The Brief

When a judge ruled recently that a controversial state housing law did not apply to a handful of southern California cities, Julie Testa saw it as an invitation.

The late April opinion from Los Angeles County Judge Curtis Kin held that a 2021 state law letting homeowners split up their houses into as many as four separate units regardless of local zoning restrictions had no effect in Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier or Del Mar. The reason: The five SoCal jurisdictions are “charter cities” — jurisdictions with their own municipal constitutions that grant them extra independence from state law.

Testa, the vice mayor of Pleasanton, wanted what Redondo Beach was having. She wanted to turn her bedroom community east of San Francisco Bay into a charter city.

“The state Legislature has declared war on our cities,” said Testa. “We think that this is a turning of that tide.”

Since first winning local office in 2020, Testa has spent much of her short political career chafing against the spate of new state housing laws that force local governments to automatically approve apartment buildings, duplexes and backyard cottages. She cobbled together a loose group of like-minded politicians under the banner of the California Alliance of Local Electeds. A few days after Kin’s ruling, the group’s weekly Zoom meeting saw near record turnout, she said.

Now Pleasanton is one of at least three California cities, all San Francisco Bay Area suburbs, that have taken the first step toward adopting a charter since the April ruling. Testa and three of her four city council colleagues instructed city staff to look into making the transition in mid-May. City councils in nearby Brentwood and the hyper-affluent Silicon Valley suburb of Atherton followed suit this month.

Becoming a charter city — as roughly 120 of California’s 482 cities have done over the course of the state’s history — requires local voter approval. Before that, city officials have to actually write a charter, a comprehensive, technical governing document that covers everything from local election procedure to the dos and don’ts of municipal debt management. The three cities are probably kicking off that lengthy process too late for this November’s election, meaning that voters in the three cities won’t weigh in until at least 2026 — if at all.

“We will see a lot of irreversible consequences in that period of time, so I am disappointed, but I do believe that we must do what we can do to defend our constitutional right to local control,” said Testa.

Jovita Mendoza, the Brentwood council member who is pushing the charter effort in her city, said housing policy isn’t her sole motivation. Charter cities have more flexibility over contracting and purchasing policies, election procedures and taxation. But the recent ruling out of Los Angeles “definitely helped” provide fresh inspiration.

Brentwood’s council voted unanimously to begin the process last Tuesday. At a late evening hearing on the subject, Planning Commissioner Rod Flohr endorsed the idea.

“Most of the public is still kind of unaware of how restricted we’ve become, almost to the point where it feels sometimes like the planning commission and city council can’t really do anything anymore,” he said. “This may be our only avenue to…keep working to make Brentwood the jewel of east county.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has ordered local governments to plan for an additional 2.5 million new homes through the end of the decade in an effort to bring down prices and rents. That’s part of a broader political shift in Sacramento as the governor, the attorney general and the Legislature have more aggressively promoted more housing, even over the objections of local elected officials and residents.

Mendoza in Brentwood was one of the chief proponents of a proposed statewide ballot initiative that would have allowed local governments to override state land use laws. The measure failed to gather enough signatures for this year’s election.

The April ruling opened up a new potential strategy. “If the charter cities win on appeal, I think you’re going to see it happening more and more,” she said.

On housing, the tie often goes to the state

Many legal experts are skeptical that the ruling will hold — and if it does, whether that would be the death blow to state land use authority that many local control advocates hope it will be.

“If I were looking to become a charter city in order to avoid (the state’s duplex law), I would not waste my time,” said UC Davis law professor Darien Shanske. “This decision will be overturned.”

Since the 1880s, California cities have come in two distinct flavors: “General law” cities, which have to govern themselves under rules set forth by the state Legislature, and charter cities, which the state constitution grants autonomy when it comes to “municipal affairs.”

Unhelpfully, the constitution doesn’t actually specify what those “municipal affairs” are. That makes the precise scope of a charter city’s political autonomy from the state an uncertain and moving target that courts have had to address on a case-by-case basis.

New homes under construction in Pleasanton on June 16, 2024. The city of Pleasanton has voted to explore the possibility of becoming a charter city.

(

Loren Elliott

/

CalMatters

)

As state lawmakers have unleashed a raft of pro-construction bills over the last decade, the courts have typically allowed them to apply to charter and general law cities alike.

“The courts generally have not been very receptive to charter city arguments given the housing crisis,” said Barbara Kautz, a land use attorney who regularly represents cities and counties.

Kautz’s law firm, Goldfarb & Lipman, has represented Pleasanton, Brentwood and Atherton, but is not doing so in their current quests to become charter cities.

The April ruling is a notable exception to the trend. But it’s also an exceedingly narrow one and not something on which to hang a legal revolution in land use policy, said Kautz. “As a long term strategy to avoid (state housing law), I just don’t know if it would have any effect,” she said.

What the ruling does — and doesn’t — say

California courts have generally let the Legislature steamroll local authorities, even in charter cities, if state lawmakers can prove that they are addressing a matter of “statewide concern” and that the bill they’re passing is narrowly tailored to address that concern.

The 2021 law itself specifies that the “statewide concern” in question is to ensure “access to affordable housing.”

Unfortunately for the state, “affordable housing” has multiple definitions. Affordable housing might refer to units that are legally required to be reserved for people making under a certain income with regulated rents or prices, sometimes called “deed-restricted affordable housing.” Or the term can simply refer to housing that’s cheap.

In his ruling, Kin concluded that the Legislature, in laying out its “statewide concern,” must have meant “affordable” in the first, deed-restricted sense. Because letting homeowners split their houses into duplexes “has, at best, an attenuated connection to affordable housing,” he wrote, the law wasn’t written narrowly enough to advance its stated goal and therefore doesn’t have the authority to trample over the rights of charter cities.

In short, the ruling dings the state duplex law because it didn’t justify its intent with the right term. UC Davis’ Shanske referred to the ruling jokingly as a “Simon didn’t say” legal test.

Kin has yet to submit a final judgment, which will clarify whether the ruling applies to just the five cities that sued or to every one of the more than 100 charter cities across California.

What the ruling doesn’t say is that charter cities are exempt from the duplex law because the state fundamentally lacks the authority to regulate how homes can be divided up. Nor does it say that charter cities are exempt from state housing requirements in general, which would have been at odds with a slew of recent court rulings.

Chris Elmendorf, one of Shanske’s colleagues at UC Davis School of Law who regularly opines on housing policy on social media, called Kin’s conclusion “a weird, narrow decision that turns on a lawyerly sleight of hand.”

A residential street in Pleasanton on June 16, 2024. The city of Pleasanton has voted to explore the possibility of becoming a charter city.

(

Loren Elliott

/

CalMatters

)

Even some of those who welcomed the ruling as a victory for local control were tempered in their enthusiasm, if only because the ruling seems to invite the Legislature to simply fix its wording with another bill. San Diego Democratic Sen. Toni Atkins, who authored the four-unit housing law, is working on a bill this year, Senate Bill 450, which aims to make it harder for local governments to obstruct the earlier duplex law by delaying approvals or imposing costly or unworkable size, design and setback requirements. An analysis last year by the UC Berkeley Terner Center found that the duplex law had resulted in precious little new housing, partially as a result of such restrictions.

Asked whether Atkins plans to respond to Kin’s ruling with a legislative fix, the senator’s spokesperson, Meredith McNamee, said in a statement that the senator believes “some legislative clean-up” would improve the implementation of the law she wrote.

The California Justice Department, which represented the state in the Redondo Beach case, has already filed a notice of appeal.

As the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots get ready to push, tackle and elbow their way to victory in Super Bowl LX, the NFL has been showcasing the contactless version of the sport leading up to the big game on Sunday in Santa Clara.

With 20 million players, flag football is one of the world’s fastest-growing sports and a growth area for the NFL and its international counterpart, the International Federation of American Football. It’s set to make its Olympic debut at the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, and NFL players will be allowed to take part.

The NFL, which has invested heavily to expand flag football in the U.S. and abroad, planned no less than seven unique flag football-related events this week in the Bay Area, from the Pro Bowl Games to an under-13 international championship.

Beth Spicer, a middle school student from Ireland, traveled to San Francisco to represent Ireland in that match on Wednesday — the first time the co-ed tournament was held during a Super Bowl week, according to the NFL.

“I only learned how to throw a ball four months ago, and I just fell in love with it,” she said. “It’s not really like any other games. You’re getting tagged at the hips, so you have to move them. It’s unique, but it’s really good.”

Back home, the most popular sports include Gaelic football, hurling and soccer, according to the Ireland team’s head coach, Rob Cooper. He said the flag football program at his school got underway after the NFL reached out, offering free training and equipment.

“ We took it up, and the kids have loved every moment of it since then,” Cooper said. “I have no doubt that flag football, especially in Ireland, will continue to grow massively over the next couple of years.”

Flag football is a less gear-intensive version of traditional tackle football. Instead of physical confrontations, players must strip a length of fabric dangling from either side of a ball carrier’s waist to stop their forward progress.

The lack of contact means players aren’t required to wear helmets or pads, and in the version set to be played at the Olympics, the games are shorter, faster and have only five players per side, instead of 11.

The NFL started its first international flag football program in Mexico in 2000, according to Afia Law, who heads international flag football development for the league.

“ It’s all about creating access to the game for young adults and girls, regardless of the country you are in, regardless of your background, creating an opportunity for you to access the game,” Law said.

The NFL has ramped up efforts to support flag football in 15 countries, including Australia, Spain and Brazil, where the league is growing its reach with on-the-road NFL games next season.

Law said flag football’s Olympic debut will be “absolutely huge.”

“We’ve had people that are passionate about this game playing around the world for so long, and now we finally get to see them on the world stage playing in the game that they’re fantastic at,” Law said.

Kodie Fuller, an NFL and IFAF flag football ambassador from Australia, is excited that her sport is getting international recognition at the Olympics. She grew up playing traditional tackle football but transitioned to playing flag football three years ago.

“ As I got a little bit older, not taking hits every weekend definitely felt a lot nicer on my body,” Fuller said.

Now an Olympic hopeful herself, the 29-year-old said the Olympic debut will encourage more young athletes, especially young women, to get into the sport.

“We can sell the Olympic dream to all of them, because it is a very real possibility now,” she said.

Flag football is also making inroads in the U.S. In December, all 32 NFL clubs voted to invest a collective $32 million to develop and launch a professional flag football league.

Last spring, the Atlantic East Conference launched the first-ever NCAA women’s flag football season. Since the 2023-2024 school year, flag football has been a statewide-sanctioned sport for high school girls in California, although not for boys.

Watching the under-13 international flag football tournament at Moscone Center on Wednesday, Fuller said her “jaw was on the floor.”

“The talent that is coming through is out of this world,” she said.

Online safety groups have criticized OpenAI and child advocacy group Common Sense Media’s jointly proposed ballot measure creating chatbot guardrails for kids, saying it would shield tech companies from accountability.

The California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, or CITED, and Tech Oversight California — two groups that have sponsored anti-deepfake and AI laws — circulated a letter shared with lawmakers on Wednesday addressing the Parents and Kids Safe AI Act, announced by co-sponsors OpenAI and Common Sense Media in January.

“Though seemingly well-intended, the measure would exempt AI companies from the robust framework of laws already established in California to give consumers meaningful protections,” the letter states.

The letter warned that the proposed measure could undermine age and privacy protections, in part by narrowly defining child protections to “severe harms,” effectively shielding AI companies from liability related to children’s mental health.

“This definition fails to account for mental or emotional distress caused by companion chatbots or exposure to age-inappropriate content that may contribute to psychological harm,” the letter reads.

John Bennett, initiative director of CITED, told KQED that the definitions “raised a lot of alarm bells in our heads, because we didn’t think it was sufficiently protective of children.”

The first alarm bell, Bennett said, was the fact that Common Sense and its CEO, Jim Steyer, negotiated alone with OpenAI, leaving out the fold of child and consumer advocates that had previously been working together to lobby for strong laws with lawmakers like Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), chair of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee and author of a closely-watched AI child safety bill ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last legislative session.

In a statement sent to KQED on Thursday, Common Sense Media did not directly address the concerns outlined in the letter, but wrote the measure “will be the strongest, most comprehensive youth AI safety law in the country, whether it’s passed by the voters or the legislature.”

That said, in his remarks introducing the joint effort on Jan. 9, 2026, Steyer presented his approach as primarily strategic, saying he would use any political tool available to get most of what he wants on behalf of children and their parents.

“I cannot begin to know where Mr. Steyer’s mind actually is at,” Bennett said, adding that he was perplexed by this initiative nonetheless. “Usually, you try and introduce something that’s extremely strong — some might think overly strong. Then you use that as a negotiating arm within the legislature.”

In the absence of comprehensive, effective child protection legislation from Washington, California has helped lead the way on kids’ and teens’ tech privacy laws, as well as general consumer-focused tech safety laws. As a result, child advocates pay a lot of attention, early and often, to the rough and tumble of California AI-focused politics.

Outside the U.S., Australia and Spain have rolled out aggressive restrictions on youth smartphone use, including banning social media use for children under 16. Some advocates speculate the fear of a similar ban in California prompted OpenAI, which did not respond with a comment in time for this story, to reach out to Common Sense Media and negotiate a compromise.

Bennett has another theory. As with other ballot measures, if voters approve it, any changes will require a two-thirds vote of the legislature, making stronger, more effective regulation later difficult, if not impossible. “We can’t just come back and change this in a year or two if we see that there are new dangers and new harms that are coming about because technology’s evolving so quickly,” he said.

The Parents & Kids Safe AI Act is still in the signature-gathering phase and has not yet qualified for the November 2026 ballot. Supporters have said they expect to start collecting the requisite 546,651 valid signatures from registered California voters this month.

This story was originally published by Boyle Heights Beat on Feb. 6, 2026.

Bad Bunny isn’t just topping charts — he’s landed on college syllabi.

Now, as the Puerto Rican superstar is set to take the stage at the Super Bowl halftime show this Sunday, a Cal State LA professor is inviting the wider community to unpack what the moment says about Latinidad.

José G. Anguiano, a professor and department chair of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies, is hosting a plática on Monday to reflect on how Latinos are celebrated and sometimes overlooked during major sports culture moments.

The selection of Bad Bunny as the Super Bowl halftime performer has sparked much interest and controversy, with some perceiving the artist — who only sings in Spanish — as not American or mainstream enough to headline the show.

As part of the conversation — “Pláticas con Profes: ¿Bad Bunny ‘Too Latino’ for the Super Bowl?”— Anguiano wants to explore why some Americans see him as a controversial pick.

Bad Bunny not falling in line with “white American Anglo culture” doesn’t make him any less American, said Anguiano.

The professor reminds the public that Bad Bunny — born Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio — is an American citizen. The fact that he speaks Spanish, “I would argue is a very American thing,” he said.

“Given the current administration, I think that’s part of the conversation about why he’s so important,” Anguiano said.

Anguiano is also gearing up to teach a special topics course on Bad Bunny in the spring of 2027 at Cal State LA. Bad Bunny, Anguiano said, is an entry point to learn about broader cultural history.

He thinks of the song “El Apagón,” which sheds light on power outages, government corruption and the displacement of native Puerto Ricans. In “Yo Perreo Sola,” which Bad Bunny dedicated to “those who desire to dance alone and safely in the club,” Anguiano finds ways to talk about gender and sexuality.

“I know some people don’t take popular music as a serious subject, but … there’s really important things that are happening through music,” Anguiano said.