Cities are directly accountable to their communities. Local control allows community members a direct voice in choosing programs and services that best fit their needs. CCCA supports and defends the rights of local governments to protect their ability to contract services, acting locally and effectively for their communities. As such, CCCA has taken up a number of positions on bills circulating through the State Legislature.
Contract Cities prioritizes policy positions on legislative items based on their impact on local control member city concerns, CCCA’s annual Legislative Platform, and Guiding Principles and Procedures.
For inquiries regarding any of CCCA’s legislative positions, please contact Jorge Morales at jorge@contractcities.org.
Legislative Postions
wdt_ID | Bill | Summary | Status |
---|---|---|---|
2 | AB 1839 (Alanis) – Peace Officers: Education and Hiring Grants. (Juan Alanis) |
Additional Documents: Letter of Support Summary: Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish and award certain certificates for peace officers to foster the education and experience necessary to perform general police service duties. Existing law requires the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to develop a modern policing degree program, and requires the chancellor’s office to submit a report on recommendations to the Legislature outlining a plan to implement that program. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt the education criteria for peace officers, based on the recommendations in the report. This bill, subject to an appropriation, would establish the Law Enforcement Officer Grant Program under the administration of the Student Aid Commission to provide grants of up to $6,000 per year to individuals enrolled in a modern policing degree program at a California community college who commit to work for 4 years as a peace officer at a law enforcement agency. The bill would require grant recipients to agree to repay the grant to the state if certain conditions for the grant are not met, except as specified. |
Support |
4 | Additional Documents: Letter of Support if Amend Summary: Existing law divides theft into grand theft and petty theft. Existing law punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor while grand theft is punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Existing law lists specific types of theft which are grand theft and all other cases of theft as petty theft. Existing law authorizes a person to be charged with grand theft if the property taken exceeds $950 over the course of distinct but related acts. This bill would clarify that those related acts include acts committed against multiple victims or in counties other than the county of the current offense. Existing law prohibits the possession or receipt of stolen property, as specified. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the value of the property and whether the offender has certain prior convictions. This bill would make it a crime for any person to possess property unlawfully that was acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business, if the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, and the value of the possessed property exceeds $950. The bill would, for the purpose of determining the value of the property, aggregate the property with any other property possessed by the person with that intent within the prior three years and with any property possessed by another person acting in concert with the first person to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, if that property was also acquired unlawfully. The bill would make this crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits shoplifting, defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit theft while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950. Existing law requires an act that falls within this definition to be charged as shoplifting and not as burglary or theft. Under existing law, shoplifting is punishable as a misdemeanor, except when the defendant has prior convictions. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor when the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the misdemeanor in the officer’s presence. Existing law also authorizes a private person to make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in their presence, and requires the person to deliver the arrested person to a peace officer or magistrate. Existing law additionally authorizes a merchant to detain a person for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner to determine if a person has unlawfully taken merchandise. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest for specified misdemeanors relating to domestic violence, violation of a restraining order, and carrying a concealed firearm at an airport that did not occur in the officer’s presence. This bill would authorize a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor shoplifting offense not committed in the officer’s presence if the officer has probable cause to believe that person has committed shoplifting, as specified. Existing law requires a peace officer to release upon a signed promise to appear any person arrested for a misdemeanor, unless the person demands to be taken before a magistrate. Existing law provides certain reasons a person arrested for a misdemeanor shall not be released including that the person is intoxicated or in need of medical attention, the person is unable to provide satisfactory proof of identification, or there are outstanding arrest warrants for the person. Additionally, existing law exempts from this provision persons arrested for specified crimes including domestic violence, stalking, threatening a witness, and, until January 1, 2026, organized retail theft. This bill would extend that exemption for organized retail theft until January, 2031. Existing law authorizes the court to suspend a criminal sentence and make and enforce terms of probation for a period not to exceed 2 years, and in misdemeanor cases, for a period not to exceed one year. Existing law authorizes the court to make and enforce the terms of probation for specified theft cases for a period not to exceed 3 years. This bill would, for an offense of shoplifting or petty theft, authorize the court to make and enforce the terms of probation for a period not to exceed 2 years. The bill would require a court that imposes a term longer than one year to consider referring the defendant to a collaborative court or rehabilitation program that is relevant to the underlying factor or factors that led to the commission of the offense, as specified. By increasing the period of probation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to prevent the sale of unlawfully acquired products by requiring sellers of specified products to maintain a chain of custody of the products to demonstrate their lawful provenance and by addressing the use of online platforms to advertise and sell unlawfully acquired products. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require retail businesses of a certain size to periodically report specified data related to thefts and to strengthen laws to prevent stolen goods from being sold via online marketplaces. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. |
Support if Amended | |
5 | SB 21 (Umberg) Controlled Substances (Thomas Umberg) Â |
Additional Documents:Â Letter of Support Summary: Existing law makes it a crime to possess for sale or purchase for purpose of sale, transport, or sell, various controlled substances, including, among others, fentanyl. This bill would require a person who is convicted of, or who pleads guilty or no contest to, the above-described crimes as they relate to fentanyl to receive a written advisory of the danger of distribution of controlled substances and that, if a person dies as a result of that action, the distributor can be charged with homicide or murder. The bill would require that the fact the advisory was given be on the record and recorded on the abstract of the conviction. This bill would authorize a defendant who is charged with the above-described crimes to undergo a treatment program in lieu of a grant of probation or a jail or prison sentence if certain conditions are met. The bill would require the treatment program to be developed by a drug addiction expert and would authorize a defendant to participate in a substance abuse and mental health evaluation. The bill would make any statement or information from the evaluation inadmissible in any action or proceeding. The bill would require the drug treatment program to be approved by the court and could include mental health treatment and job training. The bill would require the court to dismiss the charges upon successful completion of the treatment program. |
Support |
6 | Additional Documents:Â Letter of Opposition Summary: Under existing law, the Department of the California Highway Patrol regulates the safe operation of specified vehicles, including motortrucks of 3 or more axles that are more than 10,000 pounds, truck tractors, trailers, semitrailers, and buses. Existing federal law regulates required safety equipment on vehicles, including rear impact guards on certain large trucks to prevent rear underrides in collisions with passenger vehicles. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than the speed limit. This bill would require certain trucks and trailers to also be equipped with side guards. The bill would also require the department to adopt rules and regulations requiring driver inspections of side guards and requiring the department to inspect side guards that have been involved in collisions. Further, the bill would require certain vehicles, commencing with the 2027 model year, to be equipped with an intelligent speed limiter that would limit the speed of the vehicle to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. The bill would exempt emergency vehicles from this requirement and would authorize the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol to authorize the disabling of the system on other vehicles based on specified criteria. A violation of either of these prohibitions would be punishable as a crime. By creating a new criminal offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. |
Oppose | |
7 | SB 915 (Cortese) - Local Government: Autonomous Vehicles (Dave Cortese) |
Additional Documents: Letter of Support Summary: Existing law authorizes an autonomous vehicle to be operated on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle being operated if certain requirements are met, including that the vehicle is being operated solely by employees, contractors, or other persons designated by the manufacturer. Existing law prohibits an autonomous vehicle from being operated on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles containing certain certifications regarding safety and other technological requirements and the department approves that application pursuant to adopted regulations. Existing law, commencing January 1, 2030, and to the extent authorized by federal law, prohibits the operation of certain new autonomous vehicles that are not zero-emission vehicles. This bill would prohibit an autonomous vehicle service, which has received approval to conduct commercial passenger service or engage in commercial activity using driverless vehicles by the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Public Utilities Commission, or another state agency, from commencing operation within a local jurisdiction until authorized by a local ordinance enacted pursuant to the bill’s provisions. The bill would authorize each city, county, or city and county in which an autonomous vehicle has received authorization to operate, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution in regard to autonomous vehicle services within that jurisdiction. The bill would require each city, county, or city and county that adopts an ordinance or resolution to include certain provisions within that ordinance or resolution. These would include a policy for entry into the business of providing autonomous vehicle services including a permitting program, the establishment of reasonable vehicle caps and hours of service restrictions, and the establishment of an interoperability or override system accessible by first responders in case of an emergency. |
Support |
9 | AB 2560 (Alvarez) - Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976. |
Additional Documents:Â Letter of Support Summary: Existing law, referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct specified percentages of units for lower income households or very low income households, and meets other requirements. Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (act), regulates development in the coastal zone and requires a new development to comply with specified requirements. The Density Bonus Law provides that its provisions do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, and requires that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the Density Bonus Law be permitted in a manner consistent with the act. This bill would provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the Density Bonus Law be permitted notwithstanding the act. |
Support |
Bill | Summary | Status |