HomeMy WebLinkAbout072225 Legislative Commitee (Full Packet)
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council July 22, 2025
SUBJECT: J uly Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
At the end of June, the Legislature and the Governor reached a $321.1 billion budget deal.
The budget relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves and shifting funding
around to the close the $12 billion budget deficit. This reflects resistance to the Governor’s
proposed budget cuts, sparing state projects while avoiding addressing the long-term
state budget shortfalls.
The Governor’s signature on SB 101 (Weiner) the primary budget bill, was contingent on
the Legislature finalizing legislation to “unleash housing and infrastructure development
across the state.” On June 30, two budget trailer bills - AB 131 Public Resources and SB
130 Housing - were both passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Together,
AB 131 and SB 130 streamline the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), make
permanent SB 330’s limit on public hears for housing projects, and restrict local
amendments to building codes. Though adopted through the budget process, these
changes (among many others) represent some of the most sweeping housing,
homelessness, and environmental streamlining reforms California has advanced in years.
In the Legislature, policy committees had until July 18 to refer bills to either the fiscal
committees or to the floor for consideration. Bills that fail to pass through policy
committees by the deadline are marked as inactive for the remainder of the legislative
session. The Legislature will reconvene on August 18, at which point fiscal committees
will have until August 29 to report bills to the floor.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s Legislative Committee follows legislation that is identified as a priority
through the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition and by the Danville Town Council based upon
the Town’s legislative framework.
The Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework identifies seven focus areas for the 2025 State
Legislative session including: Transportation and Infrastructure, Climate, Environment,
and Health, Public Safety, Economic Development, Affordable Housing and
July Legislative Update 2 July 22, 2025
Homelessness, Mental Health, and Fiscal Sustainability and General Governance.
The following bills have been identified as legislation to track during the 2025 Legislative
Session by the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition:
AB 290 (Bauer-Kahan) California FAIR Plan Association: automatic payments.
This bill, on or before April 1, 2026, would require the California FAIR Plan Association
to create an automatic payment system and accept automatic payments for premiums
from policyholders. The bill would provide for a 10-day period for the policyholder to
pay any outstanding installment premium.
TVC Position: Support
AB 348 (Krell) Full-service partnerships.
This bill would establish criteria for an individual with a serious mental illness to be
presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership. The bill would specify that a county
is not required to enroll an individual who meets that presumptive eligibility criteria if
doing so would conflict with contractual Medi-Cal obligations or court orders, or would
exceed full-service partnership capacity or funding. The bill would prohibit deeming an
individual with a serious mental illness ineligible for enrollment in a full-service
partnership solely because their primary diagnosis is a substance use disorder.
TVC Position: Support
AB 544 (Davies) Electric bicycles: required equipment.
This bill would require electric bicycles to have red reflectors on the bicycle at all hours
of the day and allows a minor cited for not wearing a helmet while riding an e-bike to
complete a specialized electric bicycle safety course development by the Department of
California Highway Patrol in lieu of paying a fine.
This bill passed through the Legislature and was approved by the Governor.
TVC Position: Support
AB 650 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs
allocation.
This bill would extend a number of timelines in the process of determining regional
housing needs, regional housing needs allocation, and housing element revisions. This
bill also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide
specific analysis or text to local governments to remedy deficiencies in their draft housing
element revisions.
TVC Position: Support
AB 712 (Wicks) Housing reform laws: enforcement actions: fines and penalties.
This bill, where the applicant for a housing development is a prevailing party in an action
brought by the applicant to enforce the public agency’s compliance with a housing reform
law as applied to the applicant’s housing development project, would entitle an applicant
July Legislative Update 3 July 22, 2025
for a housing development project to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and would
require a court to impose fines on a local agency, as specified. The bill would prohibit a
public agency from requiring the applicant to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the
public agency in any action alleging the public agency violated the applicant’s rights or
deprived the applicant of the benefits or protection provide by a housing reform law. The
bill would define housing reform law as a law that establishes or facilitates protections
for the benefit of applicants for housing development projects or imposes limitations on
a public agency for the benefit of housing development projects.
TVC Position: Oppose
AB 888 (Calderon) California Safe Home grant program.
This bill would establish the California Safe Homes grant program to be developed by
the department to reduce local and statewide wildfire losses, among other things. The
bill would require the department to prioritize specified needs when awarding grant
funds, and would require eligible program applicants, which would include individuals,
cities, counties, and special districts, to meet specified criteria. The bill would establish
the Sustainable Insurance Account within the Insurance Fund and would make the funds
available to the department upon appropriation of the Legislature or receipt of federal or
other funds.
TVC Position: Support
SB 79 (Wiener) Housing development: transit-oriented development.
This measure would require cities to approve higher-density residential projects up to 7
stories near public transit stops ministerially regardless of local zoning codes, limit the
use of local development standards on the proposed project, and allow transit agencies
full land authority over residential and commercial development on property they own
or lease.
TVC Position: Oppose
SB 429 (Cortese) Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program.
This bill, upon appropriation, would establish the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation
Program, administered by the Department of Insurance, for the purpose of guiding and
funding the development and deployment of a public wildfire catastrophe model, and
creates the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Account within the Insurance Fund to
support this purpose.
TVC Position: Support
SB 454 (McNerney) State Water Resources Control Board: PFAS Mitigation Program.
This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would create the PFAS Mitigation
program, and create the PFAS Mitigation Fund within the State Treasury to support cities
and local water agencies treat and remediate PFAS from water and wastewater supplies.
Recommended Position: Support
July Legislative Update 4 July 22, 2025
SB 456 (Ashby) Contractors: exemptions: muralists.
This bill would exempt from that law an artist who draws, paints, applies, executes,
restores, or conserves a mural, as defined, pursuant to an agreement with a person who
could legally authorize the work.
TVC Position: Support
SB 616 (Rubio) Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program.
This bill creates an independent Community Hardening Commission with in the
Department of Insurance, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire
mitigation standard for all level of government across the state, as well as generating
guidelines to enable the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform.
TVC Position: Support
SB 707 (Durazo) Open meetings: meeting and teleconference requirements.
This bill would, until January 1, 2030, require a city council or a county board of
supervisors to comply with additional meeting requirements, including that all open and
public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a 2-way
telephonic service or a 2-way audiovisual platform, as defined, that a system is in place
for requesting and receiving interpretation services for public meetings, as specified, and
that the city council or county board of supervisors encourage residents to participate in
public meetings, as specified.
TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Town Council Legislative Sub-Committee accept this report
and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Tai Williams
Town Manager
July Legislative Update 5 July 22, 2025
Attachment A – Bill Summaries/Analysis
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Support AB 290 (Bauer-Kahan)
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Support AB 348 (Krell)
Attachment D – TVC Letter of Support AB 650 (Papan)
Attachment E – TVC Letter of Support AB 888 (Calderon)
Attachment F – TVC Letter of Support SB 429 (Cortese)
Attachment G – TVC Letter of Support SB 454 (McNerney)
Attachment H – TVC Letter of Support SB 456 (Ashby)
Attachment I – TVC Letter of Support SB 616 (Rubio)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Senator Susan Rubio, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: AB 290 Hearing Date: July 9, 2025
Author: Bauer-Kahan
Version: July 3, 2025 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Brandon Seto
SUBJECT: California FAIR Plan Association: automatic payments
DIGEST: Requires the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan) to create an
automatic payment system for policyholder premiums, and provide a policyholder with a
10-day period to pay an outstanding installment premium.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the FAIR Plan to assure the stability of the property insurance market, to
assure the availability of basic property insurance, as defined, to encourage
maximum use of the normal insurance market in obtaining basic property insurance
provided by admitted insurers and licensed surplus line brokers.
2)Provides, as part of the FAIR Plan, for the equitable distribution among admitted
insurers of the responsibility for insuring qualified property for which basic property
insurance cannot be obtained through the normal insurance market.
3)Specifies that rates for the FAIR Plan shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly
discriminatory, shall be actuarially sound so that premiums are adequate to cover
expected losses, expenses, and taxes, and shall reflect investment income of the
plan.
This bill:
1)Requires, by April 1, 2026, the FAIR Plan to create a system and accept automatic
payments for policyholder premiums.
2)States that an automatic payment amount cannot be different than the amount due if
the policyholder utilized another payment method.
3)Prohibits the cancellation or non-renewal of a FAIR Plan policy solely because the
policyholder is not enrolled in automatic payments.
4)Requires the FAIR Plan to provide a 10-day period for any policyholder to pay an
outstanding installment premium.
Background
According to the Author: ATTACHMENT A
AB 290 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 2 of 3
“Severe wildfires are becoming more frequent in California, with thousands of homes
and millions of acres at risk each year. With this increased risk, it is imperative that
stable insurance coverage is accessible for all Californians. AB 290 requires the
California FAIR Plan to establish and accept automatic payment systems for
policyholders, thus providing safeguards against cancellations due to missed manual
payments. AB 290 further provides grace periods, ensuring policyholders have a
chance to fix payment mistakes before coverage is disrupted. By requiring accessible
payment options, AB 290 promotes fairness and prevents unintentional lapses in
coverage–an essential component in protecting Californians from greater financial
distress as the state faces worsening wildfire seasons.”
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 226 (Calderon & Alvarez): Authorizes the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (IBank), upon the request of the FAIR Plan, to issue bonds to
finance the costs of claims, to increase liquidity and claims-paying capacity of the FAIR
Plan, and to refund bonds previously issued for that purpose. This bill is pending in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 234 (Calderon): Requires the Speaker of the Assembly and the Chairperson of the
Senate Committee on Rules to serve as non-voting, ex officio members of the
governing committee of the FAIR Plan, and would authorize each to name a designee
to serve in their place. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.
SB 1242 (Senate Insurance Committee, Chapter 424, Statutes of 2022): Among other
things, clarified the requirements that an insurer notify a policyholder at least 10
business days before the policy will be canceled for non-payment.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
Supporters state:
“An increasing number of California households are turning to the FAIR Plan for
insurance protection, and the entity needs to continue enhancing its operations to meet
this growth. Currently, the California FAIR Plan does not provide for or accept automatic
payments. A missed payment leads to a lapse in coverage, after which the consumer
often is charged a higher premium to put coverage back in place. AB 290 will help
prevent unintentional policy lapses due to missed or delayed payments, a common risk
for vulnerable policyholders in high-risk fire zones. AB 290 enhances financial security
and ensures continuous coverage, strengthening consumer protections and promoting
greater stability within California’s insurance safety net.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
None received.
SUPPORT:
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California
AB 290 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 3 of 3
Health Access California
Indivisible CA: Statestrong
Reproductive Freedom for All California
United Policyholders
OPPOSITION:
None.
-- END --
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 348
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 348
Author: Krell (D)
Amended: 4/24/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/11/25
AYES: Menjivar, Valladares, Durazo, Grove, Limón, Padilla, Richardson, Rubio,
Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez, Weber Pierson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/12/25 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Full-service partnerships
SOURCE: Big City Mayors
California Behavioral Health Association
Steinberg Institute
DIGEST: This bill deems an individual with a serious mental illness
presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership program, if certain criteria are
met.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes a 1% tax on incomes over one-million dollars for the provision of
behavioral health services to be deposited into the Behavioral Health Services
Fund/Act (BHSF/BHSA, previously the Mental Health Services Fund/Act).
[Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) §17043 and §19602.5]
2)Distributes BHSF moneys generally as follows (inoperative on July 1, 2026):
a)20% to county mental health programs (CMHPs/counties) for prevention
and early intervention programs;
AB 348
Page 2
b)80% to CMHPs to fund the adult/older adult and the children’s systems of
care (with the majority to fund full-service partnerships [FSPs] and priority
given to those who are not receiving mental health services);
c)5% to CMHPs for Innovative programs;
d)Up to 5% to CMHPs for specified planning costs; and,
e)Up to 5% to various state departments and entities to implement all duties
for programs funded by the BHSF. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC)
§5892, 9 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §3200.310 and §3620(c)]
3)Requires counties to allocate BHSF moneys generally as follows, with some
flexibility to shift funds among categories with the Department of Health Care
Services’ (DHCS’s) approval (operative on July 1, 2026, pursuant to Prop. 1 as
approved by voters on March 5, 2024):
a)30% for housing interventions with half spent on those experiencing chronic
homelessness and an emphasis on those in encampments;
b)35% for FSPs; and,
c)35% for Behavioral Health Services and Supports with 51% spent on early
intervention, and 51% of that focused on youth 25 and younger. [WIC
§5892]
4)Requires each county, to the extent funds are provided from the BHSF for these
purposes, to establish and administer a FSP program that includes various
treatment, evidence-based, and ancillary services, including housing
interventions, provided through a whole-person approach that is trauma
informed, age appropriate, and in partnership with families or an individual’s
natural supports. Requires the programs to prioritize services for various
populations, including eligible adults and older adults, who are any one of the
following:
a)Chronically homeless or experiencing homelessness or are at risk of
homelessness;
b)In, or are at risk of being in, the justice system;
c)Reentering the community from prison or jail;
d)At risk of conservatorship through the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act for
meeting criteria as being a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled; or,
e)At risk of institutionalization. [WIC §5887 and §5892(c)]
AB 348
Page 3
This bill:
1) Deems an individual with a serious mental illness as presumptively eligible for
an FSP if they are one or more of the following:
a) Experiencing unsheltered homelessness as described in specified federal
regulations;
b) Transitioning to the community after six months or more in a secured
treatment or residential setting, including, but not limited to, a mental health
rehabilitation center, institution for mental disease, or secured skilled
nursing facility;
c) Involuntarily detained five or more times under the LPS Act over the last
five years; or,
d) Transitioning to the community after six months or more in a state prison or
county jail.
2) Specifies that counties are not required to enroll an individual who meets the
presumptive eligibility criteria if doing so would conflict with contractual
Medi-Cal obligations or court orders, or exceed FSP capacity or funding.
3) Requires enrollment of a presumptively eligible individual to be contingent
upon the individual meeting established criteria, and the individual receiving a
recommendation by a licensed behavioral health clinician who, after assessing
the individual’s mental health needs, finds enrollment appropriate and
documents it in the individual’s clinical record.
4) Prohibits an individual with a serious mental illness from being deemed
ineligible for enrollment in an FSP solely because their primary diagnosis is a
substance use disorder.
Comments
Author’s statement. According to the author, California is continuing to invest in
mental health assistance for those most in need, yet we continue to run into red
tape. This bill ensures Californians with the highest need can access the fast,
effective, and consistent care that will change their lives. FSPs are shown to be
extremely beneficial for those suffering from severe mental illness who have
interacted with the criminal justice system and have a history of housing
instability. Streamlining access to FSPs for this population will lead to better health
outcomes.
AB 348
Page 4
FSPs. Regulations currently require CMHPs to direct the majority of Community
Services and Supports funds (about 76% of county BHSF moneys) to FSP services,
which generally are thought of as “whatever it takes” services, including:
Mental health treatment, including alternative and culturally specific
treatments, peer support, supportive services to assist the client and the
client’s family, wellness centers, needs assessments, and crisis intervention
and stabilization services;
Non-mental health services and supports like food, clothing, housing, and
cost of health care treatment; and,
Wrap-around services to children through the development of expanded
family-based services programs.
Under the BHSA, 35% of county BHSF moneys must be dedicated to FSPs. The
BHSA codified standardized, evidence-based practices for models of treatment for
FSPs, including Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Forensic ACT
(FACT), Individual Placement and Support model of Supported Employment, high
fidelity wraparound, or other evidence-based services and treatment models, as
specified by DHCS. FSP programs are also required to have an established
standard of care with levels based on an individual’s acuity and criteria for step-
down into the least intensive level of care, as specified by DHCS, in consultation
with the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission
(also known as the Commission for Behavioral Health [CBH]), counties, providers,
and other stakeholders.
In an October 2024 listening session regarding FSPs, DHCS noted that the BHSA
does not prohibit counties from establishing FSP programs for individuals with
primary SUD diagnoses (i.e., without co-occurring significant mental health
needs). However, counties are not required to develop new, dedicated Levels of
Care specific to SUD or FSPs that are exclusively for SUD (apart from
implementing new, field-based initiation of SUD care requirements). DHCS stated
that the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System is intended to cover a
comprehensive continuum of care for SUD.
FSP report. SB 465 (Eggman, Chapter 544, Statutes of 2021) requires the CBH to
report to the Legislature biennially on FSP enrollees, outcomes, and
recommendations for strengthening FSPs to reduce incarceration, hospitalization,
and homelessness. The first report was released in January 2023 and identified
three primary concerns: data quality challenges for assessing effectiveness of
FSPs; counties appearing not to meet minimum spending requirements; and,
insufficient technical assistance and support to ensure effectiveness. CBH shared
AB 348
Page 5
the draft 2025 report at its February 2025 meeting and recommended, among other
things, “clear and specific eligibility requirements for FSP clients to reduce wait
times and ensure individuals are connected to the correct resources from day one.”
CBH states it has done extensive work to better understand what needs to be done
to improve FSPs, including conducting targeted outreach, community forums, and
a statewide survey reaching participants from 45 counties. In addition, CBH states
on its website that it conducted deep dives with Nevada, San Francisco, and
Orange counties to review current FSP contract practices; conducted case studies
in two counties to better understand data collection, reporting practices, and the use
of outcome and performance metrics; and, is conducting performance management
technical assistance and capacity building pilots in Sacramento and Nevada
counties. CBH says its next report will cover trends in the characteristics of FSP
clients, including race and ethnic composition, diagnoses, service utilization, and
housing status, as well as examine how clients have fared prior to and immediately
after joining an FSP. The report will also examine FSPs as systems of care and
illuminate how system-level issues, such as state-mandated data collection and
reporting policies and practices, impact quality of care and client outcomes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/12/25)
Big City Mayors (co-source)
California Behavioral Health Association (co-source)
Steinberg Institute (co-source)
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives
California District Attorneys Association
California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Peer Watch
California State Association of Psychiatrists
Californians for Safety and Justice
City of Sunnyvale
Commission for Behavioral Health
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Courage California
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Greater Sacramento Urban League
AB 348
Page 6
Housing California
League of California Cities
Mental Health America of California
National Alliance on Mental Illness - California
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Occupational Therapy Association of California
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California
Sacramento County Probation Association
Smart Justice California
Vera Institute of Justice
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/12/25)
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
County of Los Angeles
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Behavioral Health Association
and the Steinberg Institute, cosponsors of this bill, and other supporters comprised
of stakeholders in the behavioral health space argue for too long individuals with
serious mental illness have found themselves in a traumatizing cycle of
homelessness, hospitalization, and incarceration, unable to access the intensive
services they need to escape the cycle. Though FSP funding has existed for more
than two decades, the individuals most at risk of continued system involvement are
not being prioritized for enrollment due to a lack of clarity in eligibility criteria.
The CBH 2024 FSP report found that the “complexity of the eligibility
requirements and vast recent changes to the billing systems are creating significant
administrative burdens that FSP providers feel are preventing them from
maximizing the use of their staff time and funding to provide care to clients.”
Supporters further argue that inconsistent, county-by-county eligibility processes
delay access, create confusion, and leave the most vulnerable people without care.
This bill standardizes eligibility for these high-need populations and removes the
delays and barriers that have historically blocked the sickest individuals from care.
By establishing presumptive eligibility, the bill ensures that those with a serious
mental illness and experiencing chronic homelessness, hospitalization, and justice
system involvement can access FSP services right away, which are the most
effective tool for stabilizing individuals with serious mental illness and complex
social needs. Supporters state that decades of research confirm when implemented
correctly, FSPs prevent costly and inhumane cycles of crisis, law enforcement
intervention, and institutionalization. CBH’s 2024 FSP report further found that
“FSP clients experienced a 41% reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations, and
AB 348
Page 7
another study identified that FSP clients spent less days on the streets, with an
average reduction of 129 days per year.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Los Angeles County (LAC) opposes based
on the concern that by putting FSP eligibility criteria into statute, this bill would
limit both LAC’s and the state’s flexibility, and thereby the ability to deliver
services in the best interest of clients. FSP eligibility criteria are currently
established at a county’s discretion, which allows LAC to maximize the value and
optimize allocation of counties’ limited resources. LAC further argues that what’s
important and a priority in LAC may not be a priority or important in San
Francisco, Modoc, or any of the other counties in the state. Although this bill
proposes a process for counties to appeal for not having sufficient capacity or
funding to provide FSP services to all clients who would meet the bill’s proposed
presumptive eligibility requirements, LAC argues this would create a new
administrative burden that would detract from, not improve, client care.
Complicating matters, this bill could place a substantial financial strain on LAC
due to the anticipated rise in automatic referrals, thus imposing even more
restrictions on how counties allocate BHSA FSP funds.
Oppose unless amended. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association
(CBHDA) states that it remains concerned as this bill now opens up FSP eligibility
to any individual with a serious mental illness that has been involuntarily detained
five or more times for up to 72 hours [“5150” in the LPS Act] over the last five
years. CBHDA says this additional criteria would significantly hinder county
operations relating to implementing FSPs in accordance with current law and as
proposed by this bill. CBHDA would like to see this provision removed from the
bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/12/25
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías,
Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon,
Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary,
Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González,
Hadwick, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee,
Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan,
Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste
Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo,
Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward,
Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
AB 348
Page 8
NO VOTE RECORDED: Garcia, Harabedian, Stefani
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
6/13/25 15:46:15
**** END ****
Assembly Bill No. 544
CHAPTER 36
An act to amend Sections 21201 and 21212 of the Vehicle Code, relating
to vehicles.
[Approved by Governor July 14, 2025. Filed with Secretary of
State July 14, 2025.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 544, Davies. Electric bicycles: required equipment.
(1) Existing law requires a bicycle operated during darkness on a highway,
sidewalk, or bikeway to be equipped with, among other things, a red reflector
or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector on the rear that is
visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful
upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. Existing law defines “bicycle”
for these purposes to, among other things, include an electric bicycle.
Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully
operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of
power and categorizes electric bicycles into 3 classes. A violation of the
provisions relating to the requirements for equipping a bicycle or an electric
bicycle is punishable as an infraction.
This bill would require an electric bicycle during all hours to be equipped
with a red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector
on the rear that is visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly
in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. By
expanding the requirements for equipping an electric bicycle, the violation
of which would be an infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
(2) Existing law requires a minor to wear a properly fitted and fastened
helmet when engaged in specified activities, including operating a bicycle,
nonmotorized scooter, or skateboard or wearing in-line or roller skates and
requires that the helmet meet the standards of the American Society for
Testing and Materials or the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Existing law prohibits a record of a violation of those
provisions from being transmitted to the court and prohibits the imposition
of a fee if the parent or guardian of the minor delivers proof that the minor
has a helmet that meets specific standards and has completed a bicycle safety
course, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions an
infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $25, except as specified.
This bill would, for a violation of these provisions involving an electric
bicycle, prohibit a record of a violation from being transmitted to the court
and the imposition of a fee if the parent or guardian of the minor delivers
proof that the minor has a helmet that meets the specified safety standards
95
and has completed a specialized electric bicycle safety course. The bill
would also specify that the specialized electric bicycle safety course
developed by the Department of the California Highway Patrol satisfies the
requirement that a person complete a specialized electric bicycle safety
course. By imposing new requirements with respect to electric bicycles, the
violation of which would be an infraction, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
(3) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for
a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 21201 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21201. (a) A person shall not operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it
is equipped with a brake that will enable the operator to make one braked
wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(b) A person shall not operate on the highway a bicycle equipped with
handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate their hands above the
level of their shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area.
(c) A person shall not operate upon a highway a bicycle that is of a size
that prevents the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in
an upright position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting it in
a safe manner.
(d) A bicycle operated during darkness on a highway, a sidewalk where
bicycle operation is not prohibited by the local jurisdiction, or a bikeway,
as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, shall be
equipped with all of the following:
(1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion,
illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and
is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the
bicycle.
(2) A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector
on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when
directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.
(3) A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from
the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet.
(4) A white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the
bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of
the bicycle, except that bicycles that are equipped with reflectorized tires
on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors.
The reflectors and reflectorized tires shall be of a type meeting
requirements established by the department.
95
— 2 — Ch. 36
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the
operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides
of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of
subdivision (d).
(f) An electric bicycle shall comply with paragraph (2) of subdivision
(d) during all hours.
SEC. 2. Section 21212 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21212. (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle,
a nonmotorized scooter, or a skateboard, wear in-line or roller skates, or
ride upon a bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, or skateboard as a passenger
upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and
Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless they are
wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards
of either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or a standard
subsequently established by those entities. This requirement also applies to
a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached
to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.
(b) A helmet sold or offered for sale for use by an operator or passenger
of a bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, skateboard, or in-line or roller skates
shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the standard described
in subdivision (a), which shall constitute the manufacturer’s certification
that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standard.
(c) A person shall not sell or offer for sale, for use by an operator or
passenger of a bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, skateboard, or in-line or roller
skates, a helmet that is not of a type meeting requirements established by
this section.
(d) A charge under this section shall be dismissed if the person charged
alleges in court, under oath, that the charge against the person is the first
charge against that person under this section, unless it is otherwise
established in court that the charge is not the first charge against the person.
(e) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of this section
is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars
($25).
(2) The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an
unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly
and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed
pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) A record of the action shall not be transmitted to the court and a fee
shall not be imposed pursuant to Section 40611 for a citation for not wearing
a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet pursuant to subdivision (a) if
the parent or legal guardian of the person described in subdivision (a)
delivers proof to the issuing agency within 120 days after the citation was
issued that the person has a helmet meeting the requirements specified in
subdivision (a) and the person has completed a local bicycle safety course
or, if the violation involved an electric bicycle, a specialized electric bicycle
safety course, which may include, but is not limited to, the electric bicycle
95
Ch. 36 — 3 —
safety and training program developed by the Department of the California
Highway Patrol pursuant to Section 894 of the Streets and Highways Code,
or a related safety course, if one is available, as prescribed by authorities in
the local jurisdiction.
(g) Notwithstanding Section 1463 of the Penal Code or any other law,
the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows:
(1) Seventy-two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be
deposited in a special account of the county health department, to be used
for bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, skateboard, and in-line and roller skate
safety education and for assisting low-income families in obtaining approved
bicycle helmets for persons under 18 years of age, either on a loan or
purchase basis. The county may contract for the implementation of this
program, which, to the extent practicable, shall be operated in conjunction
with the child passenger restraint program pursuant to Section 27360.
(2) Two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited
in the county treasury to be used by the county to administer the program
described in paragraph (1).
(3) If the violation occurred within a city, 25 percent of the amount
collected shall be transferred to, and deposited in, the treasury of that city.
If the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this 25 percent shall be
deposited and used pursuant to paragraph (1).
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6
of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that
may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because
this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction,
or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime
within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
O
95
— 4 — Ch. 36
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 650 (Papan) - Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs
allocation
Version: April 24, 2025 Policy Vote: HOUSING 11 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: July 14, 2025 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: AB 650 would require the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), if it finds a local agency’s draft or adopted housing element is not
in substantial compliance, to identify and explain specific deficiencies and to provide the
specific analysis or text to the local agency that would bring the housing element into
compliance, as specified. The bill would also extend various timelines in the process for
determining and allocating regional housing needs, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
HCD estimates ongoing costs of approximately $11.1 million annually for 52.0 PY of
new staff as a result of the bill shifting core responsibilities for identifying and
correcting deficiencies in local agencies’ housing elements from cities and counties
to HCD. Additional staff would be needed to research local conditions such as site
availability, zoning ordinances, and demographic trends, to draft housing element
content tailored to each jurisdiction, to conduct stakeholder outreach with
developers, experts, and community members, and lead public engagement in order
to provide the required feedback to local governments. (General Fund)
HCD indicates that any costs associated with earlier consultation with regional
councils of government (COGs) and determining each region’s existing and
projected housing deed would be minor and absorbable (General Fund). Staff notes
that, in the most recent housing element cycle, HCD moved up the consultation
timeline with the state’s largest COGs by an additional year, consistent with the
requirements of this bill.
By imposing new duties on regional COGs and revising the process for local
agencies to remedy deficiencies in their housing elements, the bill creates a state-
mandated local program. Any additional costs to COGs would be minor, and staff
notes that COGs are not eligible for reimbursement from the state for costs
associated with new mandates or higher levels of service. Local agencies would
likely experience overall cost savings by requiring HCD to identify housing element
deficiencies and to provide specific text or analysis to bring a local agency’s housing
element into compliance. Any costs incurred by local agencies related to the
housing element revisions would not be state-reimbursable because cities and
counties have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to
offset any increased costs associated with this bill. (local funds)
Background: Existing law requires cities and counties to prepare a general plan
comprised of seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that identifies
AB 650 (Papan) Page 2 of 4
existing and projected housing needs. The housing element must include an inventory
of adequate sites zoned for housing at all income levels (very low, low, moderate, and
above moderate income) and to accommodate a jurisdiction’s share of the regional
housing needs that is sufficient to account for population growth and to overcome
existing housing deficiencies over the planning period. The regional housing needs
assessment (RHNA) process is composed of three main stages: (1) development of
regional housing need estimates by HCD and the Department of Finance; (2) allocation
of housing within each region by councils of government (COGs), or by HCD in an area
not within a COG; and (3) incorporation of RHNA allocations into city and county
housing elements. Existing law requires cities and counties with larger populations in
urban areas to update their housing elements every eight years, but local agencies in
rural areas with smaller populations must complete updates every five years.
For each housing element cycle, the Department of Finance (DOF) provides HCD with a
population projection for each region, while each region must also develop projections
in conjunction with the development of its regional transportation plan (RTP). Current
law requires HCD to meet and consult with each COG 26 months before the housing
element due date for jurisdictions within each region, and to share data assumptions
and the projected methodology that will be used to produce the RHND. After the
consultation, HCD can modify its underlying data and methodology, and make a written
determination of the data to be used to produce the final RHND. The COG must then
use the RHND to create an allocation methodology (RHNA) that distributes the regional
housing need equitably among the cities and counties within the region. Local agencies
must incorporate the RHNA into their housing elements.
At least 90 days prior to adopting a revision of its housing element, or at least 60 days
prior to adopting a subsequent amendment, a local planning agency must submit the
revision or amendment to HCD for review. HCD must review the draft and report its
written findings within 90 days of receiving a draft or within 60 days of receiving a
subsequent draft amendment. The written findings must include a determination of
whether the draft housing element or amendment substantially complies with housing
element law. If HCD finds a housing element is not in substantial compliance, the local
agency must either change the draft housing element or amendment to bring it into
compliance, or adopt the draft element or amendment without changes and include
written findings that explain the reasons the local agency believes the element or
amendment is in substantial compliance, as specified. Existing law authorizes HCD to
notify the Attorney General if it finds a local agency’s housing element is not in
substantial compliance with housing element law to compel compliance.
Proposed Law: AB 650 would require HCD to identify and explain specific
deficiencies in a local agency’s draft or adopted housing element that is not
substantially compliant with the law, and to provide specific analysis and text to a local
agency that would correct any deficiencies. Specifically, this bill would:
Require HCD to do both of the following in a written communication to a local
planning agency if it finds that a draft housing element or draft amendment does not
substantially comply with housing element law:
o Identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft element or
amendment, including a reference to each provision of housing element law
that the draft element or amendment does not comply with.
AB 650 (Papan) Page 3 of 4
o Provide the specific analysis or text that HCD expects the planning agency to
include in the draft element or amendment to remedy any identified
deficiencies.
Impose similar requirements on HCD when reviewing an adopted housing element
or amendment, if a local agency’s adopted element or amendment is not in
substantial compliance, as specified.
AB 650 would also revise certain timelines in the process for determining and allocating
regional housing needs. Specifically, this bill would:
Extend the time by which HCD, in consultation with each COG, must determine each
region’s existing and projected housing need from two years to three years, except
as specified.
Require HCD, for cities and counties without a COG, to determine each region’s
existing and projected housing need at least 30 months (rather than two years)
before the scheduled housing element revision, except as specified.
Extend the time by which HCD must meet and consult with each COG regarding the
assumptions and methodology HCD will use to determine the region’s regional
housing need by one year (from 26 to 38 months prior to the scheduled housing
element revision deadline), except as specified.
Add six months to the following timelines:
o The time by which two or more cities and a county, or counties, may form a
subregional entity to allocate the subregion’s RHNA among its members.
o The time by which a COG must determine the share of RHNA assigned to
each delegate subregion, as specified.
o The time by which each COG or delegate subregion must develop a
proposed methodology in consultation with HCD for distributing the RHNA to
local governments within the region or subregion, except as specified.
o The time by which each COG and delegate subregion must distribute a draft
RHNA to each local government within the region or subregion and to HCD,
based on the adopted methodology, and to publish the draft RHNA on its
website, except as specified.
This bill would also specify a deadline of December 31, 2026 for an existing requirement
for HCD to develop a standardized reporting format for programs and actions taken to
affirmatively further fair housing via the housing element.
Related Legislation: AB 1275 (Elhawary), which is currently pending in this
Committee, includes provisions that would, for future housing element cycles, extend
the timeframe for HCD to determine the existing and projected housing needs in each
region from 2 years to 3 years, and the timeframe for HCD to meet and consult with
COGs from 26 months prior to the housing element due date to 38 months prior to that
date, as specified.
SB 233 (Seyarto), which is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government
Committee, would extend the timeframe for HCD to meet and consult with COGs from
26 months prior to the housing element due date to 38 months prior to that date,
beginning with the seventh housing element cycle, as specified. For COGs that have a
seventh housing element due in 2028 or earlier, this requirement would be delayed until
the eighth housing element cycle.
AB 650 (Papan) Page 4 of 4
Staff Comments: HCD indicates that this bill would significantly shift responsibility for
preparing compliant housing elements from local jurisdictions to the department, and
estimates that new obligations imposed by the bill would require an additional 52.0 PY
of staff at a cost of approximately $11.1 million annually. It is unclear if these resource
needs are based on an assumption that HCD would conduct core housing element
responsibilities for all local agencies, or some subset of cities and counties local
agencies that submit noncompliant housing elements and amendments. It is clear,
however, that the bill would impose substantial workload on HCD to provide local
agencies with written notification of specific statutory provisions that a local agency’s
draft or adopted housing element does not comply with, and to provide specific text and
analysis that, if adopted, would correct any deficiencies. The bill is intended to facilitate
local agencies’ timely compliance with housing element law, which would support the
production of more housing.
-- END --
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2025-2026 Regular Session
AB 712 (Wicks)
Version: July 3, 2025
Hearing Date: July 15, 2025
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
ID
SUBJECT
Housing reform laws: enforcement actions: fines and penalties
DIGEST
This bill requires a court, in an action where an applicant for a housing development
sues a public agency to enforce its compliance with a housing reform law, and the
applicant is the prevailing party, to impose fines upon the agency, as specified, and
entitles the prevailing applicant to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California is currently experiencing a significant housing crisis, in part because of a
substantial shortage in new housing. Consequently, the Legislature has passed
numerous bills in the last few years aimed at streamlining the approval and
construction of new housing. These laws include laws around the housing element of
cities and counties’ general plans, laws meant to streamline the permitting process, laws
prohibiting a local government from denying, reducing the density of, or making
infeasible a housing development project, emergency shelter project, or farmworker
housing development that is otherwise consistent with objective local development
standards, and many other laws. While some of these laws have robust enforcement
mechanisms, the author asserts that their enforcement mechanisms are not sufficient to
deter local agencies from not following the laws.
AB 712 proposes a broad enforcement mechanism for when a public agency fails to
comply with any housing reform law, by requiring a court in any action in which the
applicant for a housing development sues the agency for noncompliance with a housing
reform law, when the applicant is the prevailing party, to award the applicant
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and impose specified fines. For these fines, AB 712
requires the Attorney General or the Department of Housing and Community
Development to first notify the agency that its action is not in compliance with a
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 2 of 14
relevant housing law, and also requires that the applicant then provide the agency 60
days’ notice before bringing a civil action.
AB 712 is sponsored by the California Building Industries Association, and is supported
by the California Chamber of Commerce and a number of business associations and
pro-housing organizations. It is opposed by the California Special District Association,
New Livable California, and a number of cities. It previously passed out of the Senate
Housing Committee by a vote of 10 to 1.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW
Existing law:
1) Requires, as a part of the General Plan Law, local agencies to develop a housing
element within their general plan that consists of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation,
improvement, and development of housing, including identifying sites for adequate
housing. (Gov. Code § 65583.)
2) Prohibits, in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), local agencies
from disapproving a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-
income households, or an emergency shelter, or conditioning approval in a manner
that renders the project or shelter infeasible, unless the local agency makes written
findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record as to one of
several specified justifications for the denial. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).)
3) Authorizes a project applicant, a person eligible to live in a housing development or
emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the HAA.
Specifies that, if the court finds that an agency took an action that violated the HAA,
the court must issue an order or judgment compelling compliance within a time
period not to exceed 60 days, including by requiring the agency to approve the
development, as specified. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k).)
4) Requires a court to grant a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to 3)
reasonable attorney’s costs and fees, as specified. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii).)
5) Requires a court, upon a determination that a local agency failed to comply with an
order or judgment of the court mandating compliance with the HAA, to impose
fines on the local agency and requires the local agency to deposit any fine levied into
a local housing trust fund or the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. Requires the
fine to be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing
development project on the date the application was deemed complete, as specified.
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B).)
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 3 of 14
6) Specifies that, if a court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it violated
the HAA and failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the 60-day
time period, the court must multiply the fine by a factor of five, and that, if the court
finds that the agency violated the HAA within the same planning period, the court
must multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(l).)
7) Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to notify
the local agency, and authorizes the Department to notify the Attorney General, if
the Department finds any of the following:
a) A local agency’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law;
or
b) A local agency takes an action in violation of specified housing laws. (Gov. Code
§ 65585(j).)
8) Provides the HCD and the Attorney General the unconditional right to intervene in
any suit brought to enforce specified housing laws, and grants the Attorney General
this unconditional right whether intervening in an independent capacity or pursuant
to a notice or referral from the Department. (Gov. Code § 65585.01.)
9) Authorizes, in any action brought by the HCD or the Attorney General seeking to
enforce the revision of a housing element or various discretionary review statutes,
the following remedies:
a) A civil penalty of, at minimum, $10,000 per month, and not exceeding $50,000
per month, for each violation, accrued from the date of the violation until the
violation is cured;
b) All costs of investigating and prosecuting the action, including expert fees,
reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs, whenever the Department or Attorney
General prevails in a civil action to enforce any state laws under this provision;
and
c) Any other relief the court deems appropriate. (Gov. Code § 65009.1.)
This bill:
1) States that it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this bill, to:
a) establish minimum uniform, transparent, fair, and effective remedies against
public agencies that are found by a court of law to have violated housing reform
laws; and
b) prevent public agencies from undermining these minimum uniform, transparent,
fair, and effective remedies through the imposition of reimbursement and
indemnification agreements on applicants for housing development approvals
with respect to legal challenges involving the agency’s own alleged violation of
housing reform laws.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 4 of 14
2) Specifies that, notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to any other available
remedies, in any action brought by the applicant for a housing development project
against a public agency to enforce the public agency’s compliance with a housing
reform law as applied to the applicant’s housing development project, and the
applicant is the prevailing party, the applicant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs.
3) Specifies that, where an applicant is the prevailing party in such a suit, and the
action is against a local agency, if the local agency was advised in writing by the
Attorney General or HCD prior to the commencement of the action that the agency’s
decision, action, or inaction would represent a violation of a specific housing reform
law in substantially the same manner as alleged by the applicant, the court must
impose a fine of not less than specified fines that equal $10,000 per housing unit,
unless the housing development consists of four or fewer units, in which case the
court shall impose a fine of not less than $50,000 per violation.
4) Specifies that the court may not impose the above-described fines unless the
applicant provides the local agency written notice of its intent to commence an
action, after the Attorney General or HCD sent the agency its written
communication. Requires that the applicant’s written notice identify the factual
elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis of the allegation that
the agency violated a housing reform law, and requires that this notice be provided
at least 60 days prior to the commencement of the action.
5) Specifies that, for any action commenced or intended to be commenced under the
bill, any statute of limitations shall be extended for a period of 60 days from when
the applicant provides the agency written notice of its intent to sue.
6) Specifies that, if a court has previously found that the local agency violated the same
housing reform law on which an applicant prevailed in its lawsuit, within the same
planning period, the court must impose a fine in an amount not less than the above-
described fines multiplied by a factor of five. Specifies that a violation is considered
to have occurred during the same planning period if the agency does not have a
housing element considered to be in substantial compliance.
7) Notwithstanding specified provisions, specifies that an applicant shall not be
required to present a claim to seek the fine described above.
8) Specifies that nothing in these provisions limits the availability of attorney’s fees to a
successful party under specified provisions of law.
9) Prohibits a public agency from requiring an applicant for a housing development
project to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the public agency in any manner
with respect to an action brought by the applicant, or any other person, alleging that
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 5 of 14
the public agency violated the applicant’s rights or deprived the applicant of the
benefits or protections provided by a housing reform law.
10) Specifies that any requirement, condition, or approval in violation of (9) is against
public policy and unenforceable.
11) Specifies that the provisions of (9) and (10) may not be construed to derogate any
claim that a requirement described in (9) is or was unlawful under previously
existing law.
12) For the purposes of these provisions, defines the following:
a) “housing development project” to have the same meaning as is provided in
Government Code section 65905.5(b);
b) “housing reform law” to mean any law or regulation, or provision of any law or
regulation, that establishes or facilitates rights, safeguards, streamlining benefits,
time limitations, or other protections for the benefits of applicants for housing
development projects, or restricts, proscribes, prohibits, or otherwise imposes
any procedural or substantive limitation on a public agency for the benefit of a
housing development project;
c) “local agency” to mean the same as is provided in Government Code section
65930;
d) “planning period” to mean the time period between the due date for one housing
element and the due date for the next housing element for each revision
according to the applicable schedule described in specified housing element law;
e) “public agency” to mean the same as is provided in Government code section
65932.
COMMENTS
1. Author’s statement
According to the author:
The Legislature has successfully passed a variety of housing laws to make it
easier to build in California. However, these laws need to be enforceable, and
have real consequences when they are broken. Some of our housing laws
(notably the Housing Accountability Act) have strong enforcement provisions,
but others do not. AB 712 would apply levels of enforcement that are similar to
the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act to other state laws, thereby
encouraging local agencies to act in compliance with existing state housing laws.
Additionally, AB 712 would end the practice of public agencies asking housing
development applicants to indemnify the local government against lawsuits
when the local government violates the applicant’s rights. This will result in
more certainty for all parties, and more housing in California.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 6 of 14
2. California’s housing crisis
California is experiencing a serious affordable housing crisis. California homes are
about twice as expensive as an average home across the country, and the monthly cost
of home ownership of a mid-tier home in California has increased 81% since 2020.1
Rents also have increased dramatically in the past decade. In 2022, the median gross
rent in the state was $1,870, which represented about an eight percent increase per year
from the median gross rent in 2019.2 As a result of these high rents, significant numbers
of California renters pay a disproportionate amount of their income toward rent and
struggle to make ends meet. In 2019, 51.8 percent of California renters were cost-
burdened, in which their rent costs exceeded 30 percent of their household income, and
27.3 percent were severely cost-burdened, in which their rent costs exceeded 50 percent
of their household income.3 Moreover, 78 percent of extremely low-income households
are severely cost burdened, meaning that they spend more than half of their income on
housing costs, and 52 percent of low-income households are severely cost burdened.4
Data and multiple studies also have demonstrated a strong link between homelessness
and the cost of housing, suggesting that California’s increases in residential rental rates
contributes directly to the state’s growing population of individuals experiencing
homelessness.5 The state’s high rents significantly affect people of color, who
disproportionately account for the state’s renters.6
A significant contributor to these high home prices and rents is the state’s lack of
affordable housing, as the state is experiencing a record shortfall of available housing. It
is estimated that the state is experiencing a shortfall of 1,283,734 affordable homes.7 At
the same time, the state is currently losing affordable housing every year. Between 1997
and 2022, California lost 22,078 affordable homes due to expiring regulatory restrictions
on government-assisted multifamily developments.8 It is estimated that 31,309
affordable homes are at risk of losing their affordability restrictions in the next 10
1 Alex Bentz, “California Housing Affordability Tracker (1st Quarter 2025),” Legislative Analyst’s Office
(Apr. 21, 2025) https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/793.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Table: Median Gross Rent by Bedroom, American Community Survey (multiple
years) (accessed May 29, 2024), available at https://data.census.gov/.
3 Davalos supra note 1, p. 3.
4 California Housing Partnership, “Housing Needs Dashboard,” Mar. 2024, available at
https://chpc.net/housingneeds/.
5 Margot Kushel et al, “California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, UCSF Benioff
Homelessness and Housing Initiative (Jun. 2023), available at https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-
impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness; Alex Horowitz et al,
“How housing costs drive levels of homelessness: data from metro areas highlights strong connection,”
The APew Charitable Trusts (ug. 22, 2023), available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness.
6 Davalos supra note 1, p. 6.
7 California Housing Partnership, “Housing Needs Dashboard,” Mar. 2024, available at
https://chpc.net/housingneeds/.
8 Danielle Mazzella et al, Report 2023: Affordable Homes At Risk, California Housing Partnership (Apr.
2023), available at https://chpc.net/resources/2023-subsidized-affordable-housing-at-risk-report/.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 7 of 14
years.9 Although the state built more homes in the last few years than it has in many
years, production is still below what the state estimates is needed to be produced every
year in order to meet the state’s needs.10 Given these numbers, the Legislature has
passed a variety of laws in recent years aimed at increasing and facilitating the
production of housing.
3. Cities’ housing elements
State law requires each city and county to develop and adopt a comprehensive, long-
term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and any lands
outside that bear relation to the city or county’s planning. (Gov. Code § 65300.) This
plan must include a statement of development policies and a description of the
objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. (Gov. Code § 65302.) It must also
include certain elements, including transportation, housing, conservation, open-space,
noise, safety, environmental justice, and land use elements. The planning agency can
include additional elements to the plan, and the general plan may address each element
to the extent to which that element exists in the planning area. How a city can adopt or
amend a city or county’s general plan is likewise described by statute. The statute
requires that the planning body drafting the general plan share it with numerous
stakeholders and consult a variety of groups and related planning documents (like a
groundwater sustainability plan). (Gov. Code § 65350.5.)
The housing element is an essential part of tackling housing affordability. The law
specifies a variety of components that must be included in the housing element, such as
a statement of the community’s goals, objectives, and policies for furthering fair
housing and the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of
housing. (Gov. Code § 65583.) The housing element must also include an assessment of
the housing needs and inventory and resources of the city or county, a projection of the
locality’s existing and projected housing needs, and an inventory of land suitable and
available for residential development. (Gov. Code §§ 65583(a)-(c).) Housing elements
must also include a schedule of actions and timelines for implementation. Housing
elements must be revised on a staggered schedule, in which localities within a federally-
designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) classified as non-attainment for
specified air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act must revise their housing
elements every eight years, while localities within MPO’s classified as attainment must
revise their housing elements every five years.
HCD plays an essential role in cities and counties’ creation of their housing elements
and the creation of affordable housing. HCD must review and approve every city and
county’s housing element as in compliance with the law, and a specific schedule with
9 Id.
10 Ben Christopher, “California is losing population and building new houses. When will home prices
come down?” CalMatters (May 16, 2023), https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/05/california-exodus-
housing-cost/.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 8 of 14
specified penalties is set for this process and cities and counties’ compliance with it. If
HCD finds that a city or county’s draft housing element does not substantially comply,
the city or county must either change the draft element to substantially comply, or
adopt the draft element with written findings explaining why it believes the draft
element does substantially comply despite HCD’s findings. (Gov. Code § 65585(f).)
Additionally, if HCD determines that the city or county’s housing element or an action
of the city or county is in violation of the housing element law, it may notify the
Attorney General, and the Attorney General may bring an enforcement action against
the non-compliant city or county. (Gov. Code § 65585(j).)
4. California has enacted many laws in recent years aimed at increasing the production
of housing across the state
In addition to the housing elements laws, various other laws limit how a city or local
agency may delay or deny housing developments. The Permit Streamlining Act,
enacted in 1977, requires public agencies to act within certain, prompt timelines for
reviewing development proposals for discretionary permits. (Gov. Code § 65920.) If the
local agency fails to make a decision within the specified timeframes, the permits are
deemed approved and the development can automatically move forward. (Gov. Code §
655956.) AB 2234 (Rivas, Ch. 651, Stats. 2022) replicated the Permit Streamlining Act
timelines and automatic approval provisions to the approval of post-entitlement
permits, which generally refer to building permits and other non-discretionary permits
required to begin the construction of a development project that has already been
approved. (Gov. Code § 65913.3.)
Another law meant to promote the production of housing is the Housing Accountability
Act (HAA). The HAA prohibits a local government from denying, reducing the density
of, or making infeasible a housing development project, emergency shelter project, or
farmworker housing development that is otherwise consistent with objective local
development standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) Before a local government may do any
of those things with regard to a housing development, farmworker housing, or an
emergency shelter, it must make specified written findings based upon a
preponderance of the evidence that there would be specific adverse health or safety
impacts of the development. The HAA also provides for what is called “the builder’s
remedy,” in which, if a city’s housing element is not “substantially compliant” with the
statutory requirements, the city cannot disapprove a housing project that meets certain
affordability requirements based on the city’s zoning or general plan standards. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(h)(11).)
The HAA includes a private right of action under which the developer, a person who
would be able to live in the development, or a specified housing organization may
challenge the local government’s denial or severely burdensome conditions for the
approval of the development project. If a court finds that the local government violated
the HAA, it can compel the government to comply with the act within 60 days. If the
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 9 of 14
local government fails to do so, the HAA requires the court to impose fines of a
minimum of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project. (Gov. Code §
65589.5(k)(B).) If the court finds that the local government acted in bad faith, the court is
required to multiply these fines by a factor of five. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(l).) In addition,
the HAA provides a prevailing plaintiff the ability to recover reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs.
5. AB 712 would impose penalties on cities and local agencies for failing to comply
with “housing reform laws”
AB 712 attempts to model the enforcement mechanism in the HAA for any
noncompliance by a local government with a variety of housing laws. It would impose
a fine of $10,000 per housing unit for a violation of a housing reform law when the local
government has been advised in writing by HCD or the Attorney General that the local
agency’s decision, action, or inaction would be a violation of a specific housing reform
law. If the housing development consists of four or fewer units, the fine must be for an
amount not less than $50,000 per violation. With recent amendments in the Senate
Housing Committee, these fines also would not be able to be imposed unless, after the
written notice from HCD or the Attorney General, the applicant for the housing
development provides a written notice to the local agency of its intent to commence an
action that identifies the elements of the dispute and the legal theory of the allegation
that the local agency violated the housing reform law. The applicant would be required
to provide this notice at least 60 days before the commencement of the action, though
the notice would extend any applicable statute of limitations for at least 60 days.
In addition, AB 712 would impose a fine of five times those fine amounts when a court
has previously found that the local agency violated the same housing reform law on
which an applicant prevailed within the same housing element planning period. AB 712
also would entitle an applicant of a housing development that prevails in a suit brought
against a public agency to enforce the agency’s compliance with a housing reform law
for that particular development project to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Opposition expresses concern with the breadth of this bill and its definition of a
housing reform law. Indeed, the bill’s definition is quite broad: it includes any law or
regulation “that establishes or facilitates rights, safeguards, streamlining benefits, time
limitations, or other protections for the benefit of applicants for housing development
projects, or [that] restricts, proscribes, prohibits, or otherwise imposes any procedural or
substantive limitation on a public agency for the benefit of a housing development
project.” Thus, any law that creates some requirement on a local government meant to
benefit or promote housing can be enforced with this bill’s fines. Because this is so
broad and does not specify the exact laws it encompasses, this likely will be rife for
litigation. Nonetheless, the severity of the fines proposed may well make any local
agency wary of any litigation, and could operate to force any local agency to comply
with any request by a developer to change or adjust the agency’s action or decision.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 10 of 14
With the threat of serious, mandatory penalties, a local agency likely would feel
obligated to act in any way regarding a housing development that the developer
requests. Otherwise, it would expose the local agency to significant liability and costs.
Whether the Legislature wishes to give that much power to a housing developer over
local determinations is an important question for the Legislature to consider.
6. Arguments in support
According to the California Building Industries Association, which is the sponsor of this
bill:
AB 712 appropriately enhances the rights of housing applicants by guaranteeing
the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when prevailing in actions
against local agencies that fail to uphold housing reform laws. By also imposing
financial penalties on non-compliant agencies, this bill creates a meaningful
deterrent against unlawful delays and denials that have long hindered the
construction of much-needed housing.
Furthermore, AB 712’s prohibition on indemnification clauses is a necessary step
in preventing local governments from shifting legal liabilities onto developers.
This protection ensures that developers can pursue lawful claims without fear of
financial retaliation, fostering a fairer and more transparent housing approval
process.
By holding local governments accountable for non-compliance, the bill will
ensure housing reform laws are respected and applied fairly. AB 712 is a
responsible and necessary reform that will foster a more equitable and efficient
housing development process. For these reasons, we write in support of AB 712
(Wicks). Thank you for your time and consideration.
7. Arguments in opposition
According to the California Special Districts Association, which is opposed to AB 712:
AB 712 would create a right to attorneys’ fees and costs for an applicant in any
action brought by the applicant for a housing development project against a
public agency, including a special district, to enforce a housing reform law,
where the applicant is the prevailing party. This one-sided right, for which
indemnification is prohibited by the bill, would place local agencies legitimately
defending their decisions in court at a disadvantage, with the burden shifted to
taxpayers and ratepayers.
AB 712’s provisions for fines, which may be sought without regard to
requirements of the Government Claims Act, based on an applicant prevailing on
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 11 of 14
claims substantially the same as prior written advisements by the Attorney
General (AG) or the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) similarly exposes well intentioned local agencies, taxpayers and
ratepayers, to significant financial risk while placing local agencies legitimately
defending their decisions at a disadvantage. A development project is a dynamic
and ongoing process. A local agency may receive adverse correspondence from
the AG or HCD at the same time an applicant is advancing their project, and
while the local agency is engaging in dialogue with all stakeholders in good
faith. A local agency with a legitimate reason for working with the AG or HCD
to resolve or challenge the adverse correspondence will be forced into an
untenable situation vis-à-vis the applicant for a housing development project if
the risk of delay shall result in fines, notably, without discretion by a court.
This bill’s provisions for fines when the court has previously found that the local
agency “violated the same statute on which the applicant prevailed in its lawsuit,
within the same planning period” is similarly troubling. This leaves open the
possibility that a local agency could be exposed to significant fines for violating a
statute even based on completely different facts, circumstances and reasoning.
Given the unclear applicability of AB 712, discussed below, local agencies may
not have a clear understanding of their exposure. Moreover, the bill’s reference
to “within the same planning period” is unworkable for special districts. Because
special districts are not land use planning authorities and do not have planning
periods, it is not clear how this provision would or could be applied to them.
This will undoubtedly lead to disputes and litigation.
Taken together, AB 712’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and fines provisions result in
private enforcement of “housing reform laws” without regard to whether private
enforcement is provided for in those carefully crafted measures.
Most concerning for special districts, AB 712 defines “Housing reform law” as
“any law or regulation, or provision of any law or regulation, that establishes or
facilitates rights, safeguards, streamlining benefits, time limitations, or other
protections for the benefit of applicants for housing development projects, or
restricts, proscribe, prohibits, or otherwise imposes any procedural or
substantive limitation on a public agency for the benefit of a housing
development project. This vague definition, coupled with the bill’s severe
penalties, places an undue burden on local agencies, exposing them to litigation
and expense concerning whether a specific law that an applicant claims to be
covered by the bill’s provisions is indeed a “housing reform law.” This is
especially untenable for special districts, which are not land use authorities.
Although special districts do not have land-use authority and therefore the
specified applicability of the provisions of this measure remain unclear, special
districts remain an essential provider of the infrastructure and critical services
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 12 of 14
needed to build thriving communities. They are a vital part of the housing
ecosystem and part of the affordability solution. This measure will divert
precious resources away from this mission.
SUPPORT
California Building Industry Association
Abundant Housing LA
Boma California
Calchamber
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
Commercial Real Estate Development Association, NAIOP of California
Construction Employers' Association
Fieldstead and Company, Inc.
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
Inner City Law Center
NAIOP California
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Southern California Leadership Council
SPUR
The Two Hundred for Homeownership
OPPOSITION
California Special Districts Association
City of Murrieta
City of Yorba Linda
New Livable California Dba Livable California
RELATED LEGISLATION
Pending Legislation:
SB 838 (Durazo, 2025) revises the definition of a “housing development project” to
require that no portion of the project be designated for use as a hotel, motel, or similar
lodging; in the case of a mixed-use development, at least two-thirds of the new or
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 13 of 14
converted square footage must be designated for residential use. SB 838 is currently
pending before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
SB 457 (Becker, 2025) revises Housing Element Law to specify that a local agency’s
housing element is in compliance the date it is adopted if the element is subsequently
certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a
court of competent jurisdiction, and changes the vesting period for builder’s remedy
projects. SB 457 is currently pending before the Senate Housing Committee.
AB 660 (Wilson, 2025) prohibits a local agency from requiring or requesting more than
two plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a
building permit, revises timelines for receiving a determination from the local agency of
an appeal on a permit request, and authorizes an applicant to seek a writ of mandate to
compel approval of the application if the applicant’s appeal is denied. AB 660 is
currently pending before the Senate Housing Committee.
Prior Legislation:
SB 1037 (Wiener, Ch. 293, Stats. 2024) created new legal remedies that can be used by
the AG to enforce the adoption of housing element revisions or to enforce any state law
that requires a local government to ministerially approve any decision or application for
a housing development project.
AB 1893 (Wicks, Ch. 268, Stats. 2024) revised the builder’s remedy in the HAA to
provide objective standards for builder’s remedy projects, including regarding density
standards and project location requirements.
AB 1886 (Alvarez, Ch. 267, Stats. 2024) clarified that a housing element is substantially
compliant with Housing Element Law, when both a local agency adopts the housing
element and HCD or a court finds it in compliance.
AB 1633 (Ting, Ch. 768, Stats. 2023) expanded the definition of a “disapproval” under
the HAA, and applied its provisions until 2031.
AB 215 (Chiu, Ch. 342, Stats. 2021) provided HCD with additional enforcement
authority over local agency violations of specified housing laws.
SB 167 (Skinner, Ch. 368, Stats. 2017) made several changes to the HAA to require a
court, upon a determination that a locality failed to comply with a court order within 60
days, to impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit, and authorized a local
agency to deposit the fine in a specified state fund, to be used or returned to the state’s
general fund, as specified.
AB 712 (Wicks)
Page 14 of 14
AB 72 (Santiago, Ch. 370, Stats. 2017) provided HCD the authority to find a local
government’s housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that the
local government acts or fails to act in compliance with its housing element, and allows
HCD to refer violations of law to the AG.
PRIOR VOTES:
Senate Housing Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 1)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 64, Noes 2)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)
**************
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Senator Susan Rubio, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: AB 888 Hearing Date: July 9, 2025
Author: Calderon
Version: May 29, 2025 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Brandon Seto
SUBJECT: California Safe Homes grant program
DIGEST: Creates the California Safe Homes grant program within the California
Department of Insurance (CDI) with the goals of reducing local and statewide wildfire
losses, improving the insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities, and home
hardening to mitigate wildfire risk and reduce the cost of insurance.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the “Safer from Wildfires” Framework within the California Code of
Regulations, with the goal of reducing wildfire risk and making homes and
businesses more resilient to wildfires.
2) Authorizes formation of a joint powers agreement between the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Office of Emergency Services (CAL
OES) to administer the California Wildfire Mitigation Financial Assistance Program,
known as the California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP) that focuses on offering
financial assistance to vulnerable populations in wildfire-prone areas, as well as
cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting to create fire-resistant homes,
defensible space, and vegetation management activities.
3) Requires the joint powers authority to develop eligibility criteria for property owners,
community organizations, and local governments that may receive financial
assistance under the wildfire mitigation program.
This bill:
1) Establishes the California Safe Homes Grant Program (Program), to be developed
and administered by CDI for the purposes of:
a) Reducing local and statewide wildfire losses
b) Improving insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities
c) Home hardening of insurable properties to mitigate wildfire risk and enable
consumers to get access to insurance premium incentives offered by insurance
companies in alignment with CDI’s rules
AB 888 (Calderon) Page 2 of 6
2) Creates the Sustainable Insurance Account within the Insurance Fund. Specifies
that funds in the account shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature or
upon receipt of federal, or other grants or funds, and that these funds cannot be
redistributed.
3) States that CDI may adopt rules and establish eligibility requirements and additional
procedures for the administration of the Program, and in accordance with any
conditions associated with grants or funds received by the Program. Additionally,
CDI may contract with a third party to assist with Program administration.
4) Requires CDI, when awarding grant funds, to prioritize the following:
a) Replacement roofs to align with the standards specified in the Safer from
Wildfires regulations
b) Creation of a five-foot non-combustible zone around the structure to align with
the standards specified in the Safer from Wildfires regulations
c) Projects that improve community mitigation to reduce the risk of losses caused
by wildfires, with consideration to the following:
i) Collective actions that mitigate risks by addressing risk factors on structures
in the surrounding area that exacerbate insurable wildfire losses
ii) Alignment with existing risk mitigation
iii) Anticipated benefit to insurance policyholders
5) Provides that eligible individuals must meet the following criteria:
a) The property is covered by an admitted insurer or the California FAIR Plan
Association (FAIR Plan)
b) The property is in a ZIP Code that overlaps with a high or very high fire hazard
severity zone
c) The income of the applicant is no higher than the low-income limit for the county
in which they reside
6) Provides that eligible cities, counties, and special districts must demonstrate the
alignment of the use of grant funds to enhance and expand the grant funding
priorities mentioned above and the criteria for tracking performance.
7) Requires CDI to collect the following information:
a) Information on the use of the grant funds, including receipt for contractor
services, written attestation of work done by recipient, and documentation that
demonstrates if the grantee qualified for wildfire incentives from their insurance
company
AB 888 (Calderon) Page 3 of 6
b) Regional information on the geographic distribution of grant funding
8) Requires the FAIR Plan to submit an annual report to CDI stating the number of
policyholders that have qualified for each of the wildfire mitigation rating factors
specified under the Safer from Wildfires regulations.
9) Requires CDI, on or before January 1, 2027, and every two years thereafter to
publish a performance report using aggregate information collected from grantees
and metrics for the beneficial impacts of the grants awarded, including the funding
for each of the mitigation actions, geographic distributions, and recommendations on
how to improve the implementation of the program. This report will be submitted to
the Legislature and posted on CDI's website.
10) Makes affiliated findings and declarations.
Background
According to the Author:
"This measure is necessary to create a state-wide program focused on the costliest
home-hardening renovations. Californians need assistance to make these beneficial
upgrades and this measure will encourage just that."
Safer from Wildfires Framework
Announced in 2022 by CDI and instituted in regulations, the Safer from Wildfires
Framework directs insurers to provide discounts to consumers and businesses if they
take specified mitigation measures. To produce this regulation, CDI worked with
emergency preparedness agencies in the Governor’s Administration, including CAL
FIRE, CAL OES, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California
Public Utilities Commission. The Framework is founded on a “ground-up” approach for
wildfire resilience with three layers of protection for the structure, the immediate
surroundings, and the community.
Insurance companies operating in California must recognize and offer discounts to
homeowners and businesses that undertake wildfire mitigation efforts as part of the
state's Safer from Wildfires Framework. Insurance companies must also provide
consumers with their property’s “wildfire risk score” and a right to appeal that score. The
specific mitigation measures that may be taken include:
Class-A fire-rated roof: Roofs that qualify include asphalt shingles, concrete, brick, or
masonry tiles, and metal shingles or sheets.
Five-foot ember-resistant zone: Removing greenery and replacing wood chips with
stone or decomposed granite five feet around the home helps prevents fire from
reaching the home.
AB 888 (Calderon) Page 4 of 6
Ember- and fire-resistant vents: Installing 1/16 to 1/8 inch non-combustible,
corrosion-resistant metal mesh screens over exterior vents can keep wind-blown
embers out of the house.
Non-combustible area six inches at the bottom of exterior walls: Having a minimum
of six vertical inches measured from the ground up, and from any attached
horizontal surface, like a deck, can stop embers from accumulating and igniting the
walls. Non-combustible materials include brick, stone, fiber-cement siding, or
concrete.
Enclosed eaves to prevent heat and embers from getting trapped and igniting.
Upgraded windows: Multi-paned windows are more resistant to breaking during a
wildfire, which helps keep flames from entering. Multi-paned glass or added shutters
all qualify.
Cleared vegetation, weeds, and debris from under decks: Non-combustible materials
like concrete, gravel, or bare soil are permitted.
Removal of combustible sheds and other outbuildings to a distance of at least 30
feet: These include sheds, gazebos, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), covered
structures with a solid roof, dog houses, and playhouses.
Defensible space compliance: Following state and local laws requiring defensible
space, including trimming trees and removing of brush and debris from yards.
Being safer together: Safer from Wildfires recognizes two community-wide
programs, Firewise USA and Fire Risk Reduction. Communities as small as eight
dwelling units or as big as 2,500 can create a mitigation action plan.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 616 (Rubio, Cortese, Stern): Would create an independent Community Hardening
Commission within CDI, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire
mitigation standard for all levels of government across the state, as well as generating
guidelines to enable the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform. This bill is pending
in Assembly Emergency Management Committee.
AB 1 (Connolly): Requires, by January 1, 2030, and every five years thereafter, CDI to
consider whether to update the Safer from Wildfires regulations to include certain
building hardening measures. This bill is pending in Senate Appropriations Committee.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
According to the bill’s sponsor, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara:
“There are very few existing funding sources for Californians to replace a roof with one
that would decrease their fire risk. Replacement roofs are among the costliest yet most
effective wildfire mitigation measures a homeowner can take. Current programs have
strict eligibility criteria, limited funding, and allocate funds across a variety of mitigation
AB 888 (Calderon) Page 5 of 6
efforts. AB 888 would fill this gap by specifically targeting two critical measures:
replacing roofs with fire-safe options, and creating a non-combustible zone in the first
five feet – two of the most expensive mitigation actions that can bring down the fire risk
for the entire community. Because risk mitigation benefits not only the homeowner
replacing their roof but contributes to the safety of the community as a whole, the grant
program will also benefit consumers that do not directly receive the grant funds.
My Department is already leading efforts to incentivize wildfire risk mitigation through
the Safer from Wildfires regulations. These regulations provide insurance premium
discounts to homeowners who take mitigation actions, like replacing a roof with a fire-
safe option. This bill complements the regulations by offering financial support for fire-
resistant roofs, which benefits not only the homeowners but also their neighbors by
lowering the community’s overall wildfire risk. A California program would incorporate
the lessons learned from other states who already have successful, similar programs.
Drawing from Alabama and Louisiana's success with similar initiatives, a goal of the bill
is to influence consumer and contractor behavior, encouraging broader adoption of fire-
safety beyond the scope of the program. AB 888 has the potential for significant and
broad impact, encouraging widespread adoption of fire-resistant measures across
California.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
None received.
SUPPORT:
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara / California Department of Insurance (Sponsor)
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
Brea; City of
California Association of Realtors
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
California Democratic Party, Rural Caucus
Ceres, INC.
City of Agoura Hills
City of Arcadia
City of La Verne
City of Los Alamitos
City of Paramount
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Thousand Oaks
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of California, INC.
James Hardie Building Products
League of California Cities
Little Hoover Commission
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Orange County Council of Governments
Orinda; City of
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
AB 888 (Calderon) Page 6 of 6
Personal Insurance Federation of California
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Rafael/Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
United Policyholders
OPPOSITION:
None.
-- END --
SB 79
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 16, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Juan Carrillo, Chair
SB 79 (Wiener) – As Amended July 8, 2025
SENATE VOTE: 21-13
SUBJECT: Housing development: transit-oriented development
SUMMARY: Specifically, this bill:
1) Defines, for purposes of the bill, all of the following:
a) “Adjacent” means sharing a property line with a transit stop, including any parcels that
serve a parking or circulation purpose related to the stop.
b) “Commuter rail” means a rail transit service not meeting the standards for heavy rail or
light rail, excluding California High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Long Distance Service.
c) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
d) “Frequent commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 24 daily
trains per weekday across both directions and not meeting the standard for very high or
high-frequency commuter rail at any point in the past three years.
e) “Heavy rail transit” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of
traffic using high-speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in
multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and
foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading.
f) “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service operating a total of at
least 48 trains per day across both directions at any point in the past three years.
g) “High-resource area” means a highest resource or high-resource neighborhood
opportunity area, as used in the opportunity area maps published annually by the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and HCD.
h) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA).
i) “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway service.
j) “Net habitable square footage” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by
the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at
least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall,
service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-
stories, and unfinished attics and basements.
k) “Rail transit” means a rail mass transportation operation usually within an urban area,
generally characterized by more frequent service over shorter distances than normally
SB 79
Page 2
provided by commuter rail service or intercity rail service, and operating on a rail line
without any or with very limited rail freight service.
l) “Residential floor area ratio” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to
residential use to the area of the lot.
m) “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop
within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency
commuter rail.
n) “Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop
within an urban transit county, excluding a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop,
served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service meeting
the separate right-of-way and 15 minutes or less services frequency standards for bus
rapid transit specified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
o) “Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop
within an urban transit county, excluding a Tier 1 or Tier 2 transit-oriented development
stop, served by frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service; or any transit-oriented
development stop not within an urban transit county; or any major transit stop otherwise
so designated by the applicable authority.
p) “Transit-oriented development stop” means a major transit stop, as defined in CEQA,
served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency
commuter rail, light rail transit, bus rapid transit as specified in CEQA, frequent
commuter rail service, or ferry service, or otherwise so designated by the applicable
authority.
q) “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 rail stations.
r) “Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at
least 72 trains per day across both directions at any point in the past three years.
2) Requires that a transit-oriented housing development be an allowable use on any site zoned
for residential, mixed, or commercial development within one-half or one-quarter mile of a
transit-oriented stop, if the development complies with the applicable of all of the following:
a) Requires a transit-oriented housing development project to comply with the greatest of
the following:
i) Includes at least five dwelling units.
ii) A minimum density standard of at least 30 dwelling units per acre.
iii) The minimum density allowed under local zoning, if applicable.
b) Prohibits the average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented
housing development project from exceeding 1,750 net habitable square feet.
c) For transit-oriented housing developments with one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 transit-
oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
SB 79
Page 3
i) Prohibits a local government from imposing any height limits less than 75 feet.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing any maximum densities of less than 120
dwelling units per acre.
iii) Prohibits a local government from enforcing any other local development standard or
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 3.5.
iv) Provides that a development that achieves a minimum density of 90 dwelling units per
acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Density Bonus Law
(DBL), including the affordability requirements, shall be eligible for three additional
concessions pursuant to DBL.
d) For transit-oriented housing development projects further than one-quarter mile but
within one-half mile of a Tier 1 transit oriented development stop, all of the following
apply:
i) Prohibits a local government from imposing any height limit less than 65 feet.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing any maximum density standard of less
than 100 dwelling units per acre.
iii) Prohibits a local government from enforcing any other local development standard of
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 3.
iv) Provides that a development that achieves a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre and
otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of DBL, including the affordability
requirements, shall be eligible for two additional concessions pursuant to DBL.
e) For transit-oriented housing development projects within one-quarter mile of a Tier 2
transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
i) Prohibits a local government from imposing any height limits less than 65 feet.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing any maximum density standard of less
than 100 dwelling units per acre.
iii) Prohibits a local government from enforcing any other local development standard or
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 3.
iv) Provides that a development that achieves a minimum density of 75 dwelling units and
that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of DBL, including the affordability
requirements, shall be eligible for two additional concessions pursuant to DBL.
f) For transit-oriented housing development projects further than one-quarter mile but
within one-half a mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following
apply:
SB 79
Page 4
i) Prohibits a local government from imposing a height limit of less than 55 feet.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing any maximum density standard of less
than 80 dwelling units per acre.
iii) Prohibits a local government from enforcing any other local development standard or
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 2.5.
iv) Provides that a development that achieves a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per
acres and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of DBL, including the
affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional concession pursuant to
DBL.
g) For transit-oriented housing development projects within one-quarter mile of a Tier 3
transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
i) Prohibits a local government from imposing a height limit of less than 55 feet.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing any maximum density standard of less
than 80 dwelling units per acre.
iii) Prohibits a local government from enforcing any other local development standard or
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 2.5.
iv) Provides that a development that achieves a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per
acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of DBL, including the
affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional concession pursuant to
DBL.
h) For transit-oriented housing development projects further than one-quarter mile but
within one-half mile of a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following
apply:
i) Prohibits a local government within an urban transit county from imposing a height
limit of less than 45 feet. Allows a local government outside of an urban transit county
to apply the local height limit.
ii) Prohibits a local government from imposing a maximum density standard of less than
60 dwelling units per acres.
iii) Prohibits a local government form enforcing any other local development standard or
combination of standards that would prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of
up to 2.
3) Provides that the distance of a transit-oriented housing development project from a transit-
oriented housing development project from a transit-oriented development stop shall be
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed
SB 79
Page 5
project to any point on the parcel or parcels that make up the property upon which a transit-
oriented development stop is located.
4) Allows a local government to enact and enforce standards, including an inclusionary zoning
requirement that applies generally within the jurisdiction, that do not, alone or in concert,
prevent achieving the applicable development standards of 2) above.
5) Provides that a transit-oriented housing development project under this bill may receive
additional density through DBL or a local density bonus program, using the density allowed
under this bill as the base density. However, if a development proposes a height limit under
this bill that exceeds the local height limit, then a local government is not required to grant a
waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to DBL for additional height beyond that allowed
under this bill, except as specified in DBL.
6) Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a transit-oriented housing development project
that meets any of the eligibility requirements in 2) above and is immediately adjacent to a
Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop shall be eligible for an adjacency
intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density
standards by an addition 40 dwelling units per acre, and the residential floor area ratio by 1.
7) Requires a development proposed pursuant to this bill, in any city or county, to comply with
the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA) that require a housing development
project to create as many units as will be demolished and prohibits approval of a
development project that requires the demolition of protected units unless certain conditions
are met pursuant to the HCA. This bill also requires a development to comply with any local
requirements or processes that implement the provisions of the HCA.
8) Requires a transit-oriented housing development project to comply with any applicable local
demolition and antidisplacement standards established through local ordinance.
9) Prohibits a transit-oriented housing development project from being located on either of the
following:
a) A site containing more than two units where the development would require the
demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public
entity’s valid exercise of its police power that has been occupied by tenants within the
past five years.
b) A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that were demolished
within five years before the development proponent submits an application under this
section and any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control through a
public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
10) Requires a proposed transit-oriented housing development project to include housing for
lower income households by complying with one of the following:
a) The requirements of a local inclusionary zoning housing requirement, if it mandates a
higher percentage of affordable units or a deeper level of affordability than described
below.
SB 79
Page 6
b) For developments of 11 units or more, any of the following:
i) At least 7% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to extremely low
income households, as specified.
ii) At least 10% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to very low income
households, as specified.
iii) At least 13% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to lower income
households, as defined.
11) Requires that a proposed housing development project that is consistent with the applicable
standards from this bill be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an
applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar
provision. This would not require a ministerial approval process or modify CEQA.
12) Provides that a local government that denies a proposed transit-oriented housing
development project meeting the requirements of this bill that is located in a high-resource
area shall be presumed to be in violation of the HAA and immediately liable for penalties,
specified by HAA, unless the local government demonstrates, pursuant to the standards
specified in the HAA, that it has a health, life, or safety reasons for denying the project.
13) Allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial
developments proposed to be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which
the transit agency has a permanent operating easement. These standards shall only apply for
land that is either:
a) Within one-half mile of a transit-oriented development stop, if the land was owned by the
transit agency on or before January 1, 2026.
b) Adjacent to a transit oriented development stop, as defined by the bill.
14) Provides that a local government is not required to approve any height limit established under
13) above greater than the height limit specified in this bill for development adjacent to the
relevant tier of a transit oriented development stop. A transit agency shall not set a maximum
height, density, or floor area ratio below that which would be allowed for the site under this
bill.
15) Allows the board of a transit agency to vote to designate a major transit stop served by the
agency as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop for the purposes of 13) and 14) above.
16) Provides that a transit oriented housing development project proposed pursuant to this bill be
eligible for streamlined ministerial approval pursuant to SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778,
Statutes of 2023/ SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017, (SB 423/SB 35) in
accordance with all of the following:
a) The project does not have to be in a jurisdiction that has not met its share of the regional
housing needs for that reporting period or in a jurisdiction that did not adopt a compliant
housing element.
b) The development does not have to be consistent with the object zoning, subdivision, and
design review standards in effect at the time that the project is submitted to the local
SB 79
Page 7
government or at the time a notice of intent was submitted, whichever occurs earlier.
c) The proposed project shall comply with the following affordability requirements:
i) A minimum of 10% of the total number of units in a for-rent project, before any density
bonus, shall be affordable to households making at or below 50% of the area median
income (AMI), unless a local government requires more than 10% of units be
affordable to households making 50% AMI or less.
ii) A minimum of 10% of the total number of units in a for-sale project, before any density
bonus, shall be affordable to households making at or below 80% AMI, unless a local
ordinance requires more than 10% of the units be affordable to households at or below
80% AMI.
iii) If a project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, as specified, the project may
opt in to the following in lieu of i) and ii): A project shall dedicate 20% of the total
number of units, before any density bonus, to households making at or below 100% of
the AMI with the average income of the units at or below 80% AMI, unless a local
ordinance requires greater than 20% of the units to be dedicated to households making
100% of the AMI or requires that any of the units be dedicated at a level deeper than
100%.
d) The proposed project complies with all other requirements in SB 423/ SB 35, including
but not limited to the, prohibition against a site that is within a very high fire hazard
severity zone.
17) Requires that any transit-oriented housing development proposed pursuant to this bill not
seeking streamlined approval under SB 423/ SB 35, be reviewed according to the
jurisdiction’s development review process and specified provisions of the HAA, except that
any local zoning standard conflicting with the requirements of this bill shall not apply.
18) Requires HCD to oversee compliance with this bill, including promulgating standards on
how to account for capacity pursuant to this bill in a city or county’s inventory of land
suitable for residential development pursuant to Housing Element Law.
19) Authorizes the regional council of governments and metropolitan planning organizations to
create a map of transit-oriented development stops and zones designated under this bill. This
map shall have a rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project applicants and local
governments.
20) Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with
the provisions of this bill, which shall be subject to review by HCD. Allows the ordinance to
designate areas within one-half mile of a transit oriented development stop as exempt from
the provisions of this bill if the local government makes findings supported by substantial
evidence that there exists no walking path of less than one mile from that location to the
transit-oriented development stop.
SB 79
Page 8
21) Provides that the local ordinance described in 20) above shall not be considered as a project
under CEQA.
22) Provides that if a local government enacts an ordinance, pursuant to 20) above, the following
provisions apply:
a) A local government shall submit a copy of any ordinance enacted pursuant to this bill to
HCD within 60 days of enactment.
b) Upon receipt of an ordinance, HCD shall review that ordinance and determine if the
ordinance is compliant with this bill. If the ordinance is not compliant with this bill, HCD
shall notify the local government in writing and provide the local government a
reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond before taking further action as
authorized by the bill.
c) The local government shall consider any findings made by HCD pursuant to b) above and
shall do one of the following:
i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this bill.
ii) Enact the ordinance without changes. If the local government enacts the ordinance
without changes, then the local government shall include findings in its resolution
adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local government believes that the
ordinance complies with this bill despite HCD’s findings.
d) If the local government does not amend its ordinance in response to HCD’s findings or
does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies
with this bill and addressing the department’s findings, HCD shall notify the local
government and may notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation
of this bill.
23) States that, prior to the seventh revision of the housing element, the provisions of the bill do
not apply to any site for which a local government has adopted an ordinance exempting any
of the following:
a) A site that has been identified by the local jurisdiction in the housing element rezoning
program and for which the permitted density is no less than 50% of the density specified
under 2).
b) A site in a transit-oriented development zone identified to be upzoned in a local transit-
oriented development program that has been adopted either through an ordinance or
through a housing element amendment. This provision only applies to a transit-oriented
development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites in the relevant transit-oriented
development zone have been rezoned for densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75
percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under
2).
c) A site that is covered by a local transit-oriented development alternative plan adopted by
a local government pursuant to an ordinance. The local transit-oriented development
SB 79
Page 9
alternative plan shall do all of the following:
i) The plan does not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total
units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
ii) The plan does not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on
which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted
under this bill.
iii) A site’s maximum feasible capacity counted toward the plan shall be not more than 200
percent of the maximum density established under this bill.
d) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may designate any other major
transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a
transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop. A local
transit-oriented development plan consisting solely of adding additional major transit
stops as transit-oriented development stops shall be exempt from the requirements of f)
below.
e) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local
transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive
ordinance, provided that it applies to all residential properties within the transit-oriented
development zone and provides at least the same total feasible capacity for units and floor
area as 2) above.
f) A local government shall submit a copy of any ordinance passed pursuant to c) and
associated written findings adopted to HCD within 60 days after adoption. After adoption
of an ordinance, HCD may submit written findings to the local government as to whether
the ordinance complies with this bill. The local government shall submit a copy of any
existing ordinance adopted pursuant to c) to the department within 60 days of the date 23)
becomes effective.
i) Allows HCD to review the ordinance and associated written findings and if the
department finds that the local government’s ordinance does not comply with this bill,
HCD shall notify the local government and shall provide the local government with a
reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any
other action authorized by iii).
ii) The local government shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to i)
above and shall do one of the following
I) Amend the ordinance to comply with f).
II) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local government shall include findings
in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local
government believes that the ordinance complies with this paragraph despite HCD’s
findings.
SB 79
Page 10
iii) If the local government does not amend its ordinance in response to HCD’s findings or
does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies
with this paragraph and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall
notify the local government and may notify the Attorney General that the local
government is in violation of state law.
24) Provides that, for seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local
government may enact a local transit-oriented development alternative plan as an amendment
to the housing element and land use element of its general plan, subject to review by HCD.
a) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan shall maintain at least the same total
increase in feasible zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential floor area,
as provided for in this bill across all transit-oriented development zones within the
jurisdiction.
i) The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total
units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
ii) The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on
which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted
under this bill.
iii) A site’s maximum feasible capacity counted toward the plan shall be not more than 200
percent of the maximum density established under this bill.
b) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may designate any other major
transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a
transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop. A local
transit-oriented development plan consisting solely of adding additional major transit
stops as transit-oriented development stops shall be exempt from the requirements of d).
c) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local
transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive
ordinance, provided that it applies to all residential properties within the transit-oriented
development zone and provides at least the same total feasible capacity for units and floor
area as 2) above.
d) Prior to enacting a local transit-oriented development alternative plan, the local
government shall submit the draft plan to HCD for review. The submission shall include
any amendments to the local zoning ordinances, any applicable objective design
standards that would apply to transit-oriented developments, and assessments of the
plan’s impact on development feasibility and fair housing. HCD shall assess whether the
plan maintains at least an equal feasible developable housing capacity as the baseline
established under this bill as well as the plan’s effects on fair housing relative to the
baseline established under this bill, and shall recommend changes to remove unnecessary
constraints on housing from the plan.
e) The standards of 2) above shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local transit-
oriented alternative plan that has been approved by HCD as satisfying the requirements
SB 79
Page 11
of the bill in effect. The department’s approval shall be valid through the jurisdiction’s
next amendment to the housing element of its general plan.
25) Defines, for the purposes of 24) and 25) above, the following:
a) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors.
b) “Transit-oriented development zone” means the eligible area around a qualifying transit-
oriented development stop within a one-half mile radius of a transit oriented development
stop.
26) Finds and declares that the bill addresses the state’s housing crisis and is a matter of
statewide concern and is not a municipal affair and therefore applies to all cities, including
charter cities.
27) Establishes that the provisions of the bill are severable and, if any provision of this bill or its
application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
28) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B
of the California Constitution because a local government or school district has the authority
to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of
service mandated by this bill.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires each jurisdiction to prepare and adopt a General Plan, including a housing element,
to guide the future growth of a community. The housing element must identify and analyze
existing and projected housing needs, including the jurisdiction’s share of the RHNA;
identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet the housing needs of all income
segments of the community; and demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints that hinder the jurisdiction from meeting its share of the
regional housing need, among other requirements. (GOV §65583)
2) Establishes the HAA which, among other provisions, defines a “housing development
project” as follows:
a) A project that only includes residential units; or,
b) A mixed use project that meets any of the following conditions:
i) At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential
use;
ii) At least 50% of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use if
the project meets both of the following:
I) The project includes at least 500 units; and,
SB 79
Page 12
II) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast
inn, or other transient lodging, as specified; or,
iii) At least 50% of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use if
the project meets all of the following:
I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units;
II) The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of
nonresidential use;
III) The project demolishes at least 50% of the existing nonresidential uses on the site;
and,
IV) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast
inn, or other transient lodging, as specified.
iv) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
v) Farmworker housing, as defined. (GOV §65589.5)
3) Requires, for purposes of the HAA, that a local agency base a decision to disapprove a
housing development project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a
lower density upon written finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that both of
following conditions exist:
a) The housing development would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health
or safety unless the housing development project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density.
b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other
than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project
upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (GOV §65589.5)
4) Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession,
waiver, or reduction of development standard pursuant to DBL, does not constitute a valid
bases to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent with an applicable plan,
program, policy, or standard. (GOV §65589.5)
5) Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that a proposed housing development project is not
consistent with the applicable zoning standards and shall not require a rezoning, if the
housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and
criteria but the zoning for the project is inconsistent with the general plan. (GOV §65589.5)
6) Provides that the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated the HAA and
requires the local agency to deposit any fine levied into a local housing trust fund. The fine
shall be a minimum of $10,000 per housing unit and requires that the money be committed
and expended in the housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing the
newly construct affordable units to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(GOV §65589.5)
SB 79
Page 13
7) Provides that a housing development project shall be subject to the ordinances, polices, and
standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary applicant was submitted. (GOV
§65589.5)
8) Establishes the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA) which prohibits affected cities and
counties from approving a project that would demolish existing or recently demolished
“protected units” unless the project meets strict replacement and tenant protection
requirements. (GOV §66300-66301)
9) Establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 which, among other
provisions, defines “rail transit” to mean a rail mass transportation operation usually within
an urban area, generally characterized by more frequent service over shorter distances than
normally provided by commuter rail service or intercity rail service, and operating on a rail
line without any or with very limited rail freight service. [Public Utilities Code (PUC) §
99602]
10) Establishes CEQA which, among other provisions, defines “bus rapid transit” to mean a
public mass transit service provided by a public agency or by a public-private partnership
that includes all of the following features:
a) Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public
transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
b) Transit signal priority.
c) All-door boarding.
d) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency.
e) Defined stations. [ Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21060.2]
11) Defines, for the purposes of CEQA, “major transit stop” to mean a site containing any of the
following:
a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of
20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (PRC §
21064.3)
12) Establishes DBL, which among other provisions:
a) Requires local governments to provide a density bonus, incentives, concessions, waivers,
or reductions of development standards if the housing development project meets certain
standards including the containing any of the following:
i) 10% of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building
development, for rental or sale to lower income households.
SB 79
Page 14
ii) 5% of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building
development, for rental or sale to very low income households.
iii) A senior citizen housing development or a mobilehome park that limits residency based
on age requirements for housing for older persons.
iv) 10% of the total dwelling units of a housing development are sold to persons and
families of moderate income provided all units in the development are offered to the
public for purchase.
v) 10% of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, disabled
veterans, or homeless persons provided at the same affordability level as very low
income units.
vi) 20% of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development that
meets specified requirements.
vii) 100% of all the units in the development, excluding the manager’s unit, are for lower
income households except that up to 20% of the units may be for moderate income
households.
b) Allows a height increase of an addition three stories or 33 feet if the project is located
within one-half mile of a major transit stop or is located in a very low vehicle travel area
designated by the county.
c) Defines “total units” or “total dwelling units” means a calculation of the number of units
that:
i) Excludes a unit added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local
law granting a greater density bonus.
ii) Includes a unit designated to satisfy an inclusionary zoning requirement of a city,
county, or city and county. (GOV §65915)
13) Defines “extremely low income households” to mean persons and families whose incomes do
not exceed 30% of area median income. (HSC §50106)
14) Defines “very low income households” to mean persons and families whose incomes do not
exceed 50% of area median income. (HSC §50105)
15) Defines “lower income households” to mean persons and families whose income does not
exceed 80% of area median income. (HSC §50079.5)
16) Establishes, pursuant to SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023, a streamlined,
ministerial approval process for certain infill multifamily affordable housing projects that are
compliant with local zoning and objective standards and that are proposed in local
jurisdictions that have not met their regional housing needs allocation. (GOV 65913.4)
SB 79
Page 15
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, in response to the May
18, 2025 version of the bill:
1) The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates ongoing costs of
approximately $369,000 for new workload to provide technical assistance to local agencies,
developers, and other stakeholders, and to process case complaints of potential violations
from developers, housing advocates, and legal organizations. Staff estimates that HCD could
also incur additional, likely minor to moderate ongoing annual costs to review specified
ordinances and local TOD alternative plans, as specified. (General Fund)
2) Unknown court cost pressures for workload to adjudicate additional cases filed as a result of
the expansion of projects subject to provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to
include development projects within a specified distance from a TOD stop. Staff notes that,
in addition to cases referred to the Attorney General by HCD to enforce violations of the
HAA, eligible litigants include, project applicants, persons who would be eligible to reside in
a proposed development, and specified housing organizations. (Trial Court Trust Fund,
General Fund).
3) Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill would impose new costs on local agencies to
revise planning requirements and considerations for specified development projects within a
specified distance of a TOD stop, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local
agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover
their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
COMMENTS:
1) Bill Summary: This bill makes housing development projects near existing and proposed
TOD stops an allowable use on sites zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial,
development.
TOD Stops. Under the measure, a transit oriented development (TOD) stop is defined as a
major transit stop, excluding any stop served by rail transit with a frequency of fewer than 10
total trains per weekday. This includes sites containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit
station, ferry terminals served by either bus or rail transit, or sites at the intersection of two or
more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or less during the morning
and afternoon peak commute periods. Furthermore, the definition of major transit stop used
under this bill includes planned major transit stops, not just existing ones, so long as they are
included in the applicable Regional Transportation Plans.
Development Tiers and Standards. There are three tiers of this bill TOD stops:
a) Tier 1: Transit stops served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail;
b) Tier 2: Transit stops, excluding Tier 1, served by light rail transit, high-frequency
commuter rail, or by bus rapid transit service; and
c) Tier 3: Transit stops, excluding Tier 1 and Tier 2, served by frequent commuter rail
service or by ferry service.
SB 79
Page 16
This bill establishes statewide maximum density, height, and minimum floor area ratio
(FAR) standards for TOD, dependent on the transit tier and the proximity of the proposed
development to the qualifying transit stop. This bill sets an average maximum total floor area
space of a unit in a proposed TOD project, of 1,750 net habitable square feet. This bill also
establishes minimum density requirements which require a project to comply with the
greatest of the following:
a) At least five dwelling units.
b) A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre.
c) The minimum density allowed under local zoning, if applicable.
Developments under this bill are also eligible to use DBL and development projects are
entitled to additional concessions and incentives if they achieve higher thresholds of
minimum densities. However, if a project proposes a height above the local height limit, the
local government does not have to grant additional height under DBL, unless the proposal is
for a 100% affordable housing development.
Projects under this bill are considered consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an
applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements, or other similar
provision for purposes of the HAA.
SB 79 Development Standards
Location
Distance to
Transit
Stop
(miles)
Max Height
(feet)*
Max.
Density
(du/ac)**
Min.
FAR
(du/ac)
Additional
DBL
Concessions
Min.
Density
(du/ac) for
Add. DBL
Concessions
Tier 1 ≤ ¼ 75 120 3.5 3 90
> ¼ and ≤ ½ 65 100 3 2 75
Tier 2 ≤ ¼ 65 100 3 2 75
> ¼ and ≤ ½ 55 80 2.5 1 60
Tier 3 ≤ ¼ 55 80 2.5 1 60
> ¼ and ≤ ½ 45*** 60 2 0 -
Adjacent to
transit stop - +20 +20 +1 0 -
*If the local height limit is greater than SB 79 height, the local height limit applies.
** Dwelling Units per Acre
***Outside of an urban transit county, a local government may instead apply the local
height limit.
Affordability Requirements. A proposed housing development project with 11 or more
units shall comply with one of the following requirements:
a) At least 7% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to extremely low income
households.
SB 79
Page 17
b) At least 10% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to very low income
households.
c) At least 13% of the total units, as defined in DBL, are dedicated to lower income
households.
However, if a local inclusionary requirement mandates a high percentage of affordable units
or a deeper affordability, the local inclusionary requirement mandate shall apply.
Tenant Protections and Anti-Displacement Measures. With the exception of standards for
commercial and residential developments established by a transit agency, all proposed
developments under this bill must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA), established by SB 330 (Skinner), Chapter 654, Statutes
of 2019. This bill prohibits a development from being located on a site that would require the
demolition of more than two rent or price controlled units or a site that was previously used
within the past five years for more than two units of rent or price controlled housing. The bill
also requires any development proposed under the bill to comply with any applicable local
demolition and antidisplacement standards through a local ordinance.
Transit Agencies. This bill also allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for
residential and commercial developments proposed on land it owns, or on which it holds a
permanent operating easement, if the property is located within ½ mile of a TOD stop. This
provision applies to land owned by the agency as of January 1, 2026, or land that is
immediately adjacent to a TOD stop. The standards adopted by the transit agency must be
objective and may not establish a maximum height, density, or FAR lower than what would
otherwise be permitted under the bill. Additionally, a transit agency’s board may vote to
designate a TOD stop as a Tier 3 stop for purposes of applying these provisions.
Local TOD Alternative Plans. The bill allows jurisdictions to adopt a local ordinance
aligning their zoning code with this bill’s provisions, subject to review by HCD. Local
governments may also exempt areas from this bill’s requirements if they make findings,
supported by substantial evidence that no walking path of less than one mile exists between a
site and the qualifying TOD stop.
The bill provides local governments with additional flexibility to implement the upzoning
near transit provisions via a local TOD alternative plan. Such a plan must include all
residential sites within TOD areas and maintain at least the same total “feasible zoned
capacity,” in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as provided under this bill.
The plan may not reduce capacity by more than 50% in any TOD zone, and cannot count
inflated density above 200% of what this bill otherwise allows.
For the 6th housing element cycle, a local government may adopt a local TOD alternative
plan through an ordinance, use an existing TOD plan if the plan meets certain density
standards, or exempt certain sites if the site has been rezoned to accommodate a minimum of
50% density of what this bill allows.
For the 7th cycle update of the housing element, a local government may adopt a local TOD
alternative plan through an update to the housing or land use element. Prior to adopt a local
TOD alternative plan, a local government must submit draft zoning amendments, objective
design standards, and a feasibility and fair housing analysis for HCD’s review. If approved,
SB 79
Page 18
the alternative plan exempts the jurisdiction from this bill’s default standards through the
next Housing Element update.
This bill is sponsored by California YIMBY, SPUR, Bay Area Council, Streets for All, Inner
City Law Center, and Greenbelt Alliance.
2) Author Statement. According to the author, “SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s
affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops
and on land owned by transit agencies – bolstering transit use, slashing climate emissions,
and supporting public transportation in the process.
“SB 79 allows more homes near transit in two major ways. First, SB 79 allows for upzoning
land for multi-family homes up to 75 feet within a half mile of specified major train stations
and bus rapid transit stops. This change will ensure that transit oriented developments
(TODs) are feasible and enhance access to transit. Second, SB 79 authorizes local transit
agencies to develop on land they own. All TODs under SB 79 are eligible for the streamlined
ministerial approvals process under SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) if they meet the law’s
environmental, labor, and affordability standards.
“California needs to build millions of new homes in sustainable locations to meet state
housing goals, slash climate emissions, and reduce the cost of living, but overly restrictive
zoning codes make building such homes illegal. SB 79 allows building more homes near
transit to lower costs for families while bolstering public transit use and supporting cash-
strapped transit agencies.”
3) Police Powers and Land Use Authority. Planning for and approving new development is
mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make
and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations
not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power, commonly called the
police power, that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve
the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority. Cities and
counties enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations, as well as through an
“entitlement process” for obtaining discretionary as well as ministerial approvals.
The scale of the proposed development, as well as the existing environmental setting
determine the degree of local review that occurs. For larger developments, the local
entitlement process commonly requires multiple discretionary decisions regarding the
subdivision of land, environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and project review by the local
agency’s legislative body (city council or county board) or by a planning commission
delegated by the legislative body.
4) General Plan. A general plan serves as a local government’s blueprint for long-term growth
and development, outlining policies and goals to shape the community’s future. Required by
state law, every city and county in California must adopt a general plan that addresses key
planning topics, known as elements. At a minimum, these include land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The general plan provides a foundation
for zoning regulations, infrastructure investments, and public services, ensuring that
development aligns with both local priorities and state requirements.
SB 79
Page 19
According to state law, “The general plan shall consist of a statement of development
policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles,
standards, and plan proposals”. As communities evolve, general plans are periodically
updated to reflect changing demographics, economic conditions, and environmental factors,
making them a critical tool for sustainable and equitable development.
While state law mandates that general plans cover specific topics, cities and counties have
broad discretion in their structure, content, and level of detail. General plans range from 200
to over 2,000 pages and vary significantly based on local conditions and priorities. This
flexibility reflects the Legislature’s recognition that “the diversity of the state’s communities
and their residents requires planning agencies and legislative bodies to implement (general
plan law) in ways that accommodate local conditions and circumstances, while meeting its
minimum requirements”.
5) Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements. One important tool in addressing the
state’s housing crisis is to ensure that all of the state’s cities and counties appropriately plan
for new housing. Such planning is required through the housing element of each
community’s General Plan, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community’s
existing and projected housing needs. Cities and counties are required to update their housing
elements every eight years in most of the high population parts of the state, and five years in
areas with smaller populations. Localities must adopt a legally valid housing element by their
statutory deadline for adoption. Failure to do so can result in certain escalating penalties,
including exposure to the “builder’s remedy” as well as public or private lawsuits, financial
penalties, potential loss of permitting authority, or even court receivership. Localities that do
not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days from their statutory deadline also
must complete any rezones within one year of their deadline, rather than the three years
afforded to on-time adopters.
Among other things, the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of its RHNA which is a figure determined by HCD through a
demographic analysis of housing needs and population projections, also known as the
regional housing need determination (RHND). HCD establishes its determination of each
COG’s regional housing targets across the state for the next five- or eight-year planning
cycle. Each COG (or in some areas, HCD acting directly as COG) then sub-allocates the
RHNA to each local government within the COG’s jurisdiction, and in turn each jurisdiction
uses its housing element to show how it will accommodate that number of new housing units,
split out by income level and with a focus on certain special needs housing types and on
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Adequate zoning, removal of regulatory barriers, protection of existing stock and targeting of
resources are essential to obtaining a sufficient permanent supply of housing affordable to all
economic segments of the community. Although not requiring the community to develop the
housing, housing element law requires the community to plan for housing. Recognizing that
local governments may lack adequate resources to house all those in need, the law
nevertheless mandates that the community do all that it can and not engage in exclusionary
zoning practices.
SB 79
Page 20
6) Transit Oriented Development. Research has shown that encouraging denser housing near
transit serves not only as a means of increasing ridership of public transportation to reduce
greenhouse gases (GHGs), but also as a solution to our state’s housing crisis. As part of
California’s overall strategy to combat climate change, the Legislature began the process of
encouraging more transit oriented development with the passage of SB 375 (Steinberg,
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). SB 375 is aimed at reducing the amount that people drive and
associated GHGs by requiring the coordination of transportation, housing, and land use
planning. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), administered by
the Strategic Growth Council, furthers the purposes of AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statues 2006)
and SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes, 2008) by investing in projects that reduce GHG
emissions by supporting more compact, infill development patterns, encouraging active
transportation and transit usage, and protecting agricultural land from sprawl development.
Funding for AHSC is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an
account established to receive Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds. The Legislature
subsequently allocated 20% of the ongoing Cap and Trade Program funds to AHSC. AHSC
provides grants and/or loans to projects that achieve GHG reductions and benefit
disadvantaged communities, low-income communities, and low-income households through
increasing accessibility of affordable housing connected to high quality transit. High quality
transit includes bus rapid transit with a headway frequency of every 20 minutes or less and
service seven days a week.
Additionally, HCD administers the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program. Its
primary objectives are to increase the overall supply of housing, increase the supply of
affordable housing, increase public transit ridership, and minimize automobile trips. The
program seeks to accomplish these objectives by providing financial assistance for the
development of housing and related infrastructure near public transit stations, including bus
rapid transit.
7) AB 2923 (Chiu). AB 2923 (Chiu), Chapter 1000, Statutes of 2018, authorized the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) to implement its own TOD zoning on land owned by BART
within a ½ mile radius of a transit station. A stated goal of AB 2923 was to help BART
achieve its goal of enabling up to 20,000 new homes, including at least 7,000 affordable
units, on BART-owned land. Among other requirements, AB 2923 (Chiu) required all of the
following:
a) Allows BART to adopt by ordinance TOD zoning standards for each station that
establishes minimum requirements for height, density, parking, and floor area ratios only,
that apply to eligible TOD projects.
b) Requires the BART board of directors to hold public hearings to receive public comment
on the TOD zoning standards, review the housing needs of jurisdictions, and conduct
outreach to relevant local jurisdictions and communities of concerns around each station.
c) Requires that a minimum of 75% of a TOD project be located within ½ mile of an
existing or planned district station entrance and is located within an area represented on
the board.
d) Allows for up to 50% of the total floor area to be used for nonresidential uses.
SB 79
Page 21
e) Requires that at least 20% of the number of housing units be affordable to very low-,
low-, and moderate-income households and subject to a recorded affordability restriction
for at least 55 years with a priority on residential units for very low-, low-, and moderate-
income households.
f) Requires BART to ensure that a total of 30% of housing units in BART’s district
boundaries are affordable with priority given to very low and low-income households.
g) Complies with the labor requirements of SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017,
and any other applicable BART labor policies.
h) Requires that if the zoning standards, objective planning standards, general plan, or
design review standards are mutually inconsistent, the BART TOD zoning standards shall
be the controlling standards. If the TOD zoning standards don’t resolve inconsistencies,
the general plan shall be the controlling standards.
i) Includes a sunset date of January 1, 2029.
According to BART’s Completed TOD project website, the transit-oriented development
program has completed developments at sixteen stations, totaling 4,140 housing units and
865,000 square feet of commercial space. The TOD Program still has projects in the pipeline
that are in construction and planning/predevelopment stages.
8) Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
a) All Aboard! When AB 2923 (Chiu) was considered by the Legislature, local
governments and planning professional advocacy groups voiced concerns that AB 2923
(Chiu) would set a precedent for the further diminishing of local land use planning in
future legislation. AB 2923 (Chiu) was not the first nor the last bill to chip away at local
government land use decision-making. Laws requiring by-right use, ministerial approval,
and allowable use have been used to streamline housing projects, increase density, and
limit the application of standards that would make a project economically infeasible.
While this bill allows increased densities, height, and floor area ratios where housing is
an allowable use, these standards do not apply to properties that are owned by a transit
agency. The bill allows a transit agency to adopt their own TOD standards that apply only
to land that the transit agency owner or has a permanent operating easement that is either:
i) Adjacent to a TOD stop.
ii) Land that is within a ½ mile of TOD stop and was owned by the agency prior to
January 1, 2026.
Other than limiting where a transit agency can apply their TOD standards, the bill is
silent on what standards an agency can adopt or how an agency must adopt these
standards. Transit agency TOD standards may be inconsistent with the General Plan.
Previous legislation that has effectively limited local government discretion on land use,
relating to housing, have often included affordability requirements, obligations for public
meetings, and antidisplacement provisions, among others. In contrast, this bill does not
include those protections for transit agencies. The provisions of this bill allow a transit
SB 79
Page 22
agency to not only override a local government’s discretion on housing projects, it has
extended that authority to commercial projects and to land that the agency does not
own— including both land that is adjacent to transit agency land and land this under a
permanent easement.
This bill also authorizes the board of a transit agency to vote to designate a major transit
stop as a new Tier 3 TOD stop. This authority could trigger this bill’s requirements in
areas that the local government had not originally planned for.
The Committee may wish to consider if it is prudent to authorize a transit agency to make
land use decisions that may contradict the land use decisions of a city or county. The
Committee may also wish to consider if aligning the provisions of this bill more closely
to AB 2923 (Chiu) might be prudent.
b) Under Pressure. This bill requires HCD to oversee compliance with the bill and to
promulgate standards on how to account for capacity in a city or county’s inventory of
land suitable for residential development. The bill outlines a process for a local
government to enact an ordinance in its zoning code consistent with this bill and requires
that ordinance to be subject to HCD’s review. This process requires local governments to
submit a copy of the ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adoption. After HCD reviews
the ordinance and provides written findings to the local government, the local
government has 30 days to respond to feedback from HCD. If a local government has a
noncompliant ordinance, then a local governments must either amend the ordinance to
comply with this bill or enact the ordinance without changes but include findings in the
ordinance to explain why the local government believes the ordinance is compliant.
The aforementioned process outlined in this bill may be helpful for local governments
seeking to update ordinances to become compliant. However, this process does not
include deadlines for which HCD is required to create standards to implement this bill,
nor does the bill specify a length of time HCD has to review such an ordinance. If the bill
were to be signed and become enacted on January 1, 2026, a local government would be
subject to the provisions of this bill without guidance from HCD or time to update local
ordinances and policies to come into compliance with state law.
Moreover, the bill states that a local government is immediately liable for penalties under
the HAA if the local government denies an this bill project located in a high resources
area unless the local government demonstrates that it had a health, life, or safety reason
for denying the project. The Committee may wish to consider if it is reasonable for a
local agency to be liable to the penalties under the HAA when no guidance from the
enforcing department has been given.
In comparison, Housing Element Law requires HCD to review a housing element and
provide written feedback within 60 days of receipt of the housing element. If HCD does
not provide written feedback in 60 days, then the housing element is deemed approved.
The Committee may wish to consider whether including a similar provision in this bill
would provide a more seamless implementation process.
SB 79
Page 23
c) Separate Ways. Recent author amendments to this bill allow a local government to
exempt a site from this bill that meets any of the following in the 6th housing element
cycle:
i) The site is in the housing element rezoning program and for which the permitted
density is no less than 50% of the density specified under the development standards
established pursuant to this bill.
ii) The site is in a TOD zone in which at least 33% of sites in the zone have been rezoned
through a housing element amendment that will cumulatively allow for at least 75% of
the aggregate density for the TOD zone pursuant to this bill.
iii) The site is covered by a local TOD alternative plan by a local government pursuant to
an ordinance, as specified.
While adoption of an ordinance to implement a local TOD alternative plan is helpful in
providing flexibility to local governments in their implementation of the bill, it may not
the only tool that local governments could have at their disposal to become compliant.
The Committee may wish to consider if adding other local government actions, such as
specific plans, zoning overlays, and updates to zoning ordinances, would provide local
governments more flexibility to come into compliance with the bill.
Additionally, this bill specifies that for the 7th housing element cycle and onward, a local
government may enact a local TOD alternative plan as an amendment to the housing
element and land use element of the general plan, subject to review by HCD. The
alternative plan must meet certain standards, which include that the plan yield at least the
same total increase in feasible zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential
floor area. Prior to enacting a local TOD alternative plan, HCD shall assess whether the
plan maintains at least an equal feasible housing developable housing capacity as the
baseline established under this bill. This bill requires HCD to recommend changes to
remove unnecessary constraints on housing from the plan.
Since the local agencies are in the process of preparing for the 7th cycle update, a local
TOD alternative plan would likely not be enacted as an amendment to the housing
element. It would, however, be enacted as part of the housing element adoption. The
Committee may wish to consider if specifying that the adoption of the housing element
meeting the requirements of this bill would better capture the author’s intent.
To that effect, if the requirements of the bill are met as part of the 7th cycle housing
element update, then updates to zoning ordinances, policies, and standards would be
needed to implement the housing element. Considering that the plan would be reviewed
during HCD’s review of the housing element, the Committee may wish to consider that
any submission of a TOD alternative plan and subsequent implementation mechanism are
subject to the review under Housing Element Law.
Lastly, this bill also allows a local agency to enact a local TOD alternative plan by
amending the land use element which would also be subject to review by HCD. HCD
currently does not have authority to review the land use element or to determine a land
use element’s compliance with state law. The Committee may wish to consider if an
SB 79
Page 24
amendment to the land use element is an effective pathway for a local government to
come into compliance with this bill.
9) Committee Amendments. In order to address the policy considerations above, the
committee may wish to consider the following amendments:
a) Clarify that an “urban transit county” contains more than 15 passenger rail stations.
b) Clarify that a transit oriented housing development project be an allowable use any site
zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed-use residential development
c) Delay implementation of SB 79’s zoning standards until July 1, 2026, unless a local
agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development plan deemed compliant
by the department before that date. However, heightened penalties under the HAA for a
local agency’s disapproval of a housing project in a high resource area shall take effect
January 1, 2027.
d) Revise and recast 65912.158 relating to transit agencies to instead allow a transit agency
to set zoning standards consistent with SB 79 on their land with the following
differences:
i) An agency TOD project will be a housing development project or mixed-use residential
project where a minimum of 50% of the total square footage is dedicated to residential
purposes.
ii) Requires a minimum of 20% of the total number of units to be affordable to lower
income households for 55/45 years for rental/ownership units.
iii) The parcel or parcels on which the project is located is an infill site, as define in Section
21061.3 of the Public Resources Code. (This was in the BART language.)
iv) The parcels were not acquired through eminent domain on or after July 1, 2025.
v) The parcels are owned by the agency and is either 1) adjacent to the TOD stop or 2)
before January 1, 2026, where at least 75% of the project area is within ½ mile of a
TOD stop.
e) Allow a transit agency’s board of directors to adopt TOD zoning standards for real
property in a TOD area that will apply to a TOD project and are consistent with the
zoning standards in Section 65912.157 of this bill.
i) TOD zoning standards shall not go beyond the site’s maximum capacity which shall not
exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established under this 65912.157.
f) Require that, if a transit agency adopts or amends TOD zoning standards, a transit agency
hold public hearings, consult with relevant local governments an infrastructure agencies,
and communities of concern.
g) Provide that when local zoning is inconsistent with the TOD zoning standards for a
station, the local government shall adopt a local zoning ordinance that conforms to the
TOD zoning standards within 2 years of the date the TOD standards are adopted.
h) Require that the TOD zoning standards are subject to review under CEQA and that the
transit agency will serve as the lead agency for CEQA review.
i) Specify that if TOD zoning standards, objective planning standards, general plan, or
design review standards are mutually inconsistent, the TOD zoning standards shall be the
controlling standards. To the extent that the zoning standards do not resolve
inconsistencies, the general plan shall be the controlling standard.
j) TOD zoning shall be subject to DBL and the HAA.
SB 79
Page 25
k) Require that an agency TOD project comply with the antidisplacement requirements of
the Housing Crisis Act.
l) Allow a local agency to deny a height limit that is greater than those required in SB 79’s
height standards.
m) Require that for every 25% of nonresidential square footage of an agency TOD project
built, at least 25% of the total planned affordable units are built.
n) Provide that the provision of this bill allowing transit agencies to adopt standards for land
that they own not apply to transit agency property where housing is not an allowable use
or the property is in proximity to industrial uses.
o) Require HCD to promulgate standards on how to account for capacity pursuant to this bill
no later than January 1, 2026.
p) Requires HCD to provide written findings if a local government’s ordinance to come into
compliance with this bill is not compliant. If HCD does not provide any findings, then the
local government’s ordinance shall be deemed compliant.
q) Requires HCD to provide local government’s reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to
respond to a determination that the local government’s ordinance is not compliant.
r) Allows a local government to designate areas within one-half mile of a transit-oriented
development stop as exempt from the provisions of this bill if the local government
makes findings supported by substantial evidence that there exists no walking path of less
than one mile from that location to the transit-oriented development stop.
s) Requires a metropolitan planning organization to create a map of transit oriented
development stops and zones designated under this bill in accordance with HCD’s
findings. The map shall have rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project
applicants and local governments.
t) Define a TOD alternative plan to mean a plan adopted by the local agency via the
adoption of or amendment to the housing element or a program to implement the housing
element such as the adoption of a specific plan, adoption of a zoning overlay, or
enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this bill and
that incorporates all of the following:
i) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan shall maintain at least the same
total zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as provided
for in this bill across all transit-oriented development zones within the jurisdiction.
ii) The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total
units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
iii) A site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200 percent of the
maximum density established under Section 65912.157.
iv) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local
transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive
ordinance, provided that it applies to all residential properties within the transit-oriented
development zone and provides at least the same total feasible capacity for units and
floor area as Section 65912.157 of this bill.
v) The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on
which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted
under Section 65912.157 of this bill.
u) Define “Transit-oriented development area” to mean the area within a one-half mile of a
transit oriented development stop.
SB 79
Page 26
v) Provide that prior to the seventh revision of the housing element, the bill shall not apply
to any of the following:
i) A site that has been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density at no less
than 50% of the density specified under subdivision (a) of 65912.157.
ii) A site in a transit-oriented development zone identified to be upzoned in a local transit-
oriented development program that has been adopted either through an ordinance or
through a housing element amendment. This shall only apply to a transit-oriented
development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites in the relevant transit-oriented
development zone have permitted density of no less than 50 percent of the density
specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157 and which includes sites with
densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the
transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section
65912.157.
iii) A site that is covered by a local transit-oriented development alternative plan adopted
by a local government.
w) For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government may
include a local transit-oriented development alternative in any of the following ways:
i) Include a local transit-oriented alternative plan in its Housing Element. When a local
government includes a transit oriented development alternative plan in its housing
element the plan shall include an analysis of how the plan maintains at least an equal
feasible developable housing capacity as the baseline established by Section 65912.157.
I) If a local government adopts a housing element that the department has determined
to be compliant, then any action to enforce or implement a compliant housing
element shall be subject to applicable provisions of Housing Element law
commencing with 65580.
ii) If a local government does not include the local transit-oriented alternative plan its
housing element, the local government may adopt an alternative plan that has been
deemed compliant by the department pursuant to 65912.160.
x) Provide that Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local
transit-oriented alternative plan that has been approved by the department as satisfying
the requirements of this subdivision in effect. The department’s approval pursuant to this
subdivision shall be valid through the jurisdiction’s next amendment to the housing
element of its general plan.
y) Allow a local transit-oriented development alternative plan to designate any other major
transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a
transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop. A local
transit-oriented development plan consisting solely of adding additional major transit
stops as transit-oriented development stops shall be exempt from the requirements of
Section 65912.160.
z) Allow a local transit-oriented development alternative plan to consist of an existing local
transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive
ordinance or existing program, provided that it applies to all residential properties within
the transit-oriented development zone and provides at least the same total feasible
capacity for units and floor area as Section 65912.157.
SB 79
Page 27
Due to timing, the author has requested the following amendment to be processed as a committee
amendment.
Section 65912.156
(o) “Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within
an urban transit county, excluding a Tier 1 or Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, served by
frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service; or any transit-oriented development stop not
within an urban transit county, except for a transit-oriented development stop served solely
by bus transit; or any major transit stop that has been designated a Tier 3 transit-oriented
development stop in a local transit-oriented development alternative plan.
10) Related Legislation. SB 358 (Becker) requires local agencies to reduce vehicle mitigation
fees for housing developments near transit unless they make findings supported by
substantial evidence in the record that projects are not expected to reduce automobile trips.
This bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
11) Arguments in Support. The co-sponsors of the bill, California YIMBY, SPUR, Bay Area
Council, Streets for All, Inner City Law Center, and Greenbelt Alliance, write in support of
the bill, “In response to stakeholder feedback, SB 79 has been amended to include a robust
and flexible local alternative pathway. The most recent amendments flesh out this pathway,
ensuring cities that have already taken meaningful action can meet the spirit of the law while
tailoring implementation to local needs.
“Through the remainder of the Sixth Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Cycle,
jurisdictions may adopt ordinances to exempt certain lots from SB 79’s requirements if:
The lots have been upzoned to allow at least half of the density that SB 79 would
have otherwise required; or
Within a station area, at least one third of the lots have been upzoned and collectively
achieve three quarters of the density required by SB 79.
“Cities may also adopt a local alternative plan that redistributes the required density across
station areas. These ordinances may be submitted for optional review by the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), providing flexibility and certainty without
mandating additional state review processes.
“Beginning with the Seventh RHNA Cycle, cities must fully update their housing elements to
comply with SB 79. At that time, local government may still adopt a local alternative plan,
provided it:
Achieves 100% of the density required by SB 79 across designated areas; and
Does not completely downzone any parcel that SB 79 would have been upzoned.
“HCD will review these Seventh Cycle alternative plans as part of its standard housing
element review, streamlining oversight and aligning SB 79 implementation with existing
housing planning timelines. These changes ensure a phased, thoughtful implementation that
respects existing planning efforts while ensuring meaningful progress toward TOD.
SB 79
Page 28
“In addition, the bill now incorporates affordability provisions from AB 1893 (Wicks,
2024)—7% of units for extremely low income households, 10% for very low income
households, or 13% for lower income households—or local inclusionary ordinance,
whichever is higher.
“Also, SB 79 includes careful demolition provisions to protect existing communities while
unlocking new housing opportunities. The bill prohibits the demolition of rent controlled
housing larger than 2 units that have been tenant occupied within the last 5 years. By
enabling more homes in high-opportunity, high-transit areas, SB 79 helps relieve
displacement pressures elsewhere—giving longtime residents the option to stay in their
neighborhoods as they grow. Research from Prof. Michael Lens at UCLA shows that over
90% of low income Californians live in naturally occurring affordable housing. If we want to
meet the scale of the need, we must create more of these homes in addition to deed-restricted
units. SB 79 helps unlock that potential in areas where residents can thrive without car
dependence.”
12) Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities writes in opposition, “SB 79
doubles down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing
elements. This latest overreaching effort forces cities in urban transit counties defined as ‘a
county with more than 15 rail stations’ to approve transit-oriented development projects near
specified transit stops — up to seven stories high and a density of 120 homes per acre —
without regard to the community's needs, environmental review, or public input. Similarly,
cities in non-urban transit counties near specific transit stops would need to approve
development projects by right, up to five stories high, with a density of 80 homes per acre.
“Most alarmingly, SB 79 defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies land use
authority on property they own or have a permanent easement on or before January 1, 2026,
within a half mile of a transit stop. Transit agencies would have the power to determine all
aspects of the development including height, density, and design, without any regard to local
zoning or planning.
“This broad new authority applies to both residential and commercial development. Transit
agencies could develop 100% commercial projects — even at transit stops —and not provide
a single new home, while simultaneously making the argument that more housing must be
constructed around transit stops.
“Finally, Cal Cities appreciates the author’s desire to include an alternative transit-oriented
development plan; however, as currently drafted, the local government is required to do this
through an amendment to their already approved and certified housing element. By requiring
a housing element amendment, local governments would open the door to losing housing
element certification and would create more complexity in an already challenging process.
Additionally, the process of obtaining housing element amendments approved by the state is
costly to local governments, and as a result, fewer cities will consider this alternative local
flexibility plan. A better approach would be to allow local governments to adopt an
ordinance to implement this plan.
“Cal Cities appreciates and respects the author’s desire to pursue a housing production
proposal. However, as currently drafted, SB 79 will not spur much-needed housing
construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community
input. State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the
SB 79
Page 29
extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and
housing elements.”
13) Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee, where it passed on a 9-2 vote on July 2, 2025.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundance Network
Abundant Housing LA
Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
Bay Area Council
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike Long Beach
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
CalBike
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Council for Affordable Housing (CCAH)
California Democratic Party Rural Caucus
California Yimby
Car-lite Long Beach
Casey Glaubman, Councilmember of Mount Shasta
Central Valley Urban Institute
Chico Councilmember Addison Winslow
Circulate San Diego
City of Berkeley Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
City of Culver City
City of Emeryville
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
City of Mountain View Council Member Lucas Ramirez
City of San Diego
City of Santa Monica
City of Santa Monica Council Member Jesse Zwick
City of South San Francisco Council Member James Coleman
City of West Hollywood
Claremont City Councilmember, Jed Leano
Climate Action Campaign
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
SB 79
Page 30
East Bay Yimby
Eastside Housing for All
Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
End Poverty in California, a Project of Tides Center
Environmental Protection Information Center
Everybody's Long Beach
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Fremont for Everyone
Generation Housing
Glendale Yimby
Greenbelt Alliance
Grow the Richmond
House Sacramento
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
ICON CDC (Initiating Change in Our Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation)
Inclusive Lafayette
Indivisible Claremont / Inland Valley
Indivisible Sacramento
Inner City Law Center
Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
Leadingage California
Lisc San Diego
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
Matthew Solomon, Councilmember - Emeryville
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, INC.
New Way Homes
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH)
North Westwood Neighborhood Council
Northern Neighbors
Orange County Business Council
Orchard City Indivisible
Pathway to Tomorrow
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
Petaluma City Council Member Brian Barnacle
Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
Princess Washington, Councilmember of Suisun City
Prosperity California
Rebecca Saltzman, El Cerrito Councilmember
Redlands Area Democratic Club
Redlands Yimby
SB 79
Page 31
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone (RISE)
RideSD
San Bernardino County Young Democrats
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Fernando Valley for All
San Francisco Yimby
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Sierra Business Council
Sloco Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
South Pasadena Tenants Union
South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman
Spur
Streets are for Everyone
Streets for All
Strong Towns Poway & Rb
Strong Towns Poway & SB
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
Student Homes Coalition
Sv@home Action Fund
The San Fernando Valley Young Democrats
The Two Hundred
Usgbc California
Ventura County Yimby
Walk San Francisco
Westside for Everyone
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby Slo
Zach Hilton - Councilmember, Gilroy
Zillow Group
Opposition
Albany Neighbors United
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Baldwin Hills Estates HOA
Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
Brentwood Homeowners Association
Build Affordable Faster CA
Burbank/burbank Redevelopment Agency; City of
California Association of Councils of Governments
California Cities for Local Control
Carlsbad Citizens for Community Oversight (C2O)
SB 79
Page 32
Catalysts for Local Control
Century Glen Neighborhood Association
Cheviot Hills (Los Angeles) Neighborhood Association
Citizen Marin
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Artesia
City of Bakersfield
City of Bell
City of Bellflower
City of Camarillo
City of Carlsbad
City of Carson
City of Coalinga
City of Commerce
City of Corona
City of Cupertino
City of Cudahy
City of Del Mar
City of Downey
City of Encinitas
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Fullerton
City of Glendale
City of Hidden Hills
City of Hesperia
City of Huntington Beach
City of Indian Hills
City of Inglewood
City of Lafayette
City of Laguna Beach
City of La Mirada
City of Lakewood
City of Malibu
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Menifee
City of Merced
City of Mission Viejo
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Morgan Hill
City of Morro Bay
City of Murrieta
City of Newport Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Oceanside
City of Ontario
City of Orange
City of Orinda
SB 79
Page 33
City of Palmdale
City of Palo Alto
City of Paramount
City of Pico Rivera
City of Pleasanton
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redlands
City of Rolling Hills
City of Roseville
City of San Bernardino
City of Santa Ana
City of Simi Valley
City of South Gate
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tulare
City of Vernon
City of Visalia
City of Westlake Village
City of Whittier
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Comstock Hills Homeowners Association
Coronado; City of
Cow Hollow Association
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association 2025
Crescenta Valley Community Association 2025
Culver City Neighbors United
Ed Reece, Claremont City Councilmember
Encino Property Owners Association
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA)
Friends of Historic Miracle Mile
Friends of Loma Alta Creek
Gateway Cities Council of Governments (UNREG)
Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Hills2000_friends of the Hills
Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, United Neighborhoods
Housing California
Indivisible Marin
Jordan Park Neighborhood Association
La Brea Hancock Homeowners Association
Larchmont United Neighborhood Association
League of California Cities
Livable Mountain View
Los Angeles City Attorney
Los Feliz Improvement Association
SB 79
Page 34
Mayor's and Councilmembers’' Association of Sonoma County Legislative Committee
Mission Street Neighbors
Neighborhoods United SF
Neighbors for a Better California
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
New Livable California Dba Livable California
No 710 Action Committee
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Park LA Brea Impacted Residents Group (PLBIRG)
Rancho Verdugo Estates HOA
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco Tenants Union
Santa Monica Northeast Neighbors
Save Lafayette
Save Sacramento Neighborhoods
Sgv Progressive Alliance
Shadow Hills Property Owners Association
Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
Small Business Forward
South Carthay Neighborhood Association
Spaulding Square Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Sunnyvale United Neighbors
Sunset Square Neighborhood Organization
Telegraph Hill Dwellers
The Santa Monica North of Montana Association (NOMA)
Town of Apple Valley
United Neighbors
Villa Firenze Hoa
Wake Up California
West Hills Neighborhood Council
West of Westwood Homeowners Association
West Toluca Lake Residents Association
West Torrance Homeowners Association
Westside Regional Alliance of Councils
Westwood Gardens Civic Association, INC.
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Westwood Homeowners Association
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Oppose Unless Amended
Alliance for Community Transit-los Angeles (ACT-LA)
Butterfield-riviera East Community Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Communities for a Better Environment
Council of Community Housing Organizations
SB 79
Page 35
Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco
Disability Rights California
East Bay Housing Organizations
Elder Law and Disability Rights Center
Esperanza Community Housing
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Green Foothills
Hancock Park Homeowners Association, Est. 1948
Homey
Housing Now!
Kennedy Commission
LA Forward
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Little Tokyo Service Center
Long Beach Forward
Los Angeles Conservancy
Mental Health Advocacy Services
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Poder
Protect Point Loma
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Public Law Center
Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF)
Rise Economy
Sacred Heart Community Service
San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
South Bay Community Land Trust
Southeast Asian Community Alliance
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
The Kennedy Commission
Urban Habitat
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Young Community Developers
Analysis Prepared by: Linda Rios / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
SB 429
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Rhodesia Ransom, Chair
SB 429 (Cortese) – As Amended July 2, 2025
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program
SUMMARY: Upon appropriation, establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program,
administered by the Department of Insurance (CDI), for the purpose of guiding and funding the
development and deployment of a public wildfire catastrophe model. Specifically, this bill:
1) Creates the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program (Program) for the purpose of
providing funding to one or more universities to create a research and educational center
responsible for developing, demonstrating, and deploying a public wildfire catastrophe model
that provides significant wildfire safety benefits to California Communities and assists
alignment of federal, state, and local wildfire risk reduction efforts.
2) Provides that projects eligible for a grant include either of the following :
a) Development of a public wildfire catastrophe model that can provide insight for state and
local emergency planners, aid wildfire safety efforts that protect life and property,
increase research and development on wildfire risk mitigation strategies, inform actuarial
analyses, create training opportunities for students and professionals, and support
effective regulation and financial oversight of insurance, risk assessments, and insurance
company solvency risks and risk management; or,
b) Development of outreach initiatives to identify and educate potential users of a public
wildfire catastrophe model, including, but not limited to, state and local emergency
planners, wildfire safety groups, agricultural and business groups, research organizations,
and educators.
3) Defines “public wildfire catastrophe model” as a computerized process that uses the best
available science to simulate potential property damage caused by major wildfires and has
readily accessible documentation and programs for use by public agencies, organizations,
and individuals.
4) Provides CDI shall administer the grant program and requires CDI to award grants on a
competitive basis considering certain criteria, as specified.
5) Requires CDI to create and publish a framework and multiyear plan for the development,
demonstration and deployment of a public wildfire catastrophe model.
6) Establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Account within the Insurance Fund.
7) Requires CDI, upon implementation of the first round of grants to identify, publish, and
make available on its internet website key milestones for the completion of a public wildfire
catastrophe model, including additional research, outreach, and operational steps needed to
fully establish the model.
SB 429
Page 2
8) Requires CDI to provide recommendations to the Senate Committee on Insurance, Assembly
Committee on Insurance, Budget Committees, and the Governor for the future budget
allocations before September 1, 2026.
9) Provides the Program is operative upon appropriation by the Legislature.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Provides for the regulation of insurers, agents and brokers, and other insurance-like
organizations by the Insurance Commissioner, and imposes a broad range of financial
solvency, licensing, and market behavior requirements, as set forth in the Insurance Code.
2) Establishes the “Safer from Wildfires” Framework. (Section 2644.9 of Title 10 of the
California Code of Regulations)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, “This first-in-the-nation public wildfire catastrophe
model will be transparent, science-driven and work for everyone – homeowners, communities,
emergency responders and local governments. By investing in a university-led research center,
this bill ensures a model that not only improves wildfire preparedness and planning, but also
gives consumers and communities a clearer picture of wildfire risk and if they are getting a fair
deal on insurance. SB 429 levels the playing field and makes California safer for all.”
Equity impact: According to the author’s staff, “Publicly accessible data on catastrophe risks
promotes equitable access to risk information that can be critical to planning, preparation, and
training in underserved and vulnerable communities. For historically marginalized communities,
additional public wildfire risk resources like public wildfire modeling will provide a core level of
information to inform local governments, businesses, and emergency services to reduce the
impacts to people and households. Without public wildfire modeling, only businesses or local
governments able to purchase private modeling information would have the benefits of important
risk information.”
Catastrophe Modeling: While the inception of probabilistic catastrophe risk modeling
materialized in the late 1980s, the use of catastrophe models to monitor risks became more
widely accepted in the 90s. Models for catastrophes were initially created to assist insurers in
assessing infrequent yet expensive catastrophic events. Hurricane Andrew made landfall in South
Florida in 1992, and the Northridge Earthquake occurred in Southern California in 1994. Both
events led actuaries to recognize that probabilistic computer simulation models would help
estimate probable maximum losses for these severe events. Andrew was the costliest natural
disaster in U.S. history as insurance payouts for damaged homes, vehicles, and businesses
damaged by the storm in both Florida and Louisiana. Hurricane Andrew established that
calculations based strictly on historical losses underestimated the projected losses. Before
Hurricane Andrew, insurers depended only on historical claims experience to assess possible
losses.
SB 429
Page 3
Wildfire catastrophe models are computerized processes that simulate potential property damage
caused by major wildfires at the community-wide or regional level. Catastrophe models have
been rapidly evolving since their introduction in the 1980s, and they inform wildfire safety
planning, building construction, insurance rate setting, and other areas. Currently there are
multiple privately owned wildfire models, but no publicly owned and operated model.
Public Wildfire Catastrophe Model Strategy Group: In September 2024, The Insurance
Commissioner asked CalPoly Humboldt to lead and convene a strategy group with the purpose
of determining how to create a public model in California. The strategy group was tasked with
making recommendations to the Insurance Commissioner regarding steps to take to create a
public model. The group released the report on May 6, 2025 with, among other things, the
following initial recommendation:
We recommend the creation of a grant program at the Department of Insurance to fund a
center harnessing the power of California’s higher-education and non-profit expertise on
wildfire safety. Policymakers should create a grant program at the Department of Insurance
to create a research and educational center housed at one or more California universities. The
grant program can include university and non-profit researchers on modeling, wildfire
science, and risk communication. The grant program should specify that any public model
supports consistent, accurate data collection on risk mitigation programs at all levels, and
publicly available outputs usable by local communities in supporting risk reduction efforts
and effective wildfire safety education. In this initial phase, the new research and educational
center would identify the core elements of a public wildfire catastrophe model and a multi-
year implementation plan. The center would identify a user base and do initial community
education and research about the uses of a model.
California Risk Modeling Advisory Workgroup: AB 642 from 2021 required the creation of a
risk modeling advisory working group to advise CAL FIRE, in consultation with the State Fire
Marshal and the Insurance Commissioner on wildfire risk modeling. The working group was
tasked to make recommendations on understanding and modeling wildfire risk for a community
and specific parcels within the local responsibility or state responsibility area and to include a
strategy to account for mitigating factors designed to reduce risk. It was noted that the report did
not attempt to address the use of catastrophe models in insurance pricing.
Arguments in support: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara writes, “As the proud sponsor, I
respectfully request your support of SB 429 authored by Senator Dave Cortese, when it comes
before your committee. SB 429 would establish the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program
and allow the Department to pursue partnerships to research public catastrophe modeling. With
extreme wildfires increasing over the past decade, there’s a need to better plan and prepare
communities at a level we have never seen before. Publicly accessible data and computer
modeling can help California achieve wildfire mitigation at the community-wide scale needed to
prevent more tragic losses. A first-in-the-nation public wildfire model will be a critical tool for
firefighters, city leaders, scientists and students – and keep California at the forefront of safety
and innovation.”
United Policy Holders writes, “I write on behalf of United Policyholders in strong support of SB
429, The California Wildfire Public Model Act, introduced by Senator Cortese. This bill will
facilitate the creation of a tool that will serve as a measuring stick/benchmark for the California
SB 429
Page 4
Department of Insurance Rate Regulation Bureau and other stakeholders to use to evaluate the
validity of Catastrophe (“CAT”) Models created by private companies for insurance industry
clients. The public CAT Model contemplated by this bill will help expose if and when private
CAT Models are overstating risk, understating mitigation, and/or being used to justify excessive
rates.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council writes, “On behalf of Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) and NRDC Action Fund, we are writing to express our support for SB 429
(Cortese), which would direct California universities to develop a publicly accessible wildfire
catastrophe model. As wildfire risk continues to escalate throughout California, insurers and
reinsurers are increasingly turning to sophisticated catastrophe models to estimate climate-related
threats and project potential financial losses. However, these models are often proprietary and
operate with limited transparency, obscuring critical details about their data inputs and
underlying assumptions. This lack of openness leaves regulators, policymakers, and the public
with little insight into the rationale behind rising insurance rates and shifting underwriting
practices.”
Committee Amendments:
1) To ensure the Wildfire Risk Mitigation Program incorporates wildfire risks and hazards
known to state and local emergency management and hazard mitigation officials, the
author may want to add:
(7) Ensure activities undertaken pursuant to this article complement wildfire mitigation
priorities identified in local and state hazard mitigation plans and in after-action reports
following federal Major Disaster Declarations related to wildfires.
2) The author may wish to add the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management to the
list of legislative committees that shall receive CDI’s recommendations.
Double referral: This bill was double referred and passed the Assembly Committee on Insurance
on the July 9, 2025.
Related legislation: - AB 1 (Connelly) of this Session. This bill would require the department,
on or before January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, to consider whether or not to update
its regulations to include additional building hardening measures for property-level mitigation
efforts and communitywide wildfire mitigation programs. As part of this consideration, the bill
would require the department to consult with specified agencies to identify additional building
hardening measures to consider, as well as to develop and implement a public participation
process during the evaluation. (Pending before the Senate Committee on Appropriations)
AB 1531 (Committee on Emergency Management) of this Session. This bill adds CDI to the
California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP) Board. (Pending before the Senate Committee
on Appropriations)
SB 616 (Rubio): Would create an independent Community Hardening Commission within the
Department of Insurance, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire mitigation
SB 429
Page 5
standard for all levels of government across the state, as well as generating guidelines to enable
the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform. (Set to be heard in the Assembly Committee on
Emergency Management on July 14, 2025)
Prior legislation: SB 824 (Lara, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2018): Requires, among other things,
that commencing April 1, 2020, insurers with premiums of $10,000,000 or more report to the
Insurance Commissioner specified residential property experience data for policies written in
California for the two previous years, and increases the reporting threshold amount every five
years thereafter. Also requires that such information is posted to the CDI website in the form of a
report on wildfire risk, and updated every two years with new data submitted by insurers.
AB 3164 (Friedman, 2020, Vetoed by the Governor): Would have required the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to develop a wildland-urban interface
wildfire risk model.
AB 642 (Friedman, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2021): Created a Risk Modeling Advisory
Workgroup to advise CAL FIRE, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, and the Insurance
Commissioner on wildfire risk modeling.
AB 1933 (Calderon) 2024 Legislative year. This measure would have required CDI to report to
the Assembly Committee on Insurance and the Senate Committee on Insurance regarding
wildfire risk models, on or before, January 1, 2026, and annually, thereafter. (Died in Senate
Insurance Committee.)
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Americans for Financial Reform
Carbon Plan
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Watchdog
Environmental Defense Fund
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara / California Department of Insurance
Little Hoover Commission (org & Economy Comm.)
Livable California
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Public Citizen
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Socal 350 Climate Action
United Policyholders
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Mike Dayton / E.M. / (916) 319-3802
SB 454
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SB 454 (McNerney) – As Amended May 23, 2025
Policy Committee: Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 7 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill creates the PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) Mitigation Fund
(Fund) and authorizes, upon appropriation, moneys deposited into the Fund be available for the
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to expend for the treatment of PFAS
in drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water.
Specifically, this bill, among other things:
1) Creates the Fund in the State Treasury, and authorizes, upon appropriation by the Legislature,
moneys deposited into the Fund be available for the State Water Board to expend consistent
with the purposes of this bill.
2) Requires the State Water Board to adopt guidelines to implement the bill, as specified.
Provides that actions taken to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of this
bill are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Prohibits the State Water Board
from expending more than 5% of the moneys available in the Fund to administer the Fund.
3) Authorizes the State Water Board to seek out and deposit non-state, federal, and private
funds into the Fund, and to establish accounts within the Fund. Requires the aforementioned
funds in the Fund be continuously appropriated to the State Water Board.
4) Authorizes the State Water Board to expend moneys from the Fund in the form of a grant,
loan, or contract, or to provide technical assistance services to water suppliers and sewer
system providers for specified purposes. Specifies eligible expenditures from the Fund.
5) Requires a water supplier or sewer system provider, in order to be eligible for funds in the
Fund, to include a clear and definite purpose for how the funds will be used to provide
benefits to their community related to safe drinking water, recycled water, or treated
wastewater.
6) Provides that this bill does not expand any obligation of the state to provide resources for the
provisions of this bill or to require the expenditure of additional resources beyond the amount
of moneys deposited in the Fund.
7) Provides that this bill shall become operative contingent upon an appropriation by the
Legislature for its purposes.
SB 454
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) The State Water Board will likely incur significant costs, potentially in the hundreds of
thousands to low millions of dollars annually, to establish and administer the Fund. The bill
allows the State Water Board to utilize up to 5% of the moneys available in the Fund to
administer the Fund. Absent sufficient moneys in the Fund to cover these costs at the 5%
administrative cap, the State Water Board will require an appropriation from a different fund
source – likely the General Fund.
For its part, State Water Board estimates ongoing annual implementation costs of at least
$6.5 million to hire new staff. Specifically, the Division of Financial Assistance estimates
$2.75 million in ongoing costs, of which $1.5 million would be for an engineering unit to
perform application review and management and $1.25 million would be for administrative
staff to draft agreements and coordinate disbursements. The Office of Chief Counsel
estimates $250,000 in legal review costs. The Division of Administrative Services estimates
costs of at least $2 million to track revenue and claim disbursements, and to provide technical
and administrative assistance. The Office of Enforcement anticipates at least $1.5 million in
costs to audit and enforce the terms, conditions, and requirements of funding agreements and
to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of the Fund.
2) Ongoing cost pressure of an unknown but significant amount, likely in the millions of
dollars, to fund the mitigation of PFAS contamination (various funds). The bill does not
identify a specific fund source for this purpose. See background for more information.
Proposition 4, the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and
Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, as approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, provides $610
million, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the State Water Board for grants or loans
that improve water quality or help provide clean, safe, and reliable drinking water. Eligible
projects include projects that increase water quality monitoring and remediation of PFAS.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
California has banned PFAS in consumer products ranging from food
packaging and cosmetics to children’s cribs and playpens. But PFAS
has been used in thousands of products during the past eight decades,
so forever chemicals have contaminated a substantial portion of our
drinking water. SB 454 would create a much-needed funding tool to
help local agencies pay for PFAS cleanup, while also helping protect
ratepayers from higher costs.
2) Background. PFAS are a ubiquitous class of more than 9,000 synthetic chemicals that are
linked to a variety of health harms, such as cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental and
reproductive toxicity, and immune dysregulation. These chemicals are harmful at extremely
low doses; contaminate the air, soil, drinking water, plants, and wildlife during production,
use and, disposal; and are extremely persistent in the environment. Water testing required by
the State Water Board has found that 138 water systems serving 11.8 million Californians
have PFAS levels exceeding current federal limits.
SB 454
Page 3
Last year, U.S. EPA updated the legally enforceable drinking water standards known as
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six types of PFAS in drinking water and required
drinking water systems to implement solutions to reduce concentrations of PFAS to meet
these higher standards by 2029. There are efforts underway to weaken, delay, or rescind the
federal MCLs.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has been coordinating efforts
with federal agencies and the State Water Board regarding PFAS since 2012. Efforts to
address contamination in drinking water have included sampling public water supplies,
biomonitoring studies, establishing advisory limits and notification levels, issuing
investigative and sampling orders, and providing grants for treatment. SB 170 (Skinner),
Chapter 240, Statutes of 2021, appropriated $30 million from the General Fund to the State
Water Board to provide technical and financial assistance to address PFAS contamination in
drinking water supplies. Another $50 million was allocated in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and
$20 million in FY 2023-24.
The annual statewide cost to treat PFAS in drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water is
currently unknown. Using statewide monitoring data and the 95th percentile cost estimates
from the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) economic analysis for
PFAS, the State Water Board estimates annual costs of roughly $113 million (based on 2022
dollars) for PFAS treatment, monitoring, and administrative expenses for water systems that
have PFAS monitoring data and have exceeded MCLs. However, more systems may exceed
MCLs in the future. According to the State Water Board, so far, only 15% of community and
non-transient non-community systems have tested for PFAS. A total of 75 systems have been
permitted or are amending a permit to treat PFAS. As an example, Orange County Water
District’s estimated cost of addressing PFAS in the county over the next 30 years is
approximately $1.8 billion. According to U.S. EPA, the nationwide cost for public water
agencies to comply with the PFAS MCLs will be between $772 million and $1.2 billion
annually.
According to a coalition of supporters, including the Association of California Water
Agencies and the League of California Cities:
SB 454 would not fiscally impact the state. It would simply establish a
fund intended to leverage existing and future potential funding to
support public water and wastewater agencies’ cleanup of PFAS
contamination and compliance with PFAS drinking water standards.
SB 454 would also prohibit the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board) from expending more than 5 percent of the total
monies available in the fund for purposes related to administrative
costs. SB 454 would become operative upon appropriation by the
Legislature… This year, the State Water Board is expected to initiate a
formal rulemaking process to set a PFAS drinking water
standard…With California’s MCL anticipated to be at least as
protective as the federal MCL, the costs associated with treating
California’s water supplies will be significant.
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 2, 2025
SENATE BILL No. 456
Introduced by Senator Ashby
(Coauthor: Senator Laird)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ahrens, Berman, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney,
Jackson, McKinnor, and Pellerin)
February 19, 2025
An act to amend add Section 7044 of 7050 to the Business and
Professions Code, relating to professions and vocations.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 456, as amended, Ashby. Contractors: exemptions: muralists.
Existing law, the Contractors State License Law, establishes the
Contractors State License Board within the Department of Consumer
Affairs and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and
regulation of contractors. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a
person to engage in the business, or act in the capacity, of a contractor
without a license, unless exempted. Existing law exempts from the
Contractors State License Law, among other things, a nonprofit
corporation providing assistance to an owner, as specified.
This bill would exempt from that law a muralist, as defined, who
produces a mural, as defined, pursuant to an agreement with a person
who could legally authorize the work.
This bill would exempt from that law an artist who draws, paints,
applies, executes, restores, or conserves a mural, as defined, pursuant
to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
Revised 7-8-25—See last page.98
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 7050 is added to the Business and
line 2 Professions Code, to read:
line 3 7050. (a) This chapter does not apply to an artist who draws,
line 4 paints, applies, executes, restores, or conserves a mural pursuant
line 5 to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the
line 6 work.
line 7 (b) For purposes of this section, ”mural” means a unique work
line 8 of fine art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label, or
line 9 patent and that is drawn or painted by hand directly onto interior
line 10 or exterior walls or ceilings, fixtures, or other appurtenances of
line 11 a building or structure. “Mural” does not include painted wall
line 12 signs.
line 13 SECTION 1. Section 7044 of the Business and Professions
line 14 Code is amended to read:
line 15 7044. (a) This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
line 16 (1) An owner who builds or improves a structure on the owner’s
line 17 property, provided that both of the following conditions are met:
line 18 (A) None of the improvements are intended or offered for sale.
line 19 (B) The property owner personally performs all of the work or
line 20 any work not performed by the owner is performed by the owner’s
line 21 employees with wages as their sole compensation.
line 22 (2) An owner who builds or improves a structure on the owner’s
line 23 property, provided that both of the following conditions are met:
line 24 (A) The owner directly contracts with licensees who are duly
line 25 licensed to contract for the work of the respective trades involved
line 26 in completing the project.
line 27 (B) For projects involving single-family residential structures,
line 28 no more than four of these structures are intended or offered for
line 29 sale in a calendar year. This subparagraph shall not apply if the
line 30 owner contracts with a general contractor for the construction.
line 31 (3) A homeowner improving the homeowner’s principal place
line 32 of residence or appurtenances thereto, provided that all of the
line 33 following conditions exist:
line 34 (A) The work is performed prior to sale.
line 35 (B) The homeowner has actually resided in the residence for
line 36 the 12 months prior to completion of the work.
98
— 2 — SB 456
line 1 (C) The homeowner has not claimed the exemption in this
line 2 paragraph on more than two structures more than once during any
line 3 three-year period.
line 4 (4) A nonprofit corporation providing assistance to an
line 5 owner-builder, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 50692 of
line 6 the Health and Safety Code, who is participating in a mutual
line 7 self-help housing program, as defined in Section 50078 of the
line 8 Health and Safety Code.
line 9 (5) A muralist who produces a mural.
line 10 (A) For purposes of this section, a “muralist” means an artist
line 11 who draws, paints, applies, executes, restores, conserves, or affixes
line 12 visual art directly onto walls, ceilings, or other fixtures of a
line 13 building or structure pursuant to an agreement with a person who
line 14 could legally authorize the work.
line 15 (B) For purposes of this section, a “mural” means a unique work
line 16 of visual art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label, or
line 17 patent and that is drawn or painted by hand directly upon, or affixed
line 18 directly to, an exterior or interior wall or ceiling of a building or
line 19 structure.
line 20 (b) In all actions brought under this chapter, both of the
line 21 following shall apply:
line 22 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), proof of the sale or
line 23 offering for sale of a structure by or for the owner-builder within
line 24 one year after completion of the structure constitutes a rebuttable
line 25 presumption affecting the burden of proof that the structure was
line 26 undertaken for purposes of sale.
line 27 (2) Proof of the sale or offering for sale of five or more
line 28 structures by the owner-builder within one year after completion
line 29 constitutes a conclusive presumption that the structures were
line 30 undertaken for purposes of sale.
line 31
line 32
REVISIONS: line 33
Heading—Line 3. line 34
line 35
O
98
SB 456 — 3 —
SB 616
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Rhodesia Ransom, Chair
SB 616 (Rubio) – As Amended July 10, 2025
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program
SUMMARY: Creates an independent Community Hardening Commission within the
Department of Insurance, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire mitigation
standard for all levels of government across the state, as well as generating guidelines to enable
the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform. Specifically, this bill:
1) Creates the Community Hardening Commission (Commission) as an independent unit
within the Department of Insurance (CDI)
2) Provides the Commission exists as a separate unit within the Department of Insurance,
and has the functions of prescribing policy, holding meetings and setting dates of the
meetings, and holding hearings insofar as those powers are given by statute to the
commission.
3) Provides the decisions and actions of the Commission, with respect to exercising its
authority and carrying out its duties under this chapter or any other applicable law, are
not subject to review by the Insurance Commissioner, but are final within the limits
provided by this chapter.
4) Provides the commission shall be chaired by the Insurance Commissioner and consist of
the following seven members:
(a) The Insurance Commissioner or their designee.
(b) The State Fire Marshal, or their designee.
(c) The Director of Housing and Community Development or their designee.
(d) The Director of the Office of Emergency Services or their designee.
(e) The Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety or their designee.
(f) A member of the legislative body appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(g) A member of the legislative body appointed by the Senate President pro Tempore.
5) Provides the Commission shall be advised by an advisory council, with the following
members:
(a) Three representatives from scientific research institutions with expertise in wildfire
science, as appointed by the Insurance Commissioner.
(b) A representative on behalf of the insurance industry, as appointed by the Insurance
Commissioner.
(c) A representative on behalf of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety,
as appointed by the Insurance Commissioner.
(d) A representative on behalf of consumers and policyholders, as appointed by the
Insurance Commissioner.
SB 616
Page 2
(e) A local representative on behalf of a city or county, or association representing cities
or counties, as appointed by the Insurance Commissioner.
(f) A representative on behalf of the business community, as appointed by the Insurance
Commissioner.
(g) A representative of the California Building Industry Association, as appointed by the
Insurance Commissioner.
(h) A representative of the California Fire Chiefs Association, as appointed by the
Insurance Commissioner.
(i) A public member appointed by the Governor.
6) Requires the Insurance Commissioner, beginning on January 1, 2026, and quarterly
thereafter, to convene the Commission for all of the following:
(a) Develop new wildfire community hardening standards to reduce fire risk and improve
access to fire insurance that address:
(1) guidelines and best practices for home hardening, as specified;
(2) guidelines and best practices for community wildfire mitigation for cities,
counties and members of those communities to include infrastructure
improvements for water and electrical supply to support fire suppression,
enhanced ingress and egress routes, mandated funding mechanisms for defensible
space, and risk mitigation specific to farm and agricultural land management, as
specified; and
(3) means of reducing barriers for cities, counties, and members of those
communities in home hardening and wildfire mitigation.
(b) Review existing home hardening regulations adopted by the Insurance Commissioner,
CAL FIRE, and the California wildfire mitigation financial assistance program, and
provide recommendations to the OES, CAL FIRE, and the Insurance Commissioner
for changes to their regulations and programs to reduce fire risk and improve access
to fire insurance, including outlining the most cost-effective strategies that will lower
the risk for loss in a community in a useful manner insurers are able to reflect in
underwriting.
(c) Make recommendations to expedite proven and cost-effective community hardening
practices that reduce fire risk and improve insurability, including recommendations
for reducing barriers for cities, counties, and members of those communities to invest
in effective home hardening and wildfire mitigation strategies.
(d) Make recommendations to increase the pace and scale of forest health and landscape
management projects with priority for mitigation near vulnerable communities.
(e) Oversee and facilitate state and local agency participation in a wildfire data sharing
platform.
SB 616
Page 3
7) Requires the Commission to consult with stakeholders and make recommendations that
include proposed local and state funding mechanisms and certification processes to:
(a) promote alignment of programs, inspections, and regulations across state
departments and agencies, including, but not limited to, the Insurance Commissioner,
OES, and CAL FIRE; and
(b) revise the home inspection program developed by CAL FIRE to more directly align
with the home hardening regulations adopted by the Insurance Commissioner, CAL
FIRE, and the California wildfire mitigation financial assistance program.
8) Requires these recommendations to include proposed state and local funding mechanisms
and a certification processes that property owners can use or access to demonstrate to an
insurer that a home hardening action has been achieved to meet relevant home hardening
actions.
9) By July 1, 2027 and until January 1, 2032, requires the commission complete these new
wildfire community hardening standards and submit a report to the Legislature on
additional actions needed to support cities, counties, and members of those communities
in home hardening and wildfire mitigation. Requires the commission to periodically
review and update these standards.
10) Requires the Commission to identify specific wildfire catastrophe events and complete
after-action investigations and reports, as specified.
11) Provides for any standard, recommendation, or requirement in this section that is
intended to be a regulation and would be a building standard as defined by Section 18909
of the Health and Safety Code, the commission shall propose that standard,
recommendation, or requirement to the California Building Standards Commission
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 of
Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code in order for the regulation to be effective.
12) By July 1, 2027, requires CDI to develop guidelines for state and local agencies to
aggregate and make available data related to parcel-, neighborhood-, and community-
level wildfire risk for the purpose of enabling a wildfire data sharing platform.
13) By July 1, 2027 and by January 1 annually thereafter until January 1, 2032, requires the
commission to report to the Legislature its assessment of any statutory changes or
budgetary resources needed to facilitate the optimal participation of state and local
agencies in a wildfire data sharing platform.
14) Requires the CWMP to revise its wildfire mitigation program in accordance with the
community hardening standards and home hardening guidelines developed by the
commission.
SB 616
Page 4
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires the Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) to develop and make available on its
internet website a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Safety Building Standards Compliance
training intended for use in the training of local building officials, builders and the fire
service. (Health and Safety Code Section 13159.5)
2) Requires this training to be updated as changes are made to Chapter 7A, as specified, and
include any pertinent mandates for emergency power backup, including, but not limited
to, battery backup requirements for automatic garage door openers. (Health and Safety
Code Section 13159.5)
3) Requires the OFSM to develop and update a Wildland-Urban Interface Products listing of
products and construction assemblies that comply with Chapter 7A for the following:
(a) Exterior wall siding and sheathing;
(b) Exterior windows, skylights, and doors;
(c) Vents, including eave and cornice vents;
(d) Decking;
(e) Treated lumber and ignition-resistant materials;
(f) Roofing materials; and
(g) Emergency battery power backup for automatic garage door openers.
4) Authorizes the OSFM, in researching and developing the products listing and the
educational and training provisions to expend funds from the Building Standards
Administration Special Revolving Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature. (Health
and Safety Code Section 13159.5)
5) Establishes the “Safer from Wildfires” Framework. (Section 2644.9 of Title 10 of the
California Code of Regulations)
6) Requires the State Fire Marshal to biennially prepare and publish listings of construction
materials and equipment and methods of construction and of installation of equipment,
together with the name of any person, firm, corporation, association, or similar
organization designated as the manufacturer, representative, or supplier, which are in
conformity with building standards relating to fire and panic safety adopted and
published in the State Building Standards Code. (Health and Safety Code, Section
13144.1)
7) Under the California Emergency Services Act, establishes the California Office of
Emergency Services (Cal OES) within the office of the Governor for the purpose of
mitigating the effects of natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies. (Government
Code 8550)
8) Requires the Office of Emergency Services to enter into a joint powers agreement with
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, until July 1, 2025, to develop and
administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation program to, among other things,
encourage cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting to create fire-resistant
homes, businesses, and public buildings. (Government Code 8654.4)
SB 616
Page 5
9) Requires the joint powers authority to develop eligibility criteria for property owners,
community organizations, and local governments that may receive financial assistance
under the wildfire mitigation program. (Government Code 8654.4)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Unknown
potentially significant costs to establish the Commission and develop new wildfire community
hardening standards (General Fund and Insurance Fund). Unknown potentially minor ongoing
state-reimbursable mandated costs for support staff to and local participation on the Commission
(General Fund).”
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, “Senate Bill 616 is an important step toward the
hardening of communities and homes, and helping insurance become more accessible and
affordable in California. Climate change is making wildfires more frequent and destructive. As
homeowners and communities work to harden their properties to make them more resilient to
wildfires, there is a need for greater coordination across local, state and federal government in
ways that include the perspectives of leaders across the fire science, construction, planning,
insurance and emergency response disciplines. SB 616 will create an independent community
hardening commission within the Department of Insurance. The Commission will be tasked with
bringing together state and local governmental entities, as well as experts and stakeholders, to
create consistent, data-driven standards to guide statewide fire mitigation policies and programs
across state and local agencies. Effective fire mitigation is critically important to help improve
availability and affordability of property insurance. Equally important, in the event of future
wildfire catastrophes, the Commission will be tasked with conducting post-catastrophe reports.
These reports will include an assessment of available data and information about the
effectiveness of hardening measures in place, a review of lessons learned on performance of
mitigation standards, and recommendations on improvements that can reduce severity of future
events.”
Equity impact: According to the author’s staff, “By seeking to achieve a more uniform,
standardized approach to policies dealing with home and community hardening, this bill will
have an equalizing benefit for all residents and homeowners. Through its work and
deliberations, the Hardening Commission can ensure all communities are treated fairly.”
California Wildfire Mitigation Program: In 2019, the Legislature passed and the Governor
signed into law AB 38 to create the California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP). The law
authorized a joint exercise of powers agreement between Cal OES and Cal FIRE to strengthen
community-wide resilience against wildfires. This included developing a state home hardening
initiative to retrofit, harden, and create defensible space for homes at high risk of wildfires,
focusing on high socially-vulnerable communities, and providing financial assistance for low-
and moderate-income households. The effort is meant to encourage cost-effective wildfire
resilience measures to create fire-resistant homes, businesses, public buildings, and public
spaces. This includes a community hardening approach to achieve wildfire resilience, low-cost
retrofits with ignition-resistant materials to bring homes up to the standard of the California
Building Code Chapter 7A, community and homeowner wildfire education on defensible space
and home retrofitting, and providing financial assistance to support home hardening work for
qualifying homeowners.
SB 616
Page 6
In coordination with state and local partners, Cal OES and Cal FIRE also established a state
wildfire home hardening framework that can be modeled throughout vulnerable California
communities. The framework provides the opportunity for California communities to leverage
state and federal resources and develop local wildfire home hardening programs that address
community resiliency needs. To help expedite local wildfire home hardening program
development and inform the build-out of the state’s framework, Cal OES and Cal FIRE will
provide state funding, resources, and support for demonstration communities to implement
community wildfire home hardening projects in areas with high social vulnerability and wildfire
risk.
California Department of Insurance’s Safer from Wildfires: In 2022, CDI announced the “Safer
from Wildfires” framework, which directs insurers to provide discounts to consumers and
businesses if they take specified mitigation measures. In crafting this regulation, CDI worked
with emergency preparedness agencies in the Governor’s Administration, including CAL FIRE,
Cal OES, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California Public Utilities
Commission.
The framework provides a list of home and community wildfire mitigation measures that
consumers and businesses can take to provide protection for the structure, the immediate
surroundings, and the community. Under the regulation, the more “Safer from Wildfires” steps a
consumer takes, the more they may be able to save on their insurance. Steps a consumer can take
to help mitigate their property under this framework include: class-A fire rated roofs; 5-foot
ember resistant zone; ember and fire-resistant vents; non-combustible 6 inches at the bottom of
exterior walls; enclosed eaves; upgraded windows; cleared vegetation; removal of combustible
sheds and other outbuildings; and defensible space compliance.
Chapter 7A of the California Building Standards Code: Chapter 7A is California’s Wildland-
Urban Interface (WUI) building code. As such, this chapter of the building code establishes the
minimum standards applicable to building materials, systems and/or assemblies used in the
exterior design and construction of new buildings located within a WUI Fire Area for the
protection of life and property. Chapter 7A was initially adopted in 2008 and has undergone
multiple revisions as part of the iterative code development process, integrating the most recent
insights and scientific advancements from technical experts in the field.
State Fire Marshal's Building Materials Listing Program: The OSFM's BML Program was
initially established to mandate approval and listing of fire alarm systems and devices before
their sale or marketing in the state. Over time, it expanded to include various materials, such as
roof coverings, wall assemblies, hardware, and more. Product approval involves rigorous testing,
and companies must utilize SFM accredited laboratories for testing to list products in California.
The SFM listing service provides essential information to building authorities, architects,
engineers, contractors, and the fire service. In addition, the SFM publishes a complementary
handbook to the BML that specifically details products that have been assessed and validated by
the SFM to meet the requirements of Chapter 7A.
SB 616
Page 7
Arguments in support: California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara writes, “As the proud
sponsor of this measure, I write in strong SUPPORT of Senate Bill 616, jointly authored by
Senator Rubio, Senator Cortese, and Senator Stern, scheduled for hearing in your committee on
April 22, 2025. This bill would create an independent Commission within my Department of
Insurance with the goal of communicating the benefits of community-wide mitigation clearly –
with one voice – to every corner of our state by aligning our statewide efforts for community
wildfire risk reduction and mitigation efforts. We know that community-wide hardening is key to
saving lives and protecting homes. Yet year after year, we see communities devastated by fast-
moving wildfires that leave behind destruction, heartbreak, and rising insurance premiums. The
people I meet across the state want to do their part in mitigating these factors, but they’re
navigating a confusing and inconsistent maze of standards, regulations, and rules.”
CAL FIRE Local 2881 writes, “It is universally known and accepted by firefighters, insurance
companies, and lawmakers that California’s most prudent path forward to mitigating fire damage
and bringing insurance companies back to our state is through community hardening. A
commission that streamlines the process and puts data and strategy under a single commission is
overdue. SB 616 requires the joint powers authority to revise the wildfire mitigation program in
accordance with prescribed community hardening standards and guidelines developed by the
Community Hardening Commission which is established in SB 616. The Community Hardening
Commission will have autonomy as an independent unit within the Department of Insurance.”
The League of California Cities writes, “The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is pleased
to support SB 616 (Rubio), which would create a Community Hardening Commission that
operates independently within the Department of Insurance. The commission would have the
goals of developing new fire mitigation standards to reduce fire risk, improving access to fire
insurance, and guiding state agencies on reducing fire risk and increasing communities fire
resilience.”
Arguments in support unless amended: While expressing their appreciation for the “intent of the
bill to promote statewide wildfire resilience and improve coordination across agencies,” the
California Fire Chiefs Association and Fire Districts Association of California outlined the
following concerns:
1. Transfer of Oversight Authority: The bill removes key responsibilities from the Office of
Emergency Services (OES) and places them within the Department of Insurance, a
regulatory body without operational wildfire mitigation experience. Local fire authorities,
along with CAL FIRE and OES, have the direct expertise necessary to manage and
implement mitigation programs effectively.
2. State-Mandated Local Programs: SB 616 would impose a state-mandated program based
on the decisions of the Commission, with unclear enforcement mechanisms or flexibility
for local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs). Without proper integration of fire
professionals or the ability to tailor mitigation strategies to local risk profiles, these
mandates could create operational challenges and unfunded obligations for local
agencies.
3. Limited Role for Fire Service Input: While the bill provides for an advisory council that
includes a local fire chief representative, this is not a substitute for operational leadership
or decision-making authority. Mitigation strategies should be driven by those with direct
wildfire response and prevention experience—not solely insurance or policy experts.
SB 616
Page 8
To remedy these concerns, the California Fire Chiefs Association and Fire Districts Association
of California offered the following amendments:
1. Restore authority for wildfire mitigation program oversight to CAL FIRE and OES, with
coordination support from the Department of Insurance.
2. Clarify that all program implementation and enforcement shall remain under the
jurisdiction of local fire authorities, with the ability to tailor standards to specific
community needs.
3. Ensure local governments and AHJs are consulted before new mandates are imposed,
including the ability to assess costs and seek state support prior to implementation.
4. Strengthen the role of fire service professionals within the Commission’s structure to
ensure practical, field-based perspectives are reflected in all guidance.
As amended on July 10, 2025, this bill ensures the State Fire Marshal shall be a member of the
Home Hardening Commission and a representative of the California Fire Chiefs Association
shall be a member of the advisory council. Additionally, committee staff is aware of ongoing
deliberations and discussions with stakeholders and the author on these recommendations and
other policy questions.
Support with suggested amendment: Similarly, the California State Association of Counties
(CDAC) has requested a representative on the Commission and the advisory council. CSAC
writes, “SB 616 would create an independent Community Hardening Commission within the
Department of Insurance, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire mitigation
standard for all levels of government across the state, as well as generating guidelines to enable
the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform. We endorse this approach and respectfully
recommend that the Commission and the advisory body include at least one county
representative from a distressed area, to be selected by the county statewide association.”
The Committee staff is aware of ongoing deliberations and discussions with stakeholders and the
author on this request and other policy questions.
Concerns: The California Building Industry Association (CBIA), while expressing support for
the overall goal of the measure, expressed concerns regarding how the recommendation would
modify building standards and align or conflict with the current process for modifying building
standards under Health and Safety Code and through the California Building Standards
Commission. The CBIA writes, “The area of concern that we are asking to address is how to
handle the valuable recommendations that will be generated by the input and feedback from key
stakeholders who serve on this newly formed commission. Under current law, any standard
changes, recommendations, or requirements that are intended to be a regulation that would
modify a building standard, as defined by Section 18909 of the Health and Safety Code, that
result in the adoption, amendment, or repeal of building standards are to be submitted to the
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) for review and adoption. SB 616 creates a
competing building code adoption process in the law that will have both the CDI and the CBSC
creating code standards that are likely to conflict with each other. The current statutory review
process removes the potential for conflict.” To address this concern, the CBIA offered the
following amendments:
(g)(1) For any standard, recommendation, or requirement in this section that is intended to
be a regulation and would be a building standard as defined by Section 18909 of the Health
SB 616
Page 9
and Safety Code, the commission shall propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of
building standards to the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 of the Health and
Safety Code in order for the regulation to be effective.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), any standard, recommendation, or requirement
contained in this section that is intended to be a regulation, the commission shall propose the
adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation to CAL FIRE, the Department of Insurance,
or the Office of Emergency Services according to their jurisdiction as it existed on January 1,
2025, in order for the regulation to be effective.
As amended on July 10, 2025, this bill includes a similar provision:
(g) For any standard, recommendation, or requirement in this section that is intended to be a
regulation and would be a building standard as defined by Section 18909 of the Health and
Safety Code, the commission shall propose that standard, recommendation, or requirement
to the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code in
order for the regulation to be effective.
The CBIA also requested amendments to add a representative of the CBIA to the advisory
council and that specifies that the business community member of the advisory council be
representative of apartment managers, and commercial building owners.
As amended on July 10, 2025, this bill includes a representative of the CBIA on the advisory
council.
Arguments in opposition unless amended: The Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) write, “ACWA and CSDA
have concerns with the inclusion of standards for improvements for water infrastructure within
the scope of the bill. We appreciate our conversations with the author’s office and their
willingness to try to address our concerns and look forward to future conversations. SB 616
should be more narrowly focused on fire prevention activities; Section 8899.82 (a)(1)(B)(i)
relating to improvements to water infrastructure should be removed from the bill. Water
agencies’ primary objective is providing the public with safe and reliable drinking water. These
water systems were not designed to combat wildfires, especially the climate-driven wildfires that
California experiences today.”
The Committee staff is aware of ongoing deliberations and discussions with stakeholders and the
author on this request and other policy questions.
Related legislation: AB 1 (Connelly) of this Session. This bill would require the department, on
or before January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, to consider whether or not to update its
regulations to include additional building hardening measures for property-level mitigation
efforts and communitywide wildfire mitigation programs. As part of this consideration, the bill
would require the department to consult with specified agencies to identify additional building
hardening measures to consider, as well as to develop and implement a public participation
process during the evaluation. (Pending before the Senate Committee on Appropriations)
SB 616
Page 10
AB 888 (Calderon) of this Session. Establishes the California Safe Homes grant program to be
developed by CDI to reduce local and statewide wildfire losses by encouraging mitigation.
(Pending before the Senate Committee on Appropriations)
AB 1143 (Bennett) of this Session. Requires the Office of State Fire Marshal to develop a home
hardening certification program that identifies the best appropriate combination of products and
construction assemblies and convene and facilitate a workgroup for such purposes, as specified.
(Pending before the Senate Committee on Appropriations)
AB 1531 (Committee on Emergency Management) of this Session. This bill adds CDI to the
California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP) Board. (Pending before the Senate Committee
on Appropriations)
SB 326 (Becker) of this Session. Requires the Deputy Director of Community Wildfire
Preparedness and Mitigation within the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) to prepare a
Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework, a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast, and a
Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report, each to be released and updated on a specified schedule.
(Pending before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations)
SB 429 (Cortese) of this Session. Establishes a grant program upon appropriation by the
Legislature, to be administered by CDI, for the development and deployment of a public wildfire
catastrophe model, as specified. (Set to be heard by this committee on July 14, 2025)
SB 514 (Cabaldon) Extends the operative date of Cal FIRE’s program for individuals to support
and augment the department in its defensible and home hardening assessment and public
education efforts. (Pending before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations)
Prior legislation: SB 824 (Lara, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2018): Requires, among other things,
that commencing April 1, 2020, insurers with premiums of $10,000,000 or more report to the
Insurance Commissioner specified residential property experience data for policies written in
California for the two previous years, and increases the reporting threshold amount every five
years thereafter. Also requires that such information is posted to the CDI website in the form of a
report on wildfire risk, and updated every two years with new data submitted by insurers.
AB 3164 (Friedman, 2020, Vetoed by the Governor): Would have required the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to develop a wildland-urban interface
wildfire risk model.
SB 1199 (McGuire) from 2020. Would have established the Commission on Home Hardening.
(Died in the Assembly.)
AB 642 (Friedman, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2021): Created a Risk Modeling Advisory
Workgroup to advise CAL FIRE, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, and the Insurance
Commissioner on wildfire risk modeling.
AB 1933 (Calderon) 2024 Legislative year. This measure would have required CDI to report to
the Assembly Committee on Insurance and the Senate Committee on Insurance regarding
wildfire risk models, on or before, January 1, 2026, and annually, thereafter. (Died in Senate
Insurance Committee.)
SB 616
Page 11
Double referral: This bill is double referred. Should it pass this Committee it will be referred to
the Assembly Committee on Insurance.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Cal Fire Local 2881
California Association of Realtors
California Professional Firefighters
City of Arcadia
City of Oakland
City of Santa Barbara
Consumer Watchdog
County of Fresno
County of Madera
County of Mendocino
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of California, INC.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara / California Department of Insurance (sponsor)
League of California Cities
Little Hoover Commission
Rural County Representatives of California
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
United Policyholders
U.S. Green Building Council California
Support if Amended
California Fire Chiefs Association
California State Association of Counties
Fire Districts Association of California
Oppose unless amended
Association of California Water Agencies
California Special Districts Association
Concerns
California Building Industry Association
Consumer Federation of America
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Mike Dayton / E.M. / (916) 319-3802
SB 707
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 16, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Juan Carrillo, Chair
SB 707 (Durazo) – As Amended July 8, 2025
SENATE VOTE: 24-6
SUBJECT: Open meetings: meeting and teleconference requirements
SUMMARY: Makes numerous changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), including
new public access and participation requirements for specified legislative bodies, new
exemptions from certain teleconferencing requirements for eligible subsidiary bodies and eligible
multijurisdictional bodies, extensions of law providing exemptions from certain teleconferencing
requirements for specified legislative bodies or under specified circumstances, and additional
changes. Specifically, this bill:
1) Creates a new category of legislative body for the purposes of the Brown Act, called an
“eligible legislative body,” which includes all of the following:
a) A city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more.
b) A county board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a population of
30,000 or more.
c) A city council of a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more.
d) The board of directors of a special district whose boundaries include a population of
200,000 or more and that has an internet website.
2) Applies the following requirements to a meeting held by an eligible legislative body as
defined above, in addition to any other applicable requirements of the Brown Act, until
January 1, 2030:
a) All open and public meetings shall include an opportunity for members of the public to
attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform, except if
adequate telephonic or internet service is not operational at the meeting location. If
adequate telephonic or internet service is operational at the meeting location during only
a portion of the meeting, the legislative body shall include an opportunity for members of
the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform
during that portion of the meeting.
b) Provides that the requirement in a), above, does not apply to a meeting that is held to do
any of the following:
i) Attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party.
ii) Inspect real or personal property provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to
items directly related to the real or personal property.
SB 707
Page 2
iii) Meet with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of
California, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency
and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction.
iv) Meet in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the
meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility.
v) Meet in an emergency situation pursuant to Brown Act provisions governing
emergency meetings.
c) Requires, if an eligible legislative body elects to provide a two-way audiovisual platform,
the eligible legislative body to publicly post and provide a call-in option, and activate any
automatic captioning function during the meeting if an automatic captioning function is
included with the two-way audiovisual platform. If an eligible legislative body does not
elect to provide a two-way audiovisual platform, the eligible legislative body provide a
two-way telephonic service for the public to participate in the meeting, as specified.
d) Requires all open and public meetings for which attendance via a two-way telephonic
service or a two-way audiovisual platform is provided in accordance with this bill to
provide the public with an opportunity to provide public comment in accordance with
Brown Act provisions governing public comment via the two-way telephonic or two-way
audiovisual platform, and ensure the opportunity for the members of the public
participating via a two-way telephonic or two-way audiovisual platform to provide public
comment with the same time allotment as a person attending a meeting in person.
e) Requires an eligible legislative body to reasonably assist members of the public who wish
to translate a public meeting into any language or wish to receive interpretation provided
by another member of the public, so long as the interpretation is not disrupting to the
meeting, as defined in Brown Act provisions governing meeting disruptions. The eligible
legislative body shall publicize instructions on how to request assistance under this
provision. Assistance may include any of the following, as determined by the eligible
legislative body:
i) Arranging space for one or more interpreters at the meeting location.
ii) Allowing extra time during the meeting for interpretation to occur.
iii) Ensuring participants may utilize equipment or facilities for participants to access
commercially available interpretation services.
f) Provides that this bill does not require an eligible legislative body to provide
interpretation of any public meeting, however, an eligible legislative body may elect to
provide interpretation of any public meeting.
g) Provides that the eligible legislative body is not responsible for the content or accuracy of
any interpretation facilitated, assisted with, or provided under this bill. An action shall not
be commenced or maintained against the eligible legislative body arising from the
content or accuracy of any interpretation facilitated, assisted with, or provided under this
bill.
SB 707
Page 3
h) Requires an eligible legislative body to take the following actions to encourage residents,
including those in underrepresented communities and non-English-speaking
communities, to participate in public meetings:
i) Have in place a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling requests for meeting
agendas and documents, pursuant to Brown Act provisions governing the ability of
the public to request agendas, through email or through an integrated agenda
management platform. Information about how to make a request using this system
shall be accessible through a prominent direct link posted on the primary internet
website home page of the eligible legislative body.
ii) Create and maintain an accessible internet webpage dedicated to public meetings that
includes, or provides a link to, all of the following information:
(1) A general explanation of the public meeting process for the city council or a
county board of supervisors.
(2) An explanation of the procedures for a member of the public to provide in-person
or remote oral public comment during a public meeting or to submit written
public comment.
(3) A calendar of all public meeting dates with calendar listings that include the date,
time, and location of each public meeting.
(4) The agenda posted online pursuant to Brown Act provisions governing online
posting of agendas.
iii) Include a link to the webpage required by ii), above, on the home page of the eligible
legislative body’s internet website.
iv) Make reasonable efforts, as determined by the legislative body, to invite groups that
do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings, which
may include, but are not limited to, all the following:
(1) Media organizations that provide news coverage in the jurisdiction of the eligible
legislative body, including media organizations that serve non-English-speaking
communities.
(2) Good government, civil rights, civic engagement, neighborhood, and community
group organizations, or similar organizations that are active in the jurisdiction of
the eligible legislative body, including organizations active in non-English-
speaking communities.
v) Requires legislative bodies to have broad discretion in the choice of reasonable efforts
they make under iv), above, and provides that no action shall be commenced or
maintained against an eligible legislative body arising from failing to provide public
meeting information to any specific group pursuant to this bill.
i) Requires the agenda for each meeting of an eligible legislative body to be translated into
all applicable languages, and each translation shall be posted in accordance with Brown
SB 707
Page 4
Act provisions governing posting of agendas. Each translation shall include instructions
in the applicable language describing how to join the meeting by the telephonic or
internet-based service option, including any requirements for registration for public
comment.
j) Requires the accessible internet webpage required by this bill to be translated into all
applicable languages, and each translation shall be accessible through a prominent direct
link posted on the primary internet website home page of the eligible legislative body.
k) Provides that a translation made using a digital translation service shall satisfy the
requirements of i) and j), above.
l) Requires the eligible legislative body to make available a physical location that is freely
accessible to the public in reasonable proximity to the physical location in which the
agenda and translations are posted as described in this bill, and to allow members of the
public to post additional translations of the agenda in that location.
m) Provides that the eligible legislative body is not responsible for the content or accuracy of
any translation provided pursuant to this bill, and that no action shall be commenced or
maintained against an eligible legislative body specifically from the content or accuracy
of any translation provided under this bill.
n) Provides, for the purposes of the requirements above, the agenda does not include the
entire agenda packet.
o) Provides the following definitions for the purposes of the requirements above:
i) “Applicable languages” means languages spoken jointly by 20% or more of the
population in the city or county in which the eligible legislative body is located that
speaks English less than “very well” and jointly speaks a language other than English
according to data from the most recent American Community Survey. If more than
three languages meet this criteria, “applicable languages” shall mean the three
languages that are spoken by the largest percentage of the population. An eligible
legislative body may elect to determine the applicable languages based upon a source
other than the most recent American Community Survey if it makes a finding, based
upon substantial evidence, that the other source provides equally or more reliable data
for the territory over which the eligible legislative body exercises jurisdiction.
ii) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants
with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference
and a two-way telephonic service.
iii) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require
internet access and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and
verbally participate.
3) Recasts, and specifies the application of, requirements that apply when a legislative body of a
local agency uses teleconferencing without posting agendas at all teleconference locations,
identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, making
each teleconference location accessible to the public, and requiring at least a quorum of the
SB 707
Page 5
members of the legislative body to participate from locations within the local agency’s
jurisdiction. These requirements include:
a) Providing a means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the
meeting and address the legislative body, as specified.
b) Giving notice of the means by which the public may access the meeting and offer public
comment, as specified.
c) Following specified procedures in the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative
body from broadcasting the meeting or prevents the public from offering public
comment.
d) Not requiring public comments from being submitted in advance, and providing an
opportunity for comments to be provided in real time, as specified.
e) Providing certain public comment opportunities, as specified.
f) Listing in the minutes of a meeting certain information regarding members of a
legislative body who participates in a meeting from a remote location, as specified.
g) Implementing a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for reasonable
accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.
h) Conducting meetings consistent with civil rights and nondiscrimination laws, as
specified.
i) Identifying and making available meeting locations, as specified.
j) Publicly disclosing any individuals who are 18 years or older who are present in the room
with a member of a legislative body who is participating in a meeting from a remote
location, as specified.
4) Allows an eligible subsidiary body to conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to the
requirements of this bill outlined in 3) above, and additional requirements that include the
following:
a) The eligible subsidiary body must designate at least one physical location within the
jurisdiction of the legislative body that created the eligible subsidiary body where the
public may attend and participate in the meeting, at least one staff member of the eligible
subsidiary body or legislative body must be present at each physical location, and specific
agenda posting requirements are met.
b) A member of the eligible subsidiary body must visibly appear on camera, as specified.
c) Prohibits elected officials serving on the eligible subsidiary body in their official capacity
from using these provisions, as specified.
d) Requires the legislative body that created the eligible subsidiary body to make specified
findings before the eligible subsidiary body may use these provisions, and every 12
months thereafter, as specified.
SB 707
Page 6
e) Requires the eligible subsidiary body to report to the legislative body no later than 12
months after the findings specified in d), above, are made, requires the legislative body to
hold a discussion regarding each annual report, and prohibits the legislative body from
taking action on any recommendation in the report until the next regular meeting after the
discussion has occurred, as specified.
f) Defines “eligible subsidiary body” to mean a legislative body that meets all of the
following:
i) Is a commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether
permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance,
resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees,
composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of
the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a
legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject
matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or
formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies.
ii) Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity.
iii) Is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses,
permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds.
iv) Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an
ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the
subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, or removing
from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries.
b) Contains additional requirements and applies a sunset date of January 1, 2030, to these
provisions.
5) Allows an eligible multijurisdictional body to conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to
the requirements of this bill outlined in 3) above, and additional requirements that include the
following:
a) The eligible multijurisdictional body must adopt a resolution that authorizes the eligible
multijurisdictional body to use teleconferencing pursuant to this bill at a regular meeting
in open session.
b) At least a quorum of the members of the eligible multijurisdictional body shall participate
from one or more physical locations that are open to the public and within the boundaries
of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.
c) A member of the eligible multijurisdictional body who receives compensation for their
service shall participate from a physical location that is open to the public. Compensation
does not include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses.
d) A member of the eligible multijurisdictional body may participate from a remote location
provided that the eligible multijurisdictional body identifies each member of the eligible
SB 707
Page 7
multijurisdictional body who plans to participate remotely in the agenda, and the member
participates through both audio and visual technology.
e) Prohibits a member of the eligible multijurisdictional body from participating in a
meeting remotely pursuant to this bill, unless the location from which the member
participates is more than 20 miles each way from any physical location of the meeting
described in b), above.
f) Limits the number of times a member of a legislative body may use these provisions to
five meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets twice per month, or seven
meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets three or more times per month,
as specified.
g) Provides the following definitions:
i) “Eligible multijurisdictional body” means a multijurisdictional board, commission, or
advisory body of a multijurisdictional, cross-county agency, the membership of which
board, commission, or advisory body is appointed, and the board, commission, or
advisory body is otherwise subject to the Brown Act.
ii) “Multijurisdictional” means either of the following:
(1) A legislative body that includes representatives from more than one county, city,
city and county, or special district.
(2) A legislative body of a joint powers entity formed pursuant to an agreement
entered into in accordance with the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, as specified.
h) Applies a sunset date of January 1, 2030, to these provisions.
6) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act that apply to health
authorities, as specified.
7) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act that apply during a state of
emergency, and expands those provisions to include local emergencies, as specified.
8) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act that apply to “just cause”
circumstances, as specified, and expands “just cause” to include an immunocompromised
child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner of the member
that requires the member to participate remotely, and applies a sunset date of January 1,
2030, to these provisions.
9) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act that apply to neighborhood
councils in the City of Los Angeles, and applies a sunset date of January 1, 2030, to these
provisions.
10) Revises and recasts teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act that apply to community
college student organizations, and applies a sunset date of January 1, 2030, to these
provisions.
SB 707
Page 8
11) Clarifies that the existing authority of a legislative body or its presiding officer to remove or
limit participation by individuals or groups of persons who engage in behavior that actually
disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting,
including existing limitations upon that authority, applies to members of the public
participating in a meeting via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual
platform, as specified.
12) Provides the following regarding members of legislative bodies with a disability:
a) Provides that the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act shall not apply to
remote participation by a member of a legislative body with a disability, as specified.
b) Requires a legislative body to allow a member of the body with a disability, as defined,
that precludes the member’s in-person attendance at meetings of the body and that is not
otherwise reasonably accommodated pursuant to the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), to participate in any meeting of the legislative
body by remote participation, unless the legislative body can demonstrate that allowing
the remote participation would impose an undue hardship.
c) Requires a member of a legislative body with a disability participating in a meeting by
remote participation to do both of the following:
i) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology.
ii) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any
other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote
location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with
any of those individuals.
d) Allows a member of a legislative body with a disability participating in a meeting by
remote participation to count towards the establishment of a quorum pursuant to any
requirement under the Brown Act that a quorum of the legislative body participate from
any physical location, as specified.
13) Requires, rather than allows, a local agency to provide a copy of the Brown Act to any
person elected or appointed to serve as a member of a legislative body of a local agency, as
specified.
14) Makes permanent provisions of law governing the use of social media platforms by members
of legislative bodies by removing the sunset date of January 1, 2026.
15) Clarifies that an elected legislative body of a local agency may impose requirements upon
appointed legislative bodies of the local agency that allow greater access to their meetings
than prescribed by the minimal standards set forth in the Brown Act, as specified.
16) Clarifies that “teleconference” does not include the attendance of one or more members of a
legislative body in a meeting of the body solely by watching or listening via webcasting or
any other similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively speak,
discuss, or deliberate on matters.
SB 707
Page 9
17) Requires reporting of closed session decisions regarding the compensation of a department
head or other similar administrative officer of the local agency, as specified
18) Extends the period of time a petitioner has to submit a cease and desist letter to a legislative
body before filing an action to determine if a legislative body has violated the Brown Act,
from nine months to 12 months after the alleged violation.
19) Provides that a legislative body shall not call a special meeting regarding the salaries, salary
schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of the legislative body, and
revises the requirements for posting notices for special meetings on local agency websites, as
specified.
20) Removes language specifying that an agenda need not provide an opportunity for members
of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by
a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting
wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the
committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the
item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the
legislative body.
21) Makes numerous additional minor, technical, clarifying or conforming changes.
22) Finds and declares that specified provisions of this bill impose a limitation on the public’s
right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and
agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant
to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate
the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
a) This bill is necessary to provide opportunities for public participation in meetings of
specified public agencies and to promote the recruitment and retention of members of
those agencies.
b) This bill is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice
requirements allowing for greater public participation in meetings.
c) This bill is necessary to modernize the Brown Act to reflect recent technological changes
that can promote greater public access to local officials.
d) The exclusively virtual nature of the California Online Community College presents
unique barriers to the requirements for an in-person quorum, a physical location for
public participation, and certain accommodations. Participating students of the online
community college come from all across the state and necessitating travel for these
requirements would pose a significant and exclusionary barrier.
23) Finds and declares that specified provisions of this bill further, within the meaning of
paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the
purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the
meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies.
Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California
Constitution, the Legislature makes the same findings outlined in 22), above.
SB 707
Page 10
24) Finds and declares that adequate public access to meetings is a matter of statewide concern
and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
Constitution. Therefore, this bill would apply to all cities, including charter cities.
25) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B
of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency
or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the
scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California
Constitution.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Provides, pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution, the following:
a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress
of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
b) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s
business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials
and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
c) In order to ensure public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of
public officials and agencies, as specified in b), above, each local agency is required to
comply with the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and with any subsequent
statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any
successor act that contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers
the purposes of these constitutional provisions.
2) Provides, pursuant to the Brown Act, requirements for local agency meetings. [Government
Code (GOV) §§ 54950 – 54963]
3) Authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing, which is generally
subject to a number of requirements that include posting agendas at all teleconference
locations, identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda for the meeting
or proceeding, making each teleconference location accessible to the public, and requiring at
least a quorum of the members of the legislative body to participate from locations within the
boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, as specified.
[GOV § 54953(b)(3)]
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s Statement. “The Brown Act since 1954 has served as the minimum standard for
how the public can access their local meetings and for how local agencies conduct meetings.
As technology has improved, the Legislature has made thoughtful changes to modernize the
Brown Act. In addition, the pandemic has helped bring along other technological
advancements.
SB 707
Page 11
“SB 707 will modernize Brown Act rules for government bodies to improve transparency
and expand public access. This bill will help governments better serve their communities and
increase the public’s access to meetings, especially for disabled, working, and non-English
speaking communities.
“Since the bill’s introduction, and at every stage of the legislative process, my office has
worked closely with stakeholders – listening to their feedback and incorporating many of
their suggested changes. We continue to engage in discussions to maintain a balanced
approach that supports both local jurisdictions and transparency advocates.
“SB 707 presents an opportunity to strengthen our governments and empower community
members to be engaged. With the latest amendments, we have thoughtfully integrated
provisions from other Brown Act-related bills authored by Senator Arreguin,
Assemblymember Fong, Assemblymember Arambula, and Assemblymember Rubio.
Ultimately, we aim to create robust public meetings and increase participation across the
state.
“If we don’t make updates to the Brown Act, we lose on extending current provisions that
give cities and counties flexibility, and we lose the opportunity to further engage with the
public. SB 707 provides a vital path forward to strengthen our governments and empower our
community members statewide.”
2) Background. The Brown Act was enacted in 1953 and has been amended numerous times
since then. The legislative intent of the Brown Act was expressly declared in its original
statute, which remains unchanged:
“The Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and
other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is
the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be
conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants
the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to
know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created.”
The Brown Act generally requires meetings to be noticed in advance, including the posting
of an agenda, and generally requires meetings to be open and accessible to the public. The
Brown Act also generally requires members of the public to have an opportunity to comment
on agenda items, and generally prohibits deliberation or action on items not listed on the
agenda.
3) Agencies and Legislative Bodies. The Brown Act defines “local agency” to mean a county,
city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal
corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or
other local public agency.
The Brown Act defines “legislative body” to mean any of the following:
SB 707
Page 12
a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal
statute.
b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or
temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or
formal action of a legislative body. Advisory committees composed solely of the
members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not
legislative bodies. Standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their
composition, that have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction or a meeting schedule
fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are
legislative bodies.
c) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private
corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
i) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may
lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited
liability company, or other entity.
ii) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body
includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that
governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.
4) Meetings. The Brown Act defines a “meeting” as “any congregation of a majority of the
member of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference
locations, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”
5) Registering. The Brown Act specifies that a member of the public shall not be required, as a
condition of attending a meeting, to register a name, provide other information, complete a
questionnaire, or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to attendance. If an attendance list,
register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance to the
room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated during the meeting, it must state clearly
that signing, registering, or completing the document is voluntary, and that all persons may
attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the
document.
6) Remedies for Violations. The Brown Act allows a district attorney or any interested person
to seek a judicial determination that an action taken by a local agency’s legislative body
violates specified provisions of the Brown Act – including the provisions governing open
meeting requirements, teleconferencing, and agendas – and is therefore null and void.
7) Agendas. The Brown Act requires local agencies to post, at least 72 hours before a regular
meeting, an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. The
agenda must specify the time and location of the regular meeting and must be posted in a
location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency website, if
the local agency has one. No action or discussion may be undertaken on any item not
appearing on the posted agenda, with specified exceptions.
SB 707
Page 13
If requested, the agenda must be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons
with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), and the federal rules and regulations adopted to implement the ADA. The agenda
must include information regarding how, to whom, and when a request for disability-related
modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be made by a
person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate
in the public meeting.
8) Comment Periods. The Brown Act generally requires every agenda for regular meetings to
provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on
any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the
item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. The legislative body
of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that this intent is carried out,
including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public
testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
9) Teleconferencing and the Brown Act. The Brown Act first allowed meetings to be
conducted via video teleconference in 1988. At the time, San Diego County was considering
the use of video teleconferencing for meetings and hearings of the board of supervisors due
to concerns about the long distances that some of their constituents were having to travel to
participate in board meetings. They were especially concerned that these distances were so
great that they prohibited some people from attending meetings at all. AB 3191 (Frazee),
Chapter 399, Statutes of 1988, responded to these concerns by authorizing the legislative
body of a local agency to use video teleconferencing. Since that time, a number of bills have
made modifications to this original authorization.
The Brown Act generally allows the legislative body of a local agency to use
teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body in connection with any
meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding must
comply with all requirements of the Brown Act and all otherwise applicable provisions of
law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding. Teleconferencing may be used for
all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body.
If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, the legislative body
must comply with a number of requirements. It must conduct teleconference meetings in a
manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public
appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. The legislative body must give notice
of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by the Brown Act, and must allow
members of the public to access the meeting. The agenda for the meeting must provide an
opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to the
Brown Act’s provisions governing public comment. All votes taken during a teleconferenced
meeting must be taken by roll call.
“Teleconference” is defined as a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in
different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.
Teleconferencing has never been required. It has always been permissive.
SB 707
Page 14
10) The Four Teleconferencing Rules of GOV § 54953(b)(3). The Brown Act contains four
additional specific requirements for teleconferenced meetings in GOV § 54953(b)(3).
Specifically, this paragraph requires all of the following:
a) The legislative body shall post agendas at all teleconference locations.
b) Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting
or proceeding.
c) Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public.
d) During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall
participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local
agency exercises jurisdiction, with specified exceptions.
11) Executive Order N-29-20. In March of 2020, responding to the global COVID-19
pandemic, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20, which stated that,
“Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law (including, but not limited to, the
Bagley-Keene Act or the Brown Act), and subject to the notice and accessibility
requirements set forth below, a local legislative body or state body is authorized to hold
public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically
or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the
local legislative body or state body. All requirements in both the Bagley-Keene Act and the
Brown Act expressly or impliedly requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or
other personnel of the body, or of the public as a condition of participation in or quorum for a
public meeting are hereby waived.”
“All of the foregoing provisions concerning the conduct of public meetings shall apply only
during the period in which state or local public health officials have imposed or
recommended social distancing measures.”
12) Brown Act Legislation Post-COVID. Responding to the continued conflict between the
Brown Act’s requirements for in-person attendance and associated notice and posting
requirements, and public health concerns with in-person meetings during the COVID-19
pandemic, a number of bills were approved by the Legislature in the past several years to
provide relaxed teleconferencing requirements under specified circumstances or for specified
types of legislative bodies, or both. These include:
a) AB 361 (Robert Rivas), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2021, allowed local agencies to use
teleconferencing without having to post agendas at each teleconference location, identify
each teleconference location in the notice and agenda, make each teleconference location
accessible to the public, and require at least a quorum of the legislative body to
participate from within the local agency’s jurisdiction, and provided similar
authorizations for state agencies subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and
legislative bodies subject to the Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act of 2000.
b) AB 2449 (Blanca Rubio), Chapter 285, Statutes of 2022, allowed, until January 1, 2026,
members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without
identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and
SB 707
Page 15
without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, for “just cause” or
in emergency situations.
c) AB 557 (Hart), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2023, eliminated the January 1, 2024, sunset date
on AB 361, changed the requirement for a legislative body to make specified findings in
order to continue using AB 361 teleconferencing provisions, and made other minor
changes.
d) SB 411 (Portantino), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2023, allowed a neighborhood council in
the City of Los Angeles to teleconference without meeting all of the teleconferencing
requirements of the Brown Act.
e) AB 1855 (Arambula), Chapter 232, Statutes of 2024, allowed a community college
student body association or any other student-run community college organization to
teleconference without meeting all of the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown
Act.
Additional prior bills that are relevant to this bill include:
a) AB 922 (Mullin), Chapter 89, Statutes of 2020, created a new exception to a prohibition
in the Brown Act against serial communications by a majority of a local legislative
body’s members, if they are using social media in specified ways, until January 1, 2026.
b) SB 1100 (Cortese), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2022, allowed the presiding member of a
local legislative body to remove an individual for disrupting a local agency’s meeting,
defined “disrupting” for this purpose, and outlined the procedure that must be followed
before an individual may be removed.
c) SB 537 (Becker) of 2023 would have allowed multijurisdictional, cross-county local
agencies with appointed members to teleconference without meeting all of the
teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act. SB 537 was subsequently amended to
address a different subject matter.
13) Legislative Efforts This Year. A number of bills have been working their way through the
legislative process this year to extend sunset dates on the bills noted above, or to create new
exceptions to the rules that generally apply to teleconferenced meetings under the Brown
Act. These include:
a) AB 259 (Rubio) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on AB 2449 (Blanca
Rubio) for just cause and emergency situations.
b) AB 409 (Arambula) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on the provisions of
law enacted by AB 1855 (Arambula) for community college organizations.
c) AB 467 (Fong) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on SB 411 (Portantino) for
the City of Los Angeles neighborhood councils.
d) SB 239 (Arreguín) allows subsidiary bodies of a local agency to use teleconferencing
without having to notice and make publicly accessible each teleconference location.
SB 707
Page 16
14) Bill Summary. This bill is an extensive and comprehensive update to the Brown Act that
incorporates changes sought by the author, as well as most changes proposed this year by AB
259 (Rubio), AB 409 (Arambula), AB 467 (Fong), and SB 239 (Arreguín). In addition to
most of the provisions of these aforementioned bills, this bill also does the following:
a) Applies new public access and participation requirements for the following legislative
bodies, until January 1, 2030:
i) A city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more.
ii) A county board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a population of
30,000 or more.
iii) A city council of a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more.
iv) The board of directors of a special district whose boundaries include a population of
200,000 or more and that has an internet website.
These requirements include: providing an opportunity for members of the public to attend
via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform; providing specified
reasonable assistance with translation services; encouraging participation of members of
the public; providing translation of agendas and specified website content; and other
specified requirements.
b) Provides exemptions to specified Brown Act teleconferencing requirements for
multijurisdictional bodies, until January 1, 2030.
c) Clarifies that the existing authority of a legislative body or its presiding officer to remove
or limit participation by individuals or groups of persons who engage in behavior that
actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of a
meeting applies to members of the public participating in a meeting via a two-way
telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.
d) Reorganizes and clarifies the requirements that apply when a legislative body of a local
agency uses teleconferencing without posting agendas at all teleconference locations,
identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, making
each teleconference location accessible to the public, and requiring at least a quorum of
the members of the legislative body to participate from locations within the local
agency’s jurisdiction.
e) Revises and recasts Brown Act provisions that apply to health authorities and in
emergency situations, and extends the latter to local emergencies.
f) Clarifies how Brown Act requirements apply to members of legislative bodies with a
disability.
g) Makes permanent provisions of law governing the use of social media platforms by
members of legislative bodies by removing the sunset date of January 1, 2026.
SB 707
Page 17
h) Makes numerous additional minor, technical, clarifying or conforming changes.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
15) Related Legislation. AB 259 (Rubio) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date of
January 1, 2026, on provisions of law enacted by AB 2449 (Blanca Rubio), Chapter 285,
Statutes of 2022, which allowed members of a legislative body of a local agency to use
teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of
the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, under
specified conditions. AB 259 is pending in the Senate Local Government Committee, and its
provisions have generally been incorporated into SB 707.
AB 409 (Arambula) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on the provisions of law
enacted by AB 1855 (Arambula), Chapter 232, Statutes of 2024, which allowed a community
college student body association or any other student-run community college organization to
teleconference without meeting all of the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act.
AB 409 is pending in the Senate Local Government Committee, and its provisions have
generally been incorporated into SB 707.
AB 467 (Fong) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date of January 1, 2026, on
provisions of law enacted by SB 411 (Portantino), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2023, which
allowed a neighborhood council in the City of Los Angeles to teleconference without
meeting all of the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act. AB 467 is pending in the
Senate Local Government Committee, and its provisions have generally been incorporated
into SB 707.
SB 239 (Arreguín) allows subsidiary bodies of a local agency to teleconference meetings
without having to notice and make publicly accessible each teleconference location. SB 239
is on the inactive file in the Senate, and its provisions have generally been incorporated into
SB 707.
16) Previous Legislation. AB 817 (Pacheco) of 2024 would have allowed subsidiary bodies of a
local agency to teleconference meetings without having to notice and make publicly
accessible each teleconference location, or have at least a quorum participate from locations
within the boundaries of the agency. AB 817 failed passage in the Senate Local Government
Committee.
AB 1855 (Arambula), Chapter 232, Statutes of 2024, allowed a community college student
body association or any other student-run community college organization to teleconference
without meeting all of the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act.
AB 557 (Hart), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2023, eliminated the January 1, 2024, sunset date on
AB 361; changed the requirement for a legislative body, in order to continue using AB 361
teleconferencing provisions, to make specified findings every 45 days instead of every 30
days; and, eliminated the ability of local agencies to continue to hold meetings pursuant to
AB 361 if a state of emergency ends, but state or local officials continue to impose or
recommend measures to promote social distancing.
SB 707
Page 18
AB 1275 (Arambula) of 2023 would have expanded teleconferencing flexibility under the
Brown Act for community college student organizations. AB 1275 was subsequently
amended to address a different subject matter.
AB 1379 (Papan) of 2023 would have eliminated the Brown Act’s teleconferencing
requirements to post agendas at all teleconferencing locations, identify each teleconference
location in the notice and agenda, make each teleconference location accessible to the public,
and require a quorum of the legislative body to participate from locations within the local
agency’s jurisdiction, and allowed legislative bodies to participate remotely from any
location for all but two meetings per year. AB 1379 was held in this Committee.
SB 411 (Portantino), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2023, allowed a neighborhood council in the
City of Los Angeles to teleconference without meeting all of the teleconferencing
requirements of the Brown Act.
SB 537 (Becker) of 2023 would have allowed multijurisdictional, cross-county local agencies
with appointed members to teleconference without meeting all of the teleconferencing
requirements of the Brown Act. SB 537 was subsequently amended to address a different
subject matter.
AB 1944 (Lee) of 2022 would have allowed, until January 1, 2030, members of a legislative
body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference
location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference
location accessible to the public, under specified conditions. AB 1944 was held in the Senate
Governance and Finance Committee.
AB 2449 (Blanca Rubio), Chapter 285, Statutes of 2022, allowed, until January 1, 2026,
members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying
each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making
each teleconference location accessible to the public, under specified conditions.
SB 1100 (Cortese), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2022, allowed the presiding member of a local
legislative body to remove an individual for disrupting a local agency’s meeting, defined
“disrupting” for this purpose, and outlined the procedure that must be followed before an
individual may be removed.
AB 339 (Lee) of 2021 would have required, until December 31, 2023, city councils and
boards of supervisors in jurisdictions over 250,000 residents provide both in-person and
teleconference options for the public to attend their meetings. This bill was vetoed with the
following message:
“While I appreciate the author's intent to increase transparency and public participation in
certain local government meetings, this bill would set a precedent of tying public access
requirements to the population of jurisdictions. This patchwork approach may lead to
public confusion. Further, AB 339 limits flexibility and increases costs for the affected
local jurisdictions trying to manage their meetings.
“Additionally, this bill requires in-person participation during a declared state of
emergency unless there is a law prohibiting in-person meetings in those situations. This
SB 707
Page 19
could put the health and safety of the public and employees at risk depending on the
nature of the declared emergency.
“I recently signed urgency legislation that provides the authority and procedures for local
entities to meet remotely during a declared state of emergency. I remain open to revisions
to the Brown Act to modernize and increase public access, while protecting public health
and safety. Unfortunately, the approach in this bill may have unintended consequences.”
AB 361 (Robert Rivas), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2021, allowed local agencies to use
teleconferencing without complying with specified Brown Act restrictions in certain state
emergencies, and provided similar authorizations for state agencies subject to the Bagley-
Keene Open Meetings Act and legislative bodies subject to the Gloria Romero Open
Meetings Act of 2000.
AB 703 (Rubio) of 2021 would have allowed teleconferencing with only a quorum of the
members of a local legislative body participating from a singular location that is clearly
identified on an agenda, open to the public, and situated within the boundaries of the local
agency. AB 703 was held in this Committee.
AB 922 (Mullin), Chapter 89, Statutes of 2020, created a new exception to a prohibition in
the Brown Act against serial communications by a majority of a local legislative body’s
members, if they are using social media in specified ways, and contained a sunset date of
January 1, 2026.
17) Arguments in Support. The California State Association of Counties, Rural County
Representatives of California, and Urban Counties of California write, “SB 707 would
represent the most extensive changes to the Brown Act in several years, with a variety of
changes designed to improve public participation in local government meetings, expand
accessibility for members and the public, and includes several provisions that address the
needs of local governments. In total, SB 707 represents a balanced approach in the
modernization of the Brown Act.
“Since late-2024, we have enjoyed a strong working relationship with the Senator, committee
staff, and the variety of stakeholders representing local government organizations, civil
liberties, the press, and open government advocates. It’s often said that the definition of
compromise is when no party is satisfied. However, there’s reasons for everyone to be
satisfied with this law, including:
Improved accessibility for the public through remote participation provisions, agenda
translation, accommodation of interpretation services, outreach provisions, and increased
requirements for how agendas and meeting materials are displayed for the public;
Improved accessibility for members of Brown Act bodies, including extension of the
sunset date for existing remote meeting options, new flexibility for advisory body
members, new flexibility for multi-jurisdictional body members, clarification that remote
disruption of meetings (e.g. ‘Zoombombing,’) can be addressed, and expansion of
emergency meeting provisions; and
SB 707
Page 20
Accountability measures, including expanded requirements regarding reporting of closed
session decisions for the compensation of department heads and administrative officers,
allowing District Attorneys additional time to submit a cease and desist letter for meeting
violations, and impose additional restrictions on the use of special meetings for decisions
on compensation for a legislative body.
“To be clear, there are remaining issues we would like to address in this bill, and we look
forward to continuing our efforts with the Senator to address them. To that end, we share the
following concerns and suggestions on how to address them:
“Remote public comment. Many of our members have concerns about the requirements for
providing remote public comment at meetings. These include concerns about cost, as well as
concerns regarding impacts to the duration of meetings. We understand the need to balance
the provisions of this bill that provide additional public accessibility. While we hope these
concerns do not come to fruition, and are comfortable with the requirements in the bill today,
we would like to revisit this issue in future years if these concerns are realized.
“Remote participation by those with disabilities. We appreciate the amendment to Gov.
Code § 54953.8.6(a)(2)(A) that provides an exception from the on-camera requirement for
those with disabilities that preclude them from appearing on camera. Currently, this needed
exception applies only to those who serve on non-decision-making advisory bodies. We
believe the exception should apply to any individual who serves on a Brown Act body and
request the same language be added to Gov. Code § 54953(c)(2)(A).
“Requirement for physical posting of translated agenda. The proposed addition of Gov.
Code § 54953.4(b) would provide additional opportunities for the public to access translated
meeting information. While this could mean more accessible information for the public, we
want to ensure that it does not make local agencies vulnerable to lawsuits. We request that
the language in Gov. Code § 54953.4(b)(1)(A)(3) be amended to the following to ensure it
meets its intent of shielding agencies from liability:
‘…No action shall be commenced or maintained against an eligible legislative body
specifically arising from the content or, accuracy, posting, or removal of any translation
provided by the eligible legislative body or posted by any person under this section.’
Additionally, some counties use electronic kiosks for posting agendas in public facilities. We
would prefer to allow those counties to meet this requirement without replacing those
systems by allowing them to post translated agendas on those kiosks or online in lieu of the
physical posting contemplated by this provision.
“Requirements for subsidiary body presentations. We believe the entirety of Gov. Code §
54953.8.6 represents needed flexibility for non-decision-making advisory bodies. The remote
meeting flexibility for these advisory bodies will improve civic participation and diverse
community representation by making local advisory bodies more accessible – including
persons with disabilities, caregivers, and working Californians who may face barriers to
attending meetings in person.
“We understand the purpose for Gov. Code § 54953.8.6(a)(4)(B), as it is designed to ensure
that advisory bodies are heard in an in-person meeting of a legislative body at least once
SB 707
Page 21
annually. However, given the broad duties of our local bodies and the difficult nature of
addressing all matters of public concern at these meetings, we believe some changes are
needed to balance the core work of legislative bodies with the participation of advisory
bodies.
“Additionally, the current language will require all advisory bodies to complete an annual
report, which not all currently do. This may seem to be a small requirement, but these bodies
already face challenges in reaching quorum and lack full-time professional staff. To that end,
we request amendments that remove the requirement that advisory bodies both complete and
present an annual report. To better strike the balance of ensuring that advisory body reports
are heard, we would appreciate an amendment that allows an advisory body to request a
presentation on their recommendations to their legislative body—and require that those
presentations not be allowed to be placed on the consent file.
“In conclusion, we believe these remaining challenges can be addressed. Once again, we the
willingness of Senator Durazo and committee staff to work with local government
associations on this critical legislation and look forward to our continued efforts on SB 707.”
18) Arguments in Opposition. The California Special Districts Association and a coalition of
special districts write, “…the most problematic provisions in SB 707 include the following:
Eligible Legislative Bodies. The "eligible legislative bodies" provisions were clearly
drafted throughout the measure without special districts in mind and are unworkable in
application to special districts. This dramatic expansion of the measure occurred after
many in our coalition had reached a neutral position on the legislation; this recent
amendment could potentially apply its provisions to hundreds of additional agencies and
create confusion for hundreds more. Unfortunately, because official population data does
not exist for special districts, nobody will confidently know exactly which agencies or
how many are included. Where will this data come from? Who will referee its
application? This will lead to public confusion, consternation, uncertainty, and liability.
Unnecessary Inefficiency and Micromanagement of Local Service Specialists.
Mandated inefficiency arising from repeated public comment when legislative bodies
have already discussed an agenda item. Prescriptive design requirements for the websites
of local agencies and their legislative bodies, as well as expanded physical agenda
posting requirements are among numerous extremely specific minutia mandated upon the
boards and staff of local agencies to the point that the measure appears to write into state
law that an agency must literally print out copies of the full Act and hand them to its
board members.
Costly Litigation. Exposure of legislative bodies to additional litigation risk arising from,
among other things, required references to specific statutory provisions relied upon for
remote participation in the minutes of public meetings and significantly extending the
timeframe for individuals to sue alleging noncompliance with the Brown Act. This legal
liability is exacerbated by the multitude of new Brown Act requirements in the bill, some
vague and some hyper-specific, which create new grounds for suing public agencies.
Such lawsuits could be frivolous or malicious, stemming from bad-actors intent on
disrupting, delaying, or blocking important infrastructure projects, housing developments,
or other policymaking critical to our communities.”
SB 707
Page 22
The First Amendment Coalition, California Common Cause, ACLU California Action, the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the League of Women Voters of California, Oakland
Privacy, and Media Alliance write, “We now oppose this bill, unless it is amended, because
it:
Would allow an enormous number of local government meetings across the state to take
place entirely virtually, allowing appointees to ‘subsidiary bodies’ to avoid ever showing
up to meetings in person.
Would allow local government officials to eliminate remote public comment for all
during a meeting in the event of a disruption. Even though the Brown Act has procedures
for dealing with disruptive individuals, current language would allow bodies to shut
down remote public comment entirely based on the implausible claim that muted remote
participants can impede the orderly conduct of a meeting. This raises First Amendment
concerns, especially unconstitutional associational liability based on speech.
Would only require livestreaming and remote comment options for a subset of city
councils and boards of supervisors based on population size, even though:
o Evidence suggests that small cities regularly provide public remote access at low
costs.
o Small cities will still need to cover the costs for platform fees and equipment in order
to comply with the bill's remote access accommodations for body members.
Only guarantees audio access, as opposed to video access, to the reduced set of public
meetings required to be livestreamed.
Commendably carved out important subject matter jurisdictions from the increased
‘subsidiary body’ flexibility but now requires that those bodies have ‘primary’ subject
matter jurisdiction, inviting confusion and dispute.”
19) Author’s Amendments as Committee Amendments. The author has requested that the
Committee adopt a number of amendments to address the concerns outlined above by the
California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, and
Urban Counties of California (supporters of this bill), as well as one concern raised by the
California Special Districts Association (opponent of this bill). The Committee may wish to
consider adopting these primarily technical and clarifying amendments as Committee
amendments.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
All Voting Members of the North Westwood Neighborhood Council
Ava Community Energy Authority
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
SB 707
Page 23
Support If Amended
California Broadcasters Association
California News Publishers Association
Concerns
County of Fresno
Oppose
City of Foster City
County of Kern
Imperial Irrigation District
San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
Oppose Unless Amended
ACLU California Action
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Association of California Healthcare Districts
California Association of Public Cemeteries
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Association
California Common CAUSE
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
City of Hanford
County of Imperial
Fire Districts Association of California
First Amendment Coalition
Helix Water District
Hesperia Recreation & Park District
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
League of Women Voters of California
Media Alliance
Oakland Privacy
Orange County Cemetery District
Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Otay Water District
Public Cemetery Alliance
Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District
San Diego County Water Authority
San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority
SB 707
Page 24
Vallecitos Water District
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Vista Irrigation District
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5620 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Assembly Bill 290 (Bauer-Kahan) California FAIR Plan Association: automatic payments. Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—representing the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville—we are pleased to express our support for Assembly Bill 290, which would require the California FAIR Plan Association to establish and accept automatic payments for premiums and implement a reasonable grace period for late payments.
As wildfire risk continues to escalate across California, access to property insurance coverage has become increasingly difficult, particularly in high-risk areas. Many of our communities are
seeing growing reliance on the California FAIR Plan as an insurer of last resort. Yet FAIR Plan customers frequently face rigid payment processes and policy cancellations for nonpayment, often due to administrative hurdles rather than true financial inability.
AB 290 takes a meaningful step toward improving accessibility and consumer fairness in the FAIR Plan system by:
•Requiring the creation of an automatic premium payment system by April 1, 2026, enabling
policyholders to avoid inadvertent lapses in coverage.
•Ensuring payment equity by prohibiting any fee differential between automatic and otherpayment methods.
•Establishing a grace period of at least 10 days for late installment payments, helpingprevent immediate cancellations due to technical or administrative issues.
•Prohibiting cancellation or nonrenewal solely due to lack of enrollment in automatic
payments or failure to confirm a one-time online payment, provided payments areultimately made within the grace period.
These consumer protections are vital in an increasingly volatile insurance landscape, particularly for residents in wildfire-prone areas who may be struggling to retain basic coverage. AB 290 promotes fair treatment, technological modernization, and continuity of coverage—all of which are critical to local resiliency.
ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
We appreciate your leadership in bringing forward this thoughtful and timely legislation, and we respectfully urge its passage.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Maggy Krell
California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 6120 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 348 (Krell) – Behavioral Health: Full-Service Partnerships: Presumptive Eligibility Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Krell:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—representing the Town of Danville and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon—we write to express our strong support for Assembly Bill 348, your measure to create statewide presumptive eligibility criteria for Full-Service Partnerships (FSPs) under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA).
In our region and across California, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) often face fragmented access to care, leading to repeated crises, housing instability, and unnecessary
interactions with the criminal justice system. FSPs are among the most effective tools for reversing these trends—providing intensive, wraparound services that support recovery, reduce incarceration and hospitalization, and improve long-term outcomes.
AB 348 offers a thoughtful and targeted approach to ensure those most in need can access these life-saving services more consistently. By establishing statewide presumptive eligibility criteria while preserving county flexibility and resource limitations, the bill supports improved care coordination without overburdening local systems. It also builds on years of research,
demonstration projects, and oversight recommendations that have called for greater clarity in FSP enrollment processes.
As cities continue to prepare for full BHSA implementation in 2026, this legislation will provide critical guidance and support for counties seeking to prioritize services for high-need populations. The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition commends your leadership on this issue and your commitment to
building a more effective, equitable, and person-centered behavioral health system in California.
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
We are proud to support AB 348 and urge its swift passage.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney
Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Diane Papan California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5110 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 650 (Papan) – Regional Housing Needs and Housing Element Reform Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Papan:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Town of Danville and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we write in strong support of AB 650, your thoughtful and pragmatic measure to strengthen the regional housing needs and housing element process.
The Tri-Valley region is deeply committed to doing our part to address California’s housing crisis. Our cities have collectively entitled thousands of new housing units, including affordable housing
near transit and job centers, and we are advancing significant rezoning and development streamlining efforts to meet the mandates of the sixth housing element cycle. Despite these efforts, we have confronted serious challenges in navigating the housing element certification
process due to late-stage feedback, compressed timelines, and a lack of clarity in required revisions.
AB 650 represents a critical step forward. By extending key deadlines in the RHNA process and requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide specific text and analysis when finding a draft housing element out of compliance, this bill brings greater transparency, certainty, and fairness to a complex and high-stakes process. These reforms will empower local governments to deliver housing element updates that are both compliant and
responsive to local conditions—without sacrificing housing production goals or accountability.
Importantly, AB 650 does not undermine the state’s commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing or holding jurisdictions to high standards. Instead, it ensures that jurisdictions are given the time and guidance necessary to succeed, reducing the risk of unintended noncompliance and litigation. In an era of overlapping state mandates, limited local resources, and increasing public
scrutiny, this clarity is essential to long-term planning success.
ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
We are grateful for your leadership in advancing a bill that reflects the realities on the ground while preserving the urgency of California’s housing challenge. For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition is proud to support AB 650 and urges its passage.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Lisa Calderon California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5610 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 888 (Calderon) – California Safe Homes Grant Program Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Calderon:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—which includes the Cities Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and the Town of Danville —we are pleased to express our strong support for Assembly Bill 888, your legislation establishing the California Safe Homes grant program within the California Department of Insurance.
Wildfires continue to pose an increasing threat to the health, safety, and economic vitality of California’s communities, especially those situated near the wildland-urban interface. The Tri-Valley region is no exception, with many neighborhoods adjacent to natural open space, ridgelines, and fire-prone areas. AB 888 provides an important and timely response by
establishing a dedicated grant program to support low-income homeowners in undertaking cost-effective fire mitigation measures—such as roof replacements and clearing defensible space—which are essential to hardening homes against wildfire damage.
We are especially encouraged that AB 888 aligns the grant criteria with the California Department of Insurance’s “Safer from Wildfires” framework, helping to bridge the gap between state safety
standards and consumer affordability. In practice, this means homeowners who are most at risk—yet least able to finance structural improvements—can receive support for critical retrofits that not only reduce the likelihood of catastrophic damage, but also improve access to property insurance in high-risk areas.
Importantly, AB 888 does not limit eligibility to individuals alone, but also includes local governments and special districts. This flexibility supports communitywide mitigation strategies that are essential to reducing systemic risk and encourages collaboration across jurisdictions to create safer neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT E
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition thanks you for your leadership in advancing this important proposal and respectfully urges the Legislature to pass AB 888.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Dave Cortese California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 6710 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 429 (Cortese) – Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Senator Cortese:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—comprised of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville—we are pleased to support Senate Bill 429, which establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program within the California Department of Insurance.
As wildfire events intensify across California, it is essential that state and local agencies have access to accurate, science-based tools to assess risk and prioritize mitigation. SB 429 takes a critical step in this direction by creating a grant-funded framework to develop a public wildfire catastrophe model. This model will provide an open, data-driven platform to guide wildfire
preparedness and resilience across jurisdictions—especially in areas where access to proprietary models is cost-prohibitive.
We strongly support the bill’s emphasis on ensuring that the model is publicly accessible, informed by the best available science, and responsive to the needs of disadvantaged communities and areas where insurance coverage is increasingly difficult to obtain. SB 429 offers an important
opportunity to improve alignment across federal, state, and local wildfire mitigation strategies while increasing transparency in insurance practices and land use decision-making.
Furthermore, the bill’s structure—leveraging California’s research universities, supporting workforce development in modeling and risk analytics, and coordinating with the Insurance
Commissioner’s Wildfire Public Model Strategy Group—demonstrates a thoughtful and scalable approach.
For communities like ours, located at the wildland-urban interface, the ability to proactively assess wildfire exposure and implement mitigation efforts is vital to protecting residents, infrastructure, and local economies. SB 429 empowers local governments with the tools needed to engage in
evidence-based planning and risk reduction.
ATTACHMENT F
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and respectfully urge the Legislature to advance SB 429.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Jerry McNerney California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 6730 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 454 (McNerney) – PFAS Mitigation Fund Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Senator McNerney:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—comprising the Town of Danville and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon—we write to express our strong support for Senate Bill 454, which would establish a dedicated PFAS Mitigation Fund to support local governments and utilities in addressing contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water and wastewater systems.
The Tri-Valley region is committed to providing residents with clean, safe, and affordable drinking water. However, PFAS contamination poses a growing threat to this goal. These persistent “forever chemicals” are increasingly being detected in groundwater and surface water systems
across California, including in areas that serve our residents. As federal regulations become more stringent and treatment costs continue to rise, local agencies—especially those without the scale or resources to litigate or self-fund infrastructure upgrades—face steep financial burdens to
remain in compliance.
SB 454 offers a prudent and timely solution by creating a state-level funding mechanism
specifically tailored to mitigate PFAS contamination. This bill will help ensure that water agencies and wastewater systems can access the financial and technical resources necessary to install treatment systems, develop compliance strategies, and safeguard public health—without disproportionately passing those costs on to ratepayers. The legislation also ensures that smaller and disadvantaged communities are eligible for support, reinforcing statewide water equity.
We are especially encouraged by the bill’s thoughtful structure, which authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to administer funds, seek federal and private matching dollars, and establish clear guidelines for eligibility and disbursement. This integrated approach will allow the State to leverage resources effectively and deliver assistance where it is most urgently needed.
PFAS contamination is a complex, statewide challenge that requires long-term, multi-jurisdictional coordination. SB 454 provides an essential building block for that effort—supporting local agencies while reinforcing the State’s leadership in environmental and public health protection.
ATTACHMENT G
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
We thank you for your leadership on this critical issue and respectfully urge the Legislature to advance SB 454.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Angelique Ashby California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8630 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 456 (Ashby) – Contractors: Exemptions: Muralists Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Senator Ashby:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, representing the Town of Danville and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we are pleased to express our strong support for your bill, SB 456, which appropriately exempts muralists—visual artists who create hand-painted works on building exteriors and public spaces—from California’s Contractor’s License Law.
Our cities are deeply committed to cultivating vibrant, inclusive, and beautiful public spaces
through community-led placemaking and local arts investment. Muralists play an essential role in this vision. Whether revitalizing downtown alleys, celebrating cultural heritage, or engaging youth in community art, muralists bring vitality to our civic spaces in ways that transcend simple
decoration.
Unfortunately, under current law, artists who produce murals may be subject to contractor
licensing requirements simply because their art is affixed to walls or ceilings—despite the fact that their work is fundamentally artistic in nature and often protected under copyright law. These outdated interpretations risk stifling community arts programming, especially in smaller cities that rely on partnerships with independent artists and nonprofits.
SB 456 offers a smart and narrowly tailored solution. By defining murals as unique, copyrighted works of fine art and exempting muralists from contractor licensure when they work with proper authorization, the bill removes unnecessary red tape while maintaining public safety and regulatory clarity. Importantly, SB 456 aligns with a growing number of local mural initiatives across California and ensures these community-centered efforts are not inadvertently penalized.
We applaud your leadership on this issue and your partnership with the League of California Cities and California Arts Advocates in developing this legislation. SB 456 strikes the right balance between honoring California’s creative economy and ensuring that the Contractor’s State License
Law remains focused on construction-related oversight.
ATTACHMENT H
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition is proud to support SB 456 and respectfully urges the Legislature’s approval of this important measure.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 27, 2025
The Honorable Susan Rubio California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8720 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 616 (Rubio) – Community Hardening Commission: Wildfire Mitigation Program Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Senator Rubio:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville—we are pleased to express our support for Senate Bill 616, your measure to establish a Community Hardening Commission within the California Department of Insurance.
Wildfires remain a persistent and growing threat to California communities, including those in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas of the Tri-Valley region. Despite efforts at the local and state levels, residents and municipalities continue to face a patchwork of hardening standards, inconsistent insurance underwriting criteria, and limited access to data necessary for risk-
informed planning. SB 616 takes a thoughtful and necessary step toward resolving these challenges by creating a centralized Commission with a clear mandate to unify wildfire mitigation standards, improve community resilience, and enable more equitable access to insurance
coverage.
The proposed Commission's focus on aligning best practices across state agencies, reviewing
and refining home hardening regulations, and facilitating the development of a statewide wildfire data sharing platform will provide the long-term infrastructure needed to reduce risk and improve recovery outcomes. The bill's attention to post-disaster assessments and incorporation of technical expertise—along with representation from local government stakeholders—is especially appreciated by our cities, which are on the front lines of implementing defensible space,
evacuation planning, and hazard mitigation strategies.
By empowering the Commission to issue policy guidance, recommend funding strategies, and encourage data-driven collaboration, SB 616 strengthens the state’s collective capacity to protect lives, homes, and critical infrastructure from catastrophic fire events.
ATTACHMENT I
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition thanks you for your leadership on this issue and respectfully urges the Legislature to approve SB 616.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Jack Balch Mayor Mark Armstrong
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan Assembly Member Liz Ortega Senator Jerry McNerney Senator Tim Grayson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Renee Morgan Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand