report: congregate and residential care for the elderly
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• SB 417 (Cabaldon) and AB 736 (Wicks): The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
  Cal Cities Position: Support

– Brady Guertin, legislative advocate 

Revenue and Taxation

As costs rise and traditional funding sources become more volatile, Cal Cities is focused on ensuring cities have reliable tools to fund core services. Sponsored by Cal Cities, SB 922 (Laird) would help cities maintain and repair local streets. Heavy service vehicles like garbage and recycling trucks can cause significant road damage, and cities have historically recovered those costs through service-related fees. A recent court decision, Rogers vs The City of Redlands, disrupted this long-standing practice, creating uncertainty and risk of litigation. SB 922 would clarify that cities can continue including in these fees the cost of road repair, helping cities maintain streets without shifting costs onto residents. The bill recently passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee with unanimous support and is now on the Senate Floor.

A proposal from outside the Legislature by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to enter Tax Increment Financing districts around planned station areas is drawing significant attention. The proposal would allow the state to capture future growth in local property tax and sales tax revenues to fund high-speed rail. This comes at a time when cities are already facing increasing service demands and infrastructure needs, making the potential loss of future revenue particularly impactful. The proposal would also set a precedent for shifting local revenues to state-directed projects. Cal Cities and local partners are actively pushing back, emphasizing the importance of protecting local revenues and preserving local decision-making authority.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 1349 (Gonzalez) Taxation: tax expenditures: Legislative Analyst’s Office: report and recommendation
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• AB 2192 (Gonzalez, Jeff) Sales and use taxes: farm equipment and machinery
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• AB 2214 (Jackson) Government finance: deposits
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose

– Ben Triffo, legislative advocate

Environmental Quality

Cal Cities’ environmental quality portfolio is jam-packed with bills on disaster preparedness, CEQA exemptions, and local coastal plans.

Two sponsored measures would make it easier for cities to prepare for and respond to disasters. AB 2517 (Calderon) would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to provide consistent, timely public updates when developing local fire hazard severity zone maps — a notable oversight in the current process. AB 1866 (Rogers) would ensure that the state prioritizes public assistance for cities that do not qualify for federal disaster aid —typically small, rural, and low-income communities — after a state-declared emergency.

Cal Cities is also supporting AB 2385 (Petrie-Norris). The bill clarifies that cities can reconstitute redevelopment agencies for disasters, called local reconstruction agencies, to support disaster recovery efforts. And the Legislature is primed to grapple with wildfire liability debates for utility-caused wildfires through two intent bills: AB 1554 (Calderon) and SB 1370 (Stern). Cal Cities will issue a formal position on those bills once lawmakers introduce new language.

Several environmental-related bills could impact land use decisions. AB 2569 (Hart) would require agencies to consider how a project impacts people, not just the environment. AB 2170 (Boerner) would impose unworkable CEQA translation requirements that could invalidate land use decisions based on inaccuracies. As drafted, both bills would drastically increase litigation risk for cities and delay critical housing and infrastructure projects. Cal Cities opposes the measures.

Another bill, SB 1075 (Reyes), would force agencies to consider air quality over all other environmental factors when considering projects. In addition to undermining CEQA, it would expose cities to new legal risks, in part by expanding the Attorney General’s ability to sue local governments based on citizen petitions to void land use decisions. Cal Cities is opposed to the bill, unless it is amended to ensure local land use authority and upholds holistic environmental reviews.

Coastal legislation is also in no shortage this year. AB 2373 (Dixon) is a Cal Cities-sponsored measure that would let coastal cities use a neighborhood-scale adaptation approach when updating their Local Coastal Programs (LCP). Updating these plans can be a costly, complex process. On the flip side, AB 2254 (Addis) would mandate an LCP update for the overwintering habitat sites of the monarch butterfly. This bill includes some inaccurate reasoning about both the butterflies and LCPs that could set a flawed precedent for other species. Cal Cities is opposed unless amended and is urging the author to give coastal cities flexibility to implement policies that are most appropriate for the local conditions.

Other bills would be much more beneficial for coastal cities. SB 1318 (Allen) would help coastal cities to better regulate non-owner-occupied short-term rentals. AB 1938 (Irwin), if amended, could make it easier to protect surf areas that hold cultural, recreational, and economic significance. And lawmakers are proposing a resolution to formally oppose the federal administration’s plan to expand offshore oil facilities through SJR 12 (Laird) and better regulate pipelines and hazardous spills through State Fire Marshal oversight in AB 1536 (Addis), which Cal Cities supports.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 1313 (McNerney): PFAS: Drinking Water: State Revolving Fund Program
  Cal Cities Position: Sponsor/Support
• AB 2513 (Petrie-Norris): Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program: regional landscape grants
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• AB 2739 (Soria): Water: Affordability and system stabilization
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• SB 1218 (Arreguín) Refusal of registration: illegal dumping violation penalties
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• AB 2462 (Pellerin): Unsafe products: disposal: penalties
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• SB 1081 (Laird): Waste discharge requirements: minimum penalties: exceptions
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan): Data centers: reporting
  Cal Cities Position: Support

–  Melissa Sparks-Kranz, legislative advocate

Public Safety

One of Cal Cities’ top priorities this year is securing funding to fully implement Proposition 36. Cal Cities is partnering with Asm. Stephanie Nguyen and Sen. Catherine Blakespear on a $400 million funding request that would expand service capacity, secure in-custody treatment, and allow for individualized planning and monitoring.

Cal Cities is also focused on the continued prevalence of metal theft through AB 1941 (Gonzalez, Mark). This measure, co-sponsored by Cal Cities, would increase the penalty for organized metal theft and provide an additional tool to law enforcement to help curtail this expensive and damaging crime. Cities around the state have experienced organized metal theft targeting streetlights, potholes, and broadband.

Another co-sponsored measure, SB 758 (Umberg), would address the illicit use of nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas or whippets, by closing a loophole in state law. The odorless, colorless chemical has become a popular and dangerous recreational drug; cities throughout the state are passing ordinances banning the sale of nitrous oxide at smoke shops and convenience stores in response.

Cal Cities is also supporting several measures trying to solve the state’s homeowner insurance crisis: AB 1559 (Calderon), which focuses on aerial images taken by insurance companies; AB 1934 (Bennett), which looks at home hardening; and SB 1301 (Allen), which takes aim at nonrenewal practices by insurance companies.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 1013 (Cervantes) Automated License Plate Recovery Systems
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended
• SB 907 (Archuleta) Driving under the Influence
  Cal Cities Position: Support
• AB 2041 (Carrillo) Emergency Medical Services
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose

– Jolena Voorhis, legislative advocate

Transportation, Communications, and Public Works

Cal Cities has developed new policies to address a spike in dangerous e-bike behavior and its impact to communities. The Legislature has introduced approximately a dozen related bills — including AB 1569 (Davies), AB 1614 (Dixon), and AB 2346 (Wilson). Supported by Cal Cities, the three bills address common issues with e-bikes while balancing statewide consistency with local flexibility. Cal Cities is engaged on all e-bike measures to ensure they preserve local control, enhance public safety, and impose new requirements on manufacturers.

Electric vehicle charging station permits are also a huge topic in the Legislature. AB 1820 (Schiavo) seeks to arbitrarily cap what cities can charge for residential and commercial electric vehicle charging station permits. Cal Cities is opposing the bill, arguing that there is no evidence that local permitting fees are a primary barrier to new charging stations. Rather, the real bottlenecks are private investments, grid capacity, and infrastructure readiness.

Cal Cities has pushed back against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to provide tax credits to sustainable aviation fuel using local streets and roads funding. Cal Cities is also calling on the Legislature to provide at least $100 million from Cap-and-Invest funding to help cities comply with the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation.

Outside of the Legislature, Cal Cities has spearheaded efforts opposing the California Air Resources Board’s proposed changes to the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. The changes would effectively force cities to act as an enforcement arm for the state by requiring them to report on zero-emission vehicle fleets within private fleets that cities contract for street sweeping, construction, waste hauling, and other services.

Other notable bills include:

• SB 1283 (Ashby): Electric Vehicle Charging Permitting
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• SB 1001 (Archuleta): Cal OES: Public Works ID Badges
  Cal Cities Position: Co-sponsor
• HR 95 (Caloza): Public Works Month
  Cal Cities Position: Co-sponsor

– Damon Conklin, legislative advocate

Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations

Perhaps the biggest issue for cities is a two-year bill that would drive up costs for cities and roll back key pension reforms passed into law over a decade ago by reducing the benefit age factor for public safety employees, among other things. Lawmaker last year pressed pause on AB 1383 (McKinnor) after opposition from Cal Cities and others. However, Asm. Tina McKinnor moved the bill out of Assembly Appropriations in January after adopting several changes that reduced the bill’s cost. The measure passed off the Assembly Floor on a 70–2 vote and is now awaiting a Senate hearing. Cal Cities opposes the measure.

Cal Cities also opposes AB 1564 (Ahrens), a repeat of AB 340 by the same author from last year. The bill would prohibit cities from questioning employees or their union representatives about communications concerning workplace matters. This would restrict cities’ ability to conduct workplace investigations while adding new costs and liability.

Cal Cities is proud to co-sponsor AB 1821 by Asm. Blanca Pacheco. The bill would make a small but practical change to the California Public Records Act by shifting the current 10‑day response period from calendar days to business days, giving agencies the full number of working days intended to determine whether requested records are disclosable.

Lawmakers could also make further changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act through SB 1187 (Durazo). This comes in the wake of a new law, SB 707 (Durazo, 2025), that dramatically overhauled local government meeting requirements. Cal Cities will keep cities up to date as the bill develops.

Cal Cities is opposed to several notable artificial intelligence bills:

• SB 951 (Reyes) Employment: technological displacement: notice
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended
• SB 947 (McNerney) Employment: automated decision systems
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• AB 2027 (Ward) Worker data: prohibitions: artificial intelligence
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• AB 1883 (Bryan) Workplace surveillance tools
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose
• AB 1898 (Schultz) Workplace artificial intelligence tools
  Cal Cities Position: Oppose

– Johnnie Piña, legislative advocate