HomeMy WebLinkAbout092325 3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: September Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
Upon return from summer recess on August 18, Appropriations committees had until
September 29 to pass bills marked as having a fiscal impact on the state. On the last day,
each house holds their suspense file hearings for bills with new spending attached.
Nearly a quarter of the 686 proposals held in suspense were rejected during the hearings.
Following Legislative leadership and the Governor striking a late agreement to extend
the State’s Cap and Trade greenhouse gas emissions program through 2045, both
chambers passed special rules allowing the session to extent one extra day.
In the final days, the legislature passed a wide-ranging package of budget measures,
adopting amendments to prior budget acts and advancing additional trailer bills
covering fundings for human services, all levels of education, transportation, economic
development, labor, public safety, and other policy and funding priorities set out in the
2025 state budget.
The 2025 Legislative session officially ended on September 13. At the start of the session,
2,350 bills were introduced. Approximately 800 bills successfully passed through the
legislative process and were forwarded to the Governor for his consideration. Governor
Newsom will have until October 12 to sign or veto the final batch of bills passed by the
Legislature.
Bills signed/approved by the Governor are chaptered into law by the California Secretary
of State and take effect on January 1, 2026, unless otherwise specified in the bill.
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
September Legislative Update 2 September 23, 2025
Legislative session including: Transportation and Infrastructure, Climate, Environment,
and Health, Public Safety, Economic Development, Affordable Housing and
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.
This bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status:
Senator Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
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. This bill
passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator
Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
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. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the
Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
TVC Position: Support
AB 712 (Wicks) Housing reform laws: enforcement actions: fines and penalties.
The bill entitles housing development applicants that prevail in any action over a local
agency to reasonable attorney’s fees and subject local agencies to increased fines for
violating housing reform laws under specified circumstances. This bill passed through the
Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: Yes;
September Legislative Update 3 September 23, 2025
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: NVR.
TVC Position: Oppose
AB 888 (Calderon) California Safe Home grant program.
The bill creates the California Sage Homes grant program within the California
Department of Insurance with the goals of reducing local and statewide wildfire losses,
improving the insurability and resilience of vulnerable communication, and home
hardening to mitigate wildfire risk and reduce the costs of insurance. This bill passed
through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson:
Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
TVC Position: Support
SB 79 (Wiener) Housing development: transit-oriented development.
This bill requires a housing development project within a specified radius of existing or
currently proposed Tier 1 or Tier 2 transit-oriented development (ToD) stop to be an
allowable use on a site zoned for residential, mixed or commercial development, if the
housing development meets certain requirements. This bill also allows a transit agency
to adopt ToD zoning standards for district-owned land located in the ToD zone. This bill
passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator
Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: NVR.
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. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the
Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
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 Fund
in the State Treasury and authorizes the State Water Resource Control Board to use the
fund to cover or reduce the costs associated with treating PFAS in drinking water,
recycled water, stormwater, and wastewater. This bill passed through the Legislature and has
been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca
Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
Recommended Position: Support
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. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been
September Legislative Update 4 September 23, 2025
presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-
Kahan: Yes.
TVC Position: Support
SB 616 (Rubio) Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program.
This bill creates an independent Community Hardening Commission within the
Department of Insurance to develop fire mitigation/community hardening standards
and generate guidelines to enable the creation of a wildfire data sharing platform. This
bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator
Grayson: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes.
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. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented
to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Grayson: NVR; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan:
NVR.
TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
Additional Advocacy Efforts
On Friday, September 12 the Town of Danville held the first E-Bike Safety Coalition
meeting, comprising of law enforcement, city administration staff, school district staff,
and staff from the offices of Congressman DeSaulnier, Senator Grayson,
Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and County Supervisor Anderson. This initial meeting
served an opportunity for staff to share current challenges and approached with e-bike
issues, with the goal to identify points of alignment within education, enforcement, and
potential future legislation.
The Tri-Valley Cities Council will met on Wednesday September 24 for a State legislative
update from the League of California Cities and Townsend Public Affairs. Townsend
Public Affairs will also provide a federal legislative update.
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.
September Legislative Update 5 September 23, 2025
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Tai Williams
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summaries/Analysis
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Opposition SB 79 (Wiener)
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Opposition SB 707 (Durazo)
AB 290
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 290¶ Author:(Bauer-Kahan)
As Amended Ver:September 5, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires, by April 1, 2026, the FAIR Plan to create a system and accept automatic payments for
policyholder premiums.
1)Prohibits the cancellation or non-renewal of a FAIR Plan policy solely because the
policyholder is not enrolled in automatic payments.
2)Requires the FAIR Plan to provide a 10-day period for any policyholder to pay an
outstanding installment premium, in alignment with existing law.
Senate Amendments
Made clarifying and technical changes.
COMMENTS
The California FAIR Plan – "Fair Access to Insurance Requirements" – is an "association" of all
insurance companies licensed by the California Department of Insurance (CDI) that provides
basic property and casualty insurance in California. It was created in 1968, following urban
disturbances from the Watts Riots in Los Angeles.
Simply stated, the purpose of the FAIR Plan is to be the "insurer of last resort" for "basic"
property insurance in the event of a market failure. At inception, that was essentially urban
commercial property. Ultimately, it has expanded to include homeowners' insurance anywhere
in the state, provided that the insurance "cannot be obtained" in the normal manner in the market.
At origination, the FAIR Plan was not intended to compete with the admitted market, but that
point is now debatable.
The FAIR Plan was established to ensure that urban property owners, mostly businesses, would
have "fair access" to the property insurance necessary to continue to operate in a market that
insurers viewed as too risky to cover. That risk evaluation resulted in a substantial market
withdrawal by insurers from the urban property market. Despite its initial creation as an
urban/business "insurer of last resort," the FAIR Plan expanded to provide coverage in
"designated" brush fire regions of the state. It operated fairly well in this manner until the mid-
1990's, when, as a consequence of the genuine homeowners' insurance crisis that followed the
Northridge earthquake in 1994, the entire state was designated as the appropriate FAIR Plan
coverage region. Today, the FAIR Plan covers all parts of California.
FAIR Plan policies are capped at $3.3 million for residential properties and $20 million per
structure for commercial properties. These caps were increased by the Insurance Commissioner
in 2020 for residential and in 2023 for commercial. Commercial went from $8.4 million per
location in 2021, to $20 million per location in 2023, to $20 million per structure subsequently in
2023.
ATTACHMENT A
AB 290
Page 2
By statute, the FAIR Plan policy is not as broad as traditional homeowners' policies. It is,
nonetheless, a fully sound and guaranteed policy that satisfies lenders' security requirements and
protects the property against the primary risk factor faced by homeowners, which is [wild]fire.
Other coverages are readily available in the market (typically through the purchase of a
"difference-in-conditions" or "DIC" policy), which provide wraparound coverage that, coupled
with a FAIR Plan policy, result in the same protection provided by a standard homeowner's
policy. Because the FAIR Plan's role is to provide coverage when the regular market won't, it is
not necessarily the role of the FAIR Plan to provide DIC policies when there is a healthy market
for those policies.
According to the Author
"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 or nonrenewals 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."
Arguments in Support
According to California's Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, "AB 290 helps prevent
unintentional policy lapses due to missed or delayed payments – a common risk for vulnerable
policyholders in high-risk fire zones. This bill enhances financial security and ensures
continuous coverage, strengthening consumer protections and promoting greater stability within
California's insurance safety net."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of approximately $61,000 in fiscal
year (FY) 2025-26, $67,000 in FY 2026-27, and $108,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter
to the Department of Insurance to manage consumer outreach regarding automatic payment
processing issues (Insurance Fund).
VOTES:
ASM INSURANCE: 16-0-1
YES: Calderon, Wallis, Addis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Berman, Chen, Ellis, Gipson, Hadwick,
Harabedian, Krell, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Michelle Rodriguez, Valencia
ABS, ABST OR NV: Ortega
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0
YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González,
Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa
AB 290
Page 3
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0-4
YES: 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, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Mark
González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey,
Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Patel, Patterson,
Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez,
Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta,
Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Flora, Jeff Gonzalez, Papan
UPDATED
VERSION: September 5, 2025
CONSULTANT: Kathleen O'Malley / INS. / (916) 319-2086 FN: 0001816
AB 348
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 348¶ Author:(Krell)
As Amended Ver:August 29, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Establishes specific criteria that would make a person with a serious mental illness (SMI)
presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership (FSP), including the person is transitioning
to the community after six months or more in a state prison or county jail, has been detained five
or more times as a danger to themselves or others, or gravely disabled, over the last five years,
or is currently experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Specifies that a county is not required to
enroll an individual if doing so would conflict with contractual Medi-Cal obligations or court
orders, or would exceed county FSP capacity or funding.
Senate Amendments
Delay the operative date of the presumptive eligibility criteria to January 1, 2027.
COMMENTS
Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Implementation. Passed by California voters in the 2024
statewide primary election, Proposition 1 revised and recast the Mental Health Services Act
(MHSA) as the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), with a focus on expanding access to
substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and changing how the money from the act is used. Many
of the major policy changes won′t be in effect until July 2026 when the new county plans
become effective. Since the passage of the BHSA, the Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS) and the California Health and Human Services Agency have been collaborating with
counties, providers, tribal leaders, and other stakeholders to prepare for implementation. In
February 2025, DHCS released the final version of the BHSA County Policy Manual Module 1,
which reflects feedback received through public listening sessions, comments, and engagement
forums. The manual was released in multiple phases called ″modules.″ It is a comprehensive
guide for all involved parties to implement the requirements detailed in the BHSA. Module 2
was released in April 2025, focusing on FSPs, BHSA fiscal policies, behavioral health services
and supports (BHSS) (including early intervention), and documentation requirements for clinical
BHSA services. Module 3, regarding guidance for completing the county integrated plan, was
released in June 2025.
The BHSA also requires programs established under each of the three county expenditure
categories (housing interventions, FSPs, and BHSS) to prioritize services for those who meet
priority population criteria. These priority populations are children and youth who: are
chronically homeless, experiencing homelessness, or at risk of experiencing homelessness; are
in, or at risk of being in, the juvenile justice system; are reentering the community from a youth
correctional facility; are in the child welfare system; or are at risk of institutionalization. Priority
populations also include adults and older adults who: are chronically homeless, experiencing
homelessness, or at risk of experiencing homelessness; are in, or at risk of being in, the justice
system; are reentering the community from a state prison or county jail; are at risk of
conservatorship; or are at risk of institutionalization.
AB 348
Page 2
Full-Service Partnerships. Regulations currently require County Mental Health Plans (CMHPs)
to direct the majority of Community Services and Supports funds (76% of county MHSA funds)
to FSP services, which generally are thought of as ″whatever it takes″ services that may include:
1) 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;
2) Non-mental health services and supports like food, clothing, housing, and cost of health care
treatment; and,
3) Wrap-around services to children through the development of expanded family-based
services programs.
Under the BHSA, 35% of county BHSA funds 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 Assertive Community Treatment (FACT), Individual
Placement and Support model of Supported Employment, high fidelity wraparound, or other
evidence-based services and treatment models, as specified by DHCS.
BHSOAC FSP Innovation Project. In 2019, the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and
Accountability Commission (BHSOAC) partnered with several local behavioral health
departments and a non-profit consultant, Third Sector, to explore strategies to emphasize
outcomes through the design and delivery of FSP services. One of the identified goals of that
project was to increase the clarity and consistency of enrollment criteria, referral, and transition
processes through developing and disseminating readily understandable tools and guidelines
across stakeholders.
RAND then evaluated the multi-county innovation project and reported that the participating
counties acknowledged that the absence of standardized definitions for their populations created
difficulties in understanding who is eligible for FSP programs. As part of the project, counties
successfully developed standardized definitions for key populations: individuals experiencing
homelessness, those with justice system involvement, and those at risk of experiencing
homelessness and justice system involvement. Healthy Brains Global Initiative also completed a
report in partnership with the BHSOAC on FSPs, and reported that some family members had
their adult children repeatedly arrested before gaining access to an FSP.
BHSOAC FSP Report. SB 465 (Eggman), Chapter 544, Statutes of 2021, requires the BHSOAC
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 not appearing to meet minimum spending
requirements, and insufficient technical assistance and support to ensure effectiveness. The
BHSOAC shared the draft 2025 report at its February 2025 meeting and it recommends, among
many 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.″
Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment
(BH-CONNECT). The state is currently implementing several interconnected behavioral health
reforms. According to DHCS, the BH-CONNECT initiative is designed to increase access to and
AB 348
Page 3
strengthen the continuum of community-based behavioral health services for Medi-Cal members
living with significant behavioral health needs. BH-CONNECT is comprised of a new five-year
Medicaid section 1115 demonstration, state plan amendments to expand coverage of Evidence-
Based Practices (EBPs) available under Medi-Cal, and complementary guidance and policies to
strengthen behavioral health services statewide. Beginning January 1, 2025, counties may opt to
offer services like ACT, FACT, coordinated specialty care for first episode psychosis, individual
placement and support supported employment, Community Health Worker services, and
clubhouse services. ACT and FACT are also required as part of FSPs under the BHSA.
On April 11, 2025, DHCS released BH-CONNECT guidance via Behavioral Health Information
Notice (BHIN) 25-009. The BHIN states ″Prior authorization is required prior to billing the
bundled rate for ACT or FACT. Behavioral Health Plans are responsible for implementing or
delegating prior authorization requirements and communicating those requirements to county-
operated and county-contracted provider organizations. While awaiting prior authorization for
ACT or FACT, the provider organization must ensure that the member continues to have access
to medically necessary components of ACT or FACT that do not require prior authorization.″
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. The author states that this bill ensures Californians with the highest
need can access the fast, effective, and consistent care that will change their lives. The author
says that 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. The author argues that streamlining access to FSPs for this population will lead to
better health outcomes.
Arguments in Support
The Steinberg Institute (SI) is co-sponsoring this bill and states it is a necessary step to get life-
saving and stabilizing behavioral health care to the Californians who need it most. SI argues that
though funding has existed for FSPs 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. SI concludes that this bill is a fiscally responsible, evidence-based solution
that maximizes California′s behavioral health investments, and ensures BHSA funding reaches
the people who need it most, reducing homelessness, unnecessary hospitalizations, incarceration,
and system cycling.
The California Behavioral Health Association (CBHA) is also co-sponsoring this bill and states
inconsistency in eligibility processes between counties and complex administrative hurdles
create artificial barriers to access. CBHA notes that FSPs are one of the most effective
interventions for stabilizing individuals with SMI and complex social needs, and research shows
this model significantly reduces incarceration, lowers hospitalization rates, and helps people stay
housed and engaged in care. CBHA concludes that this bill ensures all available resources are
allocated effectively to reach the highest risk individuals.
Californians for Safety and Justice (CSJ) supports this bill stating that the standardized criteria in
this bill create a consistent, statewide approach to prioritizing access to intensive behavioral
health services for those who need them most. CSJ says that these criteria do not require counties
to enroll individuals beyond their existing FSP funding levels and, instead, ensure that resources
are targeted to reach those most in need.
AB 348
Page 4
The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) supports this bill and states far too often,
individuals with serious mental illness experience significant delays or denials in accessing
essential services due to administrative hurdles. CDAA argues this bill seeks to solve this issue
by streamlining the process between incarceration and out-of-custody treatment/services by
creating presumptive eligibility for an individual with serious mental illness transiting to the
community after six months or more in prison or county jail. Ensuring individuals receive the
intensive, wraparound support they need will reduce the risk of hospitalization, increase housing
stability, and minimize involvement in the criminal justice system.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness California (NAMI-CA) also supports this bill and states
FSPs are among California′s most effective tools for stabilizing individuals with complex mental
health needs. These programs provide wraparound services—housing, crisis interventions,
employment support—that are proven to reduce hospitalization, incarceration, and chronic
homelessness. NAMI-CA argues despite their success, access to FSPs remains inconsistent due
to fragmented eligibility criteria and burdensome administrative processes. As a result, too many
individuals are left in crisis without care. NAMI-CA says this bill directly addresses this gap by
creating presumptive eligibility for individuals with serious mental illness.
Arguments in Opposition
Los Angeles County (LAC) opposes the bill and states that by putting FSP eligibility criteria into
statute, this bill would limit both the County′s and the State′s flexibility, and thereby ability, to
deliver services in the best interest of clients. FSP eligibility criteria are currently established at
the counties′ discretion, which allows us in Los Angeles to maximize the value and optimize
allocation of counties′ limited resources. But what′s important and a priority in Los Angeles may
not be a priority or important in San Francisco. Or Modoc. Or any of the other 57 counties in
the state. LAC argues that although this bill proposes a process for counties to appeal that they
do not have sufficient capacity or funding to provide FSP services to all clients who would meet
the proposed presumptive eligibility requirements, this would create a new administrative
burden that would detract from, not improve, client care. Complicating matters, AB 348 could
place a substantial financial strain on LA County due to the anticipated rise in automatic
referrals, thus imposing even more restrictions on how counties allocate our BHSA FSP funds.
FISCAL COMMENTS
None.
VOTES:
ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0
YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Rogers, Carrillo, Flora, Mark González, Krell, Patel,
Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-3
YES: 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
AB 348
Page 5
Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Ta,
Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Garcia, Harabedian, Stefani
SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0
YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon,
Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones,
Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes,
Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab,
Weber Pierson, Wiener
UPDATED
VERSION: April 24, 2025
CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0001582
AB 650
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 650 (Papan)
As Amended September 5, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Extends a number of timelines in the process of determining regional housing needs (RHND),
regional housing needs allocations (RHNA), and housing element revisions, and requires the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide specific analysis or text
to local governments to remedy deficiencies in their draft housing element revisions.
Senate Amendments
Make technical changes and add chaptering language.
COMMENTS
RHNA and Housing Elements: The RHNA process is used to determine how many new homes,
and the affordability level of those homes, each local government must plan for in its housing
element to cover the duration of the next planning cycle. The state is currently in the sixth
housing element cycle. The RHND is assigned at the COG level, while RHNA is suballocated to
subregions of the COG or directly to local governments. RHNA is currently assigned via six
income categories: very low-income or 0-50% of area median income (AMI), low-income or 50-
80% of AMI, moderate income or 80-120% of AMI, and above moderate income at 120% or
more of AMI. Beginning with the seventh cycle, two new income categories will be incorporated
for acutely low-income (0-15% of AMI) and extremely low-income (15-30% of AMI).
The cycle begins with HCD and the Department of Finance (DOF) projecting new RHND
numbers every five or eight years, depending on the region (and for regions without a COG,
HCD allocates the RHND directly to local governments). DOF produces population projections
and COGs also develops projections during their Regional Transportation Plan updates. Then, 26
months before the housing element due date for the region, HCD must meet and consult with the
COG and share the data assumptions and methodology that they will use to produce the RHND.
The COG provides HCD with its own regional data on specific criteria. HCD can take this
information and use it to modify its own methodology, if it agrees with the data the COG
produced, or can reject it if there are other factors or data that HCD feels are better or more
accurate. Then, after a consultation with the COG, HCD makes written determinations on the
data it is using for specified factors. HCD uses that data to produce the final RHND, which must
be distributed at least two years prior to the region's expected housing element due date. The
COG must then take the RHND and create an allocation methodology that distributes the
housing need equitably amongst all the local governments in its region. The RHNA methodology
is statutorily obligated to further all of the following objectives:
1) Increase the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties within the regional in an equitable manner, which must result in each
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households;
2) Promote infill development, socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and achievement of regional climate change reduction targets;
AB 650
Page 2
3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an
improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction;
4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction
already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category; and
5) Affirmatively further fair housing.
This bill would push back several RHND and RHNA deadlines for the seventh housing element
cycle and beyond by six months, as follows:
a) HCD would be required to consult with each COG at least 38 months prior to the
scheduled housing element revision, rather than 26 months prior under existing law;
b) HCD must determine each region's RHND three years (36 months) prior to the scheduled
housing element revision, rather than two years under existing law;
c) Each COG must develop its proposed RHNA methodology at least 2.5 years prior to the
scheduled housing element revision, rather than two years under existing law; and
d) Each COG must distribute its draft RHNA allocation plan at least two years prior to the
scheduled housing element revision, rather than 1.5 years under existing law.
This bill also contains some differences or exceptions to these extended timelines to provide
feasible timelines for jurisdictions with due dates earlier in the upcoming seventh housing
element cycle. Generally, the additional six months provided by this bill would mean that COGs
would have to distribute their draft RHNA plan at least two years before the housing element due
date. With the 195-day RHNA methodology appeal timeline in existing law, this change would
result in local governments receiving their final RHNA numbers about 1.5 years prior to the
housing element due date, providing them an extra six months to prepare housing elements and
submit them to HCD for review and approval.
Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements: All of the state's 539 cities and counties are
required to appropriately plan for new housing 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 escalating penalties, including an accelerated deadline for
completing rezoning, exposure to the "builder's remedy," public or private lawsuits, financial
penalties, potential loss of permitting authority, or court receivership.
Among other things, the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of its region's RHNA. To do so, each community establishes an inventory
of sites designated for new housing that is sufficient to accommodate its fair share. Where a
community does not already contain the existing capacity to accommodate its fair share of
housing, it must undertake a rezoning program. It is critical that local jurisdictions adopt legally
compliant housing elements on time in order to meet statewide housing goals and create the
environment locally for the successful construction and preservation of desperately needed
AB 650
Page 3
housing at all income levels. 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. Recognizing that local
governments may lack adequate resources to house all those in need, the law nevertheless
mandates that the community do all it can and not engage in exclusionary and harmful practices.
Local governments have a statutory deadline to submit a housing element based on region. At
least ninety days before the deadline to adopt a housing element, localities must submit a draft to
HCD. HCD is required to review the draft element within 90 days of receipt and provide written
findings as to whether the draft amendment substantially complies with housing element law. If
HCD finds that the draft element does not substantially comply with the law, the local agency
may either make changes to the draft element or adopt the element and make findings as to why
it complies with the law despite the findings of the department. Following adoption of a housing
element, a local agency submits it to HCD. Despite the fact that the process allows a local
agency to adopt a housing element without making the changes required by HCD to be in
substantial compliance, a local agency is not considered compliant until receiving ultimate
approval from HCD. Last year, AB 1886 (Alvarez), Chapter 267, further clarified that a housing
element is in compliance when both a local agency has adopted a housing element and HCD had
found the element in compliance.
This bill would require HCD's findings of noncompliance for either a draft or adopted housing
element to identify and explain the specific deficiencies, by reference to each subdivision of
housing element law, that the draft does not comply with, and would require HCD to provide the
specific analysis or text that would address the deficiencies if the local government were to
include them in a revised element or amendment.
According to the Author
"AB 650 will improve the housing element review process by addressing the delays and
challenges local governments face in dealing with HCD. This bill makes two key improvements:
first, it starts the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process six months earlier, giving
municipalities more time work on their housing elements and allowing them to engage with
HCD sooner; second, it mandates clear and actionable feedback from HCD to ensure local
governments have the guidance they need to comply. These changes will help local governments
develop compliant housing elements on time, supporting the production of much-needed housing
and ensuring clarity in the process."
Arguments in Support
According to the League of California Cities, the bill's sponsor, "During the 6th RHNA cycle,
local governments experienced various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD. Some of
the challenges include a short timeline for completing these complex documents and responding
to HCD's feedback, a lack of clarity regarding what the state expects from local governments
when reviewing additional housing element drafts, and the introduction of new requirements late
in the housing element review process. AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local
governments to begin updating their housing element six months early. The bill would also
require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to
remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies
additional deficiencies not previously identified in prior review letters. AB 650 would provide
greater clarity and certainty to the housing element process and help ensure that all jurisdictions
adopt a certified housing element on time."
AB 650
Page 4
Arguments in Opposition
According to YIMBY Action, "We appreciate the amendments made to this bill in [Assembly]
Housing Committee on April 24th. However, we still oppose this bill because it limits the ability
of California's Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) to comment on
multiple drafts of a city's Housing Element. In order to adequately enforce Housing Element
Law, HCD must be given the ability to provide guidance throughout the very technical process.
… California's severe housing shortage is causing skyrocketing homelessness and poverty,
crippling our economy, and exacerbating our global climate crisis. These impacts fall
disproportionately on California's low-income workers and families and disproportionately affect
communities of color. AB 650 will put up more hurdles to addressing our housing shortage and
ensuring a welcoming California where everyone can thrive."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1) 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)
2) 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.
3) 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)
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1
YES: Haney, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson
ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson
AB 650
Page 5
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 9-0-1
YES: Carrillo, Ta, Pacheco, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Stefani, Ward, Wilson
ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart,
Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa
ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0-0
YES: 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,
Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, 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, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson,
Zbur, Rivas
UPDATED
VERSION: September 5, 2025
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0001857
AB 712
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 712 (Wicks)
As Amended July 3, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Enhances the enforcement of housing reform laws and the penalties that may be imposed on a
local agency determined to have violated those laws.
Senate Amendments
1) Limit the ability of a court to impose fines to situations where, after the Attorney General
(AG) or the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sends a written
communication to the local agency that their action or inaction represents a violation of a
specific housing reform law, the housing development project applicant provides written
notice to the local agency of its intent to commence an action, as specified, at least 60
days before the commencement of the action.
2) Requires any period of limitation for actions under any California law to be extended for
a period of 60 days beginning on the date the applicant provides written notice to the
local agency indicating its intent to commence an action under this bill.
3) Provides that, for purposes of calculating fines for repeated violations of a housing
reform law on which an applicant prevailed within the same planning period, any
subsequent violation of the same housing reform law shall be considered to have
occurred within the same planning period if the local agency does not have a substantially
compliant housing element.
COMMENTS
Housing Accountability Act (HAA): In 1982, in response to the housing crisis, which was viewed
as threatening the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California, the
Legislature enacted the HAA. The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city does not
reject or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting the
jurisdiction's share of regional housing need or emergency shelters without a thorough analysis
of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with the
HAA. The HAA restricts a jurisdiction's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in,
certain types of residential projects. The HAA does not preclude a locality from imposing
developer fees necessary to provide public services or requiring a housing development project
to comply with objective standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to the locality's share of
the regional housing need.
The HAA provides a private right of action to parties, including the development proponent, a
person who would be eligible to live in the proposed development, or a housing organization,
who wish to challenge a local government that denied approval or imposed severely burdensome
conditions for approval on a housing development project.
If a locality denies approval or imposes conditions that have a substantial adverse effect on the
viability or affordability of a housing development for very low-, low-, or moderate-income
AB 712
Page 2
households, and the denial or imposition of conditions is subject to a court challenge, the burden
is on the local government to show that its decision is consistent with specified written findings.
If a court finds that a locality violated the HAA, a court must issue an order or judgment
compelling compliance with the HAA within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that
the locality take action on the housing development project or shelter. The plaintiff is entitled to
attorney's fees unless the court find that awarding fees would not further the purposes of the
HAA. If a locality fails to comply within 60 days, the court must impose fines, a minimum of
$10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project, which must be deposited in a local
housing trust fund or the state Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The court may also directly
approve the housing development project. If the court finds the locality acted in bad faith, in
addition to other remedies, the court must multiply the fine by a factor of five.
State Enforcement of Housing Laws: In recent years, the Legislature has implemented many
policy changes to address the housing deficit, including streamlined, ministerial approval of
housing and requiring local governments to plan and zone for more housing via the housing
element process. For many years prior to the enactment of these and other laws, local
governments often treated the housing element and other housing requirements as a "paper
exercise" because the state lacked strong enforcement tools to ensure compliance.
AB 72 (Santiago), Chapter 370, Statutes of 2017 established a process for HCD to enforce many
state housing laws. The law requires HCD to notify a local government, and allows HCD to
notify the AG, if HCD finds that a local government's housing element does not substantially
comply with state law, or if a local government has taken an action in violation of specified
housing laws. HCD must offer verbal and written consultations and technical assistance to the
jurisdiction before referring them for enforcement action.
In addition to the expanded authority under AB 72, HCD has created and staffed a Housing
Accountability Unit, which provides education and technical assistance as well as oversight and
enforcement of housing element laws to ensure local governments comply with specified
housing laws. Violations of these laws may lead to a variety of consequences for local
governments, including referral to the AG for further civil action.
Some of these laws, similar to the HAA, also provide a mechanism for private third party actors
– for example, developers and project applicants, housing advocacy organizations, and members
of the public – to file their own lawsuits to challenge local land use planning and permitting
decisions. In 2023, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 1485 (Haney), Chapter
763, which also granted HCD and the AG the unconditional right to intervene in any suit brought
to enforce specified housing laws, to ensure that the state's interests are heard as a matter of right
in private litigation dealing with the application of those laws.
There have been further efforts to add more "teeth" to state law to deter bad actors from
continuing to obstruct housing development, including SB 1037 (Wiener), Chapter 293, Statutes
of 2024, which established minimum civil fines and attorney fee awards in cases where the AG
or HCD are acting to enforce housing element law or state laws that require ministerial approval
of housing development projects, and AB 1633 (Ting), Chapter 768, Statutes of 2023, which
expanded the definition of local agency "disapproval" of projects under the HAA.
Private Enforcement: While the AG and HCD have enforcement authority over and have stepped
up efforts to monitor compliance with a number of housing laws, they do not have infinite
AB 712
Page 3
resources with which to monitor the extremely high volume of regional and local public agency
meetings and thousands of different development applications that may be proceeding in any
given month or year. This necessarily leads to some targeting of the most egregious or flagrant
violations of law, or actions that could be precedent-setting or otherwise resolve a question of
law. HCD's accountability unit works to provide technical assistance as much as possible and
intakes complaints from members of the public and developers about potential violations of
housing laws, but is not in the practice of bringing a full lawsuit for every single violation or
possible violation.
However, housing developers face a difficult set of circumstances at the local or regional level
when they are faced with a recalcitrant agency. Because they are often "repeat customers" in a
jurisdiction and are reliant on an agency for essential approvals of the project in question and
future projects they might wish to bring forward, they are reluctant to sue and possibly damage
their relationships with these entities in cases where the agency is not following the law. The
author and sponsor also point out that some agencies have begun requiring developers to
indemnify them from the lawsuits the developers may end up deciding to bring if those agencies
break housing laws, and even requiring developers to pay for the legal fees incurred by the
agency. At the same time, only a limited number of housing statutes (like the HAA) allow an
applicant who is a prevailing party to recoup attorney's fees, making the prospect of litigation
even less appealing to a project proponent.
This bill would require a court to award a housing developer reasonable attorney's fees in cases
where they are the prevailing party over a public agency in an action brought to enforce a
housing reform law. Importantly, this bill would not create or expand standing for any developer
or housing organization where it does not already exist in statute. AB 712 (Wicks) would also
prohibit a public agency from requiring an applicant for a housing project to indemnify, defend,
or otherwise hold harmless the public agency in any manner with respect to an action brought by
the applicant or any other person alleging the public agency violated the applicant's rights or
deprived the applicant of benefits or rights established by housing laws.
In order to create a more effective deterrent for recalcitrant local agencies, the bill would also
apply HAA fines (or for projects with four or fewer units, a minimum fine of $50,000 per
violation) in cases where the applicant prevails over a local agency and the agency was advised
in writing by either the AG or HCD prior to the lawsuit that the agency's decision, action, or
inaction would represent a violation of law in the same manner that is alleged in the applicant's
lawsuit, and declined to remedy the violation during a 60-day cure period. If the local agency has
violated the same statute more than once in the same housing element cycle (or without a
compliant housing element), the court must multiply the HAA fine by a factor of five.
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 extend the enforcement 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
Page 4
Arguments in Support
According to the California Building Industry Association, the bill's sponsor, "With very limited
exceptions, enforcement of housing reform laws relies on housing project applicants to sue the
offending public agency. However, applicants are reluctant to vindicate these rights because
litigation is expensive, and the applicant must maintain cordial relationships with agencies that
have permitting authority over current and future housing projects. Moreover, unlike opponents
of housing projects who typically are awarded attorney's fees if they successfully sue to block a
housing project, project applicants generally do not recover their attorney's fees when they are
the successful party, with the limited exception of suits under the Housing Accountability Act.
Further undermining housing law enforcement, there are no effective penalties to deter public
agencies from forcing applicants to file lawsuits over the same issue even after the public agency
has consistently lost in court and committed violations after having been warned in writing by
the Attorney General or Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the California Special Districts Association, "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, proscribes, 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 needed to build thriving communities."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) HCD anticipates minor and absorbable costs to provide technical assistance to developers
and to inform local jurisdictions when they are out of compliance with provisions requiring
them to reimburse plaintiffs who succeed in lawsuits.
2) Possible future costs to local agencies of an unknown amount to the extent they are sued and
lose and must pay an applicant's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Actual costs will
depend on the number of violations and lawsuits filed, the number of suits that settle, and the
extent the litigation before an applicant prevails. These costs are not reimbursable by the
state.
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1
YES: Haney, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks,
Wilson
AB 712
Page 5
ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson
ASM JUDICIARY: 9-0-3
YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Lee, Stefani, Zbur
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-0-3
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco,
Solache, Ta, Alanis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Pellerin
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-2-13
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett,
Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary,
Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick,
Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Nguyen,
Ortega, Pacheco, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez,
Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Ta,
Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO: DeMaio, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Castillo, Chen, Ellis, Irwin, Lackey, Macedo, Muratsuchi,
Papan, Patel, Patterson, Stefani, Tangipa
SENATE FLOOR: 35-2-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes,
Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire,
McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio,
Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Choi, Seyarto
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Jones, Strickland
UPDATED
VERSION: July 3, 2025
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0001566
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 888
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 888
Author: Calderon (D), et al.
Amended: 5/29/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/9/25
AYES: Rubio, Niello, Becker, Caballero, Jones, Padilla, Wahab
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/25 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: California Safe Homes grant program
SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of
Insurance
DIGEST: This bill 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
AB 888
Page 2
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
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
AB 888
Page 3
c) Projects that improve community mitigation to reduce the risk of losses
caused by wildfires, with consideration to collective actions that mitigate
risks by addressing risk factors on structures in the surrounding area that
exacerbate insurable wildfire losses, alignment with existing risk
mitigation, and 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 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, as well as 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.
AB 888
Page 4
Background
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.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 616 (Rubio, Cortese, Stern, 2025). 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.
AB 1 (Connolly, 2025). Would require, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
“Unknown General Fund cost pressures, likely in the millions of dollars to fund the
grant program. The bill specifies program operation will be upon appropriation by
the Legislature, upon receipt of federal grants or funds, or upon receipt of other
sources of grants or funds. While it is unknown at what level the program would be
funded at, or what non-state funds the program may receive, CDI estimates the
initial funding required to operate the program at $3 million General Fund.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)
AB 888
Page 5
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of Insurance
(Source)
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC)
Berkeley; City of
Brea; City of
Burbank/Burbank Redevelopment Agency; City of
California Association of Realtors
California State Association of Counties
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
East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of California, INC.
James Hardie
League of California Cities
Little Hoover Commission
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Megafire Action
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Orange County Council of Governments
Orinda; City of
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
San Rafael/Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
AB 888
Page 6
Danville
United Policyholders
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)
None received
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 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.
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.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/25
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, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark
González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, 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
AB 888
Page 7
Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta,
Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110
8/29/25 20:41:29
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 79
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 79
Author: Wiener (D), et al.
Amended: 9/5/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 6-2, 4/22/25
AYES: Arreguín, Cabaldon, Caballero, Gonzalez, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla
NOES: Wahab, Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cortese, Durazo, Grayson
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 4-3, 4/30/25
AYES: Arreguín, Cabaldon, Laird, Wiener
NOES: Durazo, Choi, Seyarto
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson
NOES: Seyarto, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 21-13, 6/3/25
AYES: Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Dahle,
Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Ochoa Bogh,
Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Umberg, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Blakespear, Choi, Durazo, Jones, Menjivar,
Niello, Seyarto, Stern, Strickland, Valladares, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Cortese, Limón, Reyes, Rubio, Smallwood-
Cuevas
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-17, 9/11/25 – Roll call not available.
SUBJECT: Housing development: transit-oriented development
SOURCE: Bay Area Council
SB 79
Page 2
California Yimby
Greenbelt Alliance
Spur
Streets for All
DIGEST: This bill requires a housing development project within a specified
radius of existing or currently proposed major transit-oriented development (TOD)
stop, as defined, be an allowable use on a site zoned for residential, mixed, or
commercial development, if the housing development meets certain requirements.
This bill also allows a transit agency to adopt TOD zoning standards for district-
owned land located in a TOD zone.
Assembly Amendments of 9/5/25, among other things: (1) clarify the types of
transit stops, including, among other changes, excluding application to high speed
rail stops and airport people movers; (2) remove Tier 3 stops and limit Tier 1 and
Tier 2 TOD projects between ¼ - ½ mile to cities with a population of at least
35,000; (3) require TOD project units to average no more than 1,750 net habitable
feet; (4) require TOD projects to include at least 5 dwelling unit and meet
minimum densities, as specified; (5) require TOD projects with more than 10 units
to include affordable housing and meet specified labor standards; (6) require a
TOD project to comply with applicable local demolition and anti-displacement
standards; (7) clarifies authorization for a local government to establish a TOD
ordinance, reviewable by the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), as specified; (8) clarifies authorization for a local
government to adopt a “local TOD alternative plan” and a local transit agency to
adopt transit “agency TOD zoning standards” on parcels owned by the transit
agency, which supersede local zoning; and (9) delays implementation until July 1,
2026 and generally for local agencies and in unincorporated areas of a county until
the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (DBL), each city and county to
adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement DBL. Requires cities
and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing
development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that
will contain at least one of the following:
SB 79
Page 3
a) 10% of the total units of a housing development for lower-income (LI)
households;
b) 5% of the total units of a housing development for very low-income (VLI)
households;
c) A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;
d) 10% of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-
income households;
e) 10% of the total units for transitional foster youth, veterans, or people
experiencing homelessness; or
f) 20% of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing
development.
g) 100% of the units of a housing development for lower-income households,
except that 20% of units may be for moderate-income households.
2) Requires a city or county to allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from
20% to 50%, depending on the percentage of units affordable to LI and VLI
households, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under
the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan.
Requires the increase in density on a sliding scale for moderate-income for-
sale developments from 5% to 50% over the otherwise allowable residential
density.
3) Provides that the applicant shall receive between one and five concessions and
incentives based on the percentage of affordable units included in the project.
4) Defines “major transit stop” to means a site containing an existing rail or bus
rapid transit station, ferry terminal served by either bus or rail transit, or 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.
5) Provides that specified infill housing developments shall be subject to a
streamlined ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use
permit if the project has two or more units. Projects containing more than 10
units are required to provide 10% of the total number of units affordable to
SB 79
Page 4
households making below 50% AMI or 50% of the units making below 80%
AMI, as specified. For developments in the San Francisco Bay Area, 20% of
the units are affordable to families making 100% AMI with the average
making at or below 80% AMI, as specified.
This bill:
1) Creates the following definitions:
a) “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a
transit oriented development stop. A parcel that meets any of the
eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1 or Tier 2, as
defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the
height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an
additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio by 1 prior to
the application of density bonus law.
b) “Bus service” means “bus rapid transit” or public mass transit service
provided by a public agency or by a public-private partnership that
includes all of the following features: i) 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; ii) Transit signal priority;
iii) All-door boarding; iv) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency;
and v) Defined stations.
c) “Heavy rail transit” means a public electric railway line 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,
separately rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are
excluded, and high platform loading. “Heavy rail transit” does not include
high speed rail.
d) “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service operating
a total of at least 48 trains per day across both directions, not including
temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned
disruptions, and not meeting the standard for very high frequency
commuter rail, at any point in the past three years.
e) “Housing development project” means consisting of residential units;
mixed use developments, as specified; transitional housing or supportive
SB 79
Page 5
housing; and farmworker housing, except that it does not include any
portion designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast in, or other transient
lodging, as specified.
f) “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway service. “Light
rail transit” does not include airport people movers.
g) “Residential floor area ratio” (FAR) means the ratio of net habitable square
footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. For the FAR
provisions under this bill, a local government may not impose any other
local development standard or combination of standards that would
physically preclude the FAR established.
h) “Tier 1 TOD stop” means a transit-oriented development stop with an
urban transit county, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency
commuter rail.
i) “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 stop, and means a transit-oriented
development stop with an urban transit county served by light rail transit,
by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service, as specified. “Urban
transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.
j) “TOD stop” means a major transit stop or a stop on a route for which a
preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional
transportation improvement program, served by heavy rail transit, very
high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail
transit, or specified bus service within an urban county. When a new
transit route is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional
transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, these stops shall not be
eligible as a TOD stop unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 TOD stops.
If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026,
then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a
transit-oriented development stop.
k) “Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with
a total of at least 72 trains per day across both directions, not including
temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned
disruptions, at any point in the past three years.
SB 79
Page 6
2) Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop
in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone shall be entitled to specified
development standards pursuant to the table below. TOD housing development
projects shall also meet the following requirements:
a) The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit
oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable
square feet, and
b) The housing development project shall include at least five dwelling units
and meet the greater of the following:
a) A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or
b) The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.
TOD Stop
Type
Dist. from
Stop (TOD
Zone)
Standards for Project
Tier 1:
Major transit
stop, heavy
rail transit,
or very high
frequency
commuter
rail
¼ mile from
stop
Max Height: 75 ft or 95 ft if adjacent to stop
Max Density: 30 - 120 units per acre (u/a) plus any
density bonus or 160 u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 3.5 or 4.5 if adjacent to stop
Concessions pursuant to (8) below
¼ - ½ mile
from stop in
city with
population
at least
35,000
Max Height: 65 ft
Max Density: 30 - 100 u/a plus any density bonus
FAR: 3
Concessions pursuant to (8) below
Tier 2: Not
Tier 1 major
transit stops
served by
light rail
transit, high-
frequency
commuter
rail, or bus
rapid transit
¼ mile from
stop
Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if adjacent to stop
Ma Density: 30 - 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140
u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
¼ - ½ mile
from stop in
a city with a
population
at least
35,000
Max Height: 55 ft
Max Density: 30 - 80 u/a plus any density bonus
FAR: 2.5
Concessions pursuant to (8) below
SB 79
Page 7
3) Provides that for projects with more than 10 units, the project shall comply with
one of the following requirements:
a) Any of the following:
a) At least 7% are dedicated to extremely low-income (ELI) households.
b) At least 10% of the total units are dedicated to very low-income (VLI)
households.
c) At least 13% of the total units are dedicated to low-income
households.
b) If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage or
deeper level of affordability, then the local inclusionary housing standard
shall apply.
c) All units dedicated to ELI, VLI, or low-income households shall have an
affordable cost or rent, as defined, and ensure the continued affordability of
those units for 45 years for ownership or 55 years for rental units.
4) Provides that a TOD project shall be eligible for a density bonus, concession
and incentives, waivers and reductions of development standards, and parking
ratios under density bonus law using the density allowed by this bill using the
base density. A development shall be eligible for additional concessions if the
development meets the density threshold for its location, as follows:
a) Three additional concessions for a development providing ELI units.
b) Two additional concessions for a development providing VLI units.
c) One additional concession for a development providing low-income
units.
5) Prohibits a transit housing development 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 last seven years.
b) A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was
demolished within seven years before the development proponent submits an
application under this section any of the units were subject to any form of
rent or price control.
6) Requires a TOD project to meet specified labor standards, including the
provision of prevailing wages if the project is not entirely a public work, as
SB 79
Page 8
specified, and projects over 85 feet shall employ a skilled and trained
workforce, as specified.
7) Authorizes a project constructed by the provisions under (2) and (3) above to be
eligible for streamlined ministerial approval process, however projects are
subject to a 10% VLI, or for projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, 20% of the
units are affordable to families making 100% AMI with the average making at
or below 80% AMI, as specified.
8) Provides that projects that demolish units shall comply with specified
provisions of the Housing Crisis Act (HCA), including specified relocation
assistance and replacement unit requirements for protected units, as defined. A
development shall also comply with any applicable local demolition and anti-
displacement standards established through a local ordinance.
9) Requires HCD to oversee compliance with this bill. Requires HCD to
promulgate standards for how to account for capacity in a city or county’s land
suitable for development identified in its housing element by July 1, 2026.
10) Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning
consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by HCD, as
specified. The creation of this ordinance shall not be subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Provides that the ordinance may include objective
standards, conditions, and policies, applying to TOD housing developments,
that are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence to not physically
preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable development standards provided
for in (2) above.
11) Provides that if a local government adopts an ordinance, it shall submit a copy
to HCD within 14 days of adoption. HCD shall review and make a finding of
compliance or not within 90 days, plus an additional 30 days if needed. If
HCD does not meet that timeline, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant
with this bill. If HCD finds that the local government does not comply with
this bill, HCD shall provide the local government 60 days to respond.
12) Authorizes a TOD ordinance to designate areas within ½ mile of a TOD stop
as exempt if:
SB 79
Page 9
a) The local government makes findings supported by substantial evidence
that no walking path exists less than one mile from that location to the
TOD stop, or
b) The local government with at least 15 transit oriented stops designates the
area as an industrial employment hub. An “industrial employment hub”
shall be a contiguous area of at least 250 acres designated in the general
plan by January 1, 2025 as an employment lands area primarily dedicated
to industrial use and in which housing is not a permitted use.
13) Requires the MPO to create a map of TOD stops and zones established by this
bill.
14) Provides that a local “TOD alternative plan,” defined as an 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 —may be
adopted provided it incorporates all of the following:
a) The plan shall provide at least the same total zoned capacity in terms of both
total units and FAR, as specified.
b) The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual
site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50%, except for
sites meeting any of the following criteria:
i. Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or within the state
responsibility area, as defined.
ii. Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as specified.
iii. Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register, so
long as sites excluded from the density requirements of (18)(a) do
not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD
zone.
iv. Sites within ½ mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop shall not have a density
below 30 units per acre with an FAR of 1.0 and should be
considered for attached entry level owner occupied housing
development opportunities.
c) The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or FAR
by more than 50%.
SB 79
Page 10
d) The site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall no exceed 200%
of the maximum density established under this bill. Any site excluded from
the minimum density requirements in (14)(b) shall not be counted towards
the plan’s capacity.
15) Prohibits this bill from applying, prior to one year following the adoption of
the seventh revision of the housing element, to any of the following for which
the local government has adopted an ordinance indicating the sites exclusion:
a) A site identified by the local jurisdiction that permits density and FAR at no
less than 50% of the standards specified by this bill.
b) A site in a TOD zone in which at least 33% of the sites in the relevant TOD
zone have permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the density
authorized by this bill and which includes sites with densities that
cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD
development zone.
i. A site in a TOD zone around a TOD stop that is primarily
comprised of a low-resource area which includes densities that
allow for at least 40% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone in
(2) above.
ii. A site in an area designated as low-resource on the most recently
updated version of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
and HCD’s opportunity maps and within a jurisdiction that
cumulatively allows for at least 50% of the total capacity for units
and FAR across all TOD zones.
c) A site that is covered by a local TOD alternative plan adopted by the local
government.
d) A site within an area designated as an industrial employment hub, as defined
in (12)(b).
e) Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or within the state responsibility
area, as defined.
f) Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as specified.
g) Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register as of January 1,
2025.
16) Authorizes, for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a
local government may include a local TOD alternative plan in any of the
following ways:
SB 79
Page 11
a) Include a local TOD alternative plan in the housing element, provided the
plan include an analysis of how the plan maintains at least equal feasibly
developable housing capacity at the baseline established by this bill.
b) A local government may adopt an ordinance outside of the housing element
pursuant to (10)-(12) above.
17) Provides that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local agency that denies a
housing development project meeting the provisions of this bill shall be
presumed to be in violation of the HAA and are immediately liable for
specified penalties, unless the local government demonstrates that it has a
health, life, or safety reason for denying the project, as specified.
18) “Agency TOD project” means a housing or mixed-use project that meets the
following requirements:
a) A minimum of 50% of the total square footage of the project is dedicated to
residential purposes;
b) A minimum of 20% of the total number of units are restricted to lower
income households and subject to a 55 year recorded affordability
restriction.
c) The average total floor area of floor space for the proposed units shall not
exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.
d) The parcel or parcels is located on an infill site, as defined.
e) The TOD parcels were not acquired on or after July 1, 2025 by eminent
domain.
f) The parcels are owned by the agency and either:
a) The parcels are adjacent to a TOD stop for which the agency operates
service or form a contiguous area adjacent to a TOD stop.
b) At least 75% of the project area is within ½ mile of a TOD stop for which
the agency operates service or plans to provide service and was owned by
the agency on or before January 1, 2026.
19) A transit agency’s board of directors may adopt by resolution “agency TOD
zoning standards” for district-owned real property located in a TOD zone.
These standards shall establish minimum local zoning standards for height,
density, FAR, and allowable uses, and shall apply to a TOD project, that shall
SB 79
Page 12
be consistent with this bill. The density and FAR may not be lower than what
is provided for in this bill and the density shall not exceed 200% of what is
provided for in this bill.
20) Requires the Board of Directors to hold a public hearing on the development
standards in (19), as specified.
21) Authorizes a local government to adopt a local zoning ordinance to conform
with zoning consistent with transit agency TOD zoning standards for a station
if the station zoning is inconsistent with the local zoning. The local
government shall not be required to approve any height limit in excess of the
height contained in this bill.
22) Authorizes a local agency to adopt objective, written development standards,
conditions, and policies that apply to development on district-owned property,
provided they demonstrate their consistency with the transit agency TOD
zoning standards. Provides that transit agency TOD zoning standards
established by a transit agency shall control in the event that the transit agency
and local objective planning standards, general plan, or design review
standards are inconsistent.
23) Provides that, if a non-residential project is included in a transit agency TOD
project, at least 25% of the total planned units shall be affordable to lower
income households.
24) Delays implementation of this bill until July 1, 2026 unless a local government
adopts an ordinance or local TOD alternative plan deemed complaint by HCD
before July 1, 2026. Delays implementation to unincorporated areas of a
county until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) HCD estimates ongoing General Fund (GF) costs of at least $955,000 annually,
potentially higher depending on the number of jurisdictions that utilize the bill′s
provisions. These costs include additional resources to review ordinances
enacted by jurisdictions to make their zoning consistent with the bill′s TOD
provisions, and to address additional technical assistance requests and
complaints of potential violations from developers, housing advocates, and
legal organizations. These costs also include additional staff to review TOD
alternative plans adopted by jurisdictions as part of their housing elements,
SB 79
Page 13
within the bill′s 60-day deadline for HCD to review local implementing
ordinances.
2) Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but
potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate additional cases filed
as a result of the expansion of projects subject to provisions of the HAA. Actual
costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time
needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate
a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of
workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a
demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal
year 2025-26 state budget provides $82 million ongoing General Fund to the
Trial Court Trust Fund for court operations.
3) Costs to local agencies of an unknown amount to revise planning requirements
and considerations for specified development projects near a TOD stop. These
costs are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies have general
authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their
administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.
4) Costs to each MPO of an unknown amount to create a map of TOD stops and
zones designated pursuant to this bill. These costs are not reimbursable by the
state because MPOs not eligible claimants with the Commission on State
Mandates for state-reimbursement of local mandated costs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)
Bay Area Council (Co-Sponsor)
California Yimby (Co-Sponsor)
Greenbelt Alliance (Co-Sponsor)
Spur (Co-Sponsor)
Streets for All (Co-Sponsor)
City of Santa Monica
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
All Home
All Voting Members of The North Westwood Neighborhood Council
Bay Area Council
SB 79
Page 14
Being Alive/people With Aids Action Coalition
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike LA
Bike Long Beach
Bikesd
Blue Hollywood Street Sanctuary
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
Business for Good San Diego
CA Native Vote Project
Calbike
California Apartment Association
California Communiity Builders
California Community Builders
California Democratic Party
California Nightlife Association
Car-lite Long Beach
Casey Glaubman, Councilmember of Mount Shasta
Central Valley Urban Institute
Ceres Councilmember Rosalinda Vierra
Chamber of Progress
Chambers of Commerce in Oakland
Chico Councilmember Addison Winslow
Chris Ricci - Modesto City Councilmember
Circulate San Diego
City of Berkeley Councilmember Mark Humbert
City of Berkeley Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
City of Claremont, Mayor Jed Leano
City of Costa Mesa Councilmember Arlis Reynolds
City of Costa Mesa Councilmember Manuel Chavez
City of Culver City
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
City of Mountain View Council Member Lucas Ramirez
City of Oakland
City of San Diego
City of Santa Monica Council Member Jesse Zwick
City of Santa Monica Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
City of South San Francisco Council Member James Coleman
Claremont City Councilmember, Jed Leano
Climate Action Campaign
SB 79
Page 15
Climate Hawks Vote
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
Council of Infill Builders
Cty Housing, INC.
Dap Health
Democratic Club of Claremont
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Leadership Council
East Bay Yimby
East Valley Indivisibles
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
Faith and Housing Coalition
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Fathers and Mothers Who Care
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Fremont for Everyone
Generation Housing
Glendale Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation
Holos Communities
House Sacramento
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction
Icon CDC
Inclusive Lafayette
Indivisible Claremont/inland Valley
Initiating Change in Our Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation
Icon CDC
Inner City Law Center
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Jefferson Union High School District Trustee Andy Lie
Kiwa
SB 79
Page 16
Kiwa (koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance)
LA Forward
LA Voice
Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
Leadingage California
Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis
Lisc San Diego
Los Angeles Walks
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
Matthew Solomon, Councilmember - Emeryville
Mayor of West Hollywood Chelsea Byers
Midpen Housing Corporation
Monterey Park Councilmember Thomas Wong
Mountain View Whisman School District Trustee Charles Difazio
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
National Independent Venue Association of California
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services INC
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, INC.
New Life Community Church
New Way Homes
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern Neighbors
Oakland City Councilmember Charlene Wang
One Voice
Our Time to ACT
Palo Alto Councilmember George Lu
Palo Alto Councilmember Julie Lythcott-haines
Path
Path (people Assisting the Homeless)
Pathway to Tomorrow
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
People for Housing Oc
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
SB 79
Page 17
Rebecca Saltzman, El Cerrito Councilmember
Redlands Yimby
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone
Ridesd
Sacramento Councilmember Caity Maple
Safe Place for Youth
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Fernando Valley for All
San Francisco County Supervisor Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco County Supervisor Danny Sauter
San Francisco County Supervisor Matt Dorsey
San Francisco County Supervisor Myrna Melgar
San Francisco Yimby
San Gabriel Valley Consortium on Homelessness
San Jose Councilmember Pamela Campos
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Sierra Business Council
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sloco Yimby
South Bay Forward
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman
St. Joseph Center
Streets are for Everyone
Streets are for Everyone
Strong Towns Poway & Rb
Strong Towns San Diego
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
Student Homes Coalition
Thai CDC
Thai Community Development Center
The People Concern
The Sidewalk Project
UC San Diego Housing Commission
Ucla Undergraduate Student Association Council
Union Station Homeless Services
SB 79
Page 18
Unite Here Local 11
United Way Bay Area
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
University of California Student Association
Ventura County Yimby
Walk Bike Berkeley
Walk San Francisco
West Hollywood/hernan Molina, Governmental Affairs Liaison
Westside for Everyone
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Yimby LA
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby Slo
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)
City of Lafayette
City of Mission Viejo
City of Palo Alto
City of Simi Valley
Albany Neighbors United
Allied Neighborhoods Association (of Santa Barbara)
Baldwin Hills Estates Hoa
Burton Valley Neighborhoods Group
California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
California Policy Center
California Preservation Foundation
California State Association of Counties
Catalysts for Local Control
Cheviot Hills (los Angeles) Neighborhood Association
Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Agoura Hills
City of Anderson
City of Artesia
City of Artesia, California
City of Azusa
City of Bakersfield
SB 79
Page 19
City of Bell
City of Bellflower
City of Belvedere
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of Calimesa
City of Camarillo
City of Carlsbad
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Claremont, Sal Medina, Councilmember
City of Cloverdale
City of Clovis
City of Colton
City of Commerce
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of Cotati
City of Cudahy
City of Cupertino
City of Downey
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of Encinitas
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Folsom, California
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendora
City of Grand Terrace
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hesperia
City of Hidden Hills
City of Highland
City of Huntington Beach
City of Indian Wells
City of La Mirada
SB 79
Page 20
City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California
City of LA Verne
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Lakewood CA
City of Larkspur
City of Lathrop
City of Lawndale
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Los Banos
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Marina
City of Merced
City of Milpitas
City of Modesto
City of Monrovia
City of Montclair
City of Moorpark
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Napa
City of Newport Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Norwalk
City of Oakley
City of Oceanside
City of Ontario
City of Orange
City of Orinda
City of Palm Desert
City of Palmdale
City of Palmdale
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Perris
City of Pico Rivera
City of Pleasanton
SB 79
Page 21
City of Porterville
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redding
City of Redlands
City of Ripon
City of Riverbank
City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of Roseville
City of San Fernando
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Marcos
City of San Rafael
City of San Rafael/marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members
City of Sausalito
City of Scotts Valley
City of Solana Beach
City of South Gate
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Upland
City of Vernon
City of Visalia
City of Vista
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Yorba Linda
City of Yucaipa
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Communities for a Better Environment
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association 2025
SB 79
Page 22
Crescenta Valley Community Association 2025
Del Rey Residents Association
Disability Rights California
Foothill Communities Association
Friends of Loma Alta Creek
Fullerton Heritage
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
Hill 200 Friends of the Hills
Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, United Neighborhoods
Homies Organizing the Mission to Empower Youth
Jamacha Neighborhood Council
Jelani Killings - Mayor of City of Pittsburg
Lafayette Homeowners Council
League of California Cities
Los Angeles City Attorney
Mental Health Advocacy Services
Mission Street Neighbors
Neighborhoods United Sf
Neighbors for a Better California
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Our Neighborhood Voices
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Pacific Palisades Residents Association
People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights
Poder Sf
Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition
Rise Economy
San Diego Community Planners Committee
San Francisco Anti-displacement Coalition
San Francisco Tenants Union
San Juan Chamber of Commerce
Santa Monica Rent Control Board
Save Lafayette
Scripps Ranch Planning Group
Small Business Forward
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Spaulding Square Historical Preservation Overlay Zone
Sunnyvale United Neighbors
SB 79
Page 23
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Mammoth Lakes
West Hills Neighborhood Council
West Toluca Lake Residents Association
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Young Community Developers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 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
will ensure that TODs are feasible and enhance access to transit. Second, SB 79
authorizes local transit agencies to develop at the same or greater density 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 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.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The League of California Cities, California
State Association of Counties, and other local governments are opposed to a prior
version of this bill because it “defies cities’ general plans and provides transit
agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent
easement, regardless of the distance from a transit stop. 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.” Some local tenant organizations and
equity groups are opposed to a prior version of the bill, citing concerns over
displacement and the demolition of rent-controlled and other housing affordable to
lower-income tenants.
Prepared by: Alison Hughes / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124
9/11/25 18:14:20
SB 79
Page 24
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 429
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 429
Author: Cortese (D), et al.
Amended: 9/2/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/23/25
AYES: Rubio, Niello, Becker, Caballero, Jones, Padilla, Wahab
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/3/25
AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear,
Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez,
Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar,
Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-
Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 60/0, 9/13/25 – Roll call not available
SUBJECT: Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program
SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of
Insurance
DIGEST: This bill, upon appropriation, establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk
Mitigation Program, administered by the California Department of Insurance
(CDI), for the purpose of guiding and funding the development and deployment of
a public wildfire catastrophe model. Creates the Wildfire Safety and Risk
Mitigation Account within the Insurance Fund to support this purpose. Requires
CDI to publish information on its website regarding the progress and plan to
complete the model. Specifies that CDI will provide recommendations to certain
SB 429
Page 2
committees of the Legislature, and the Governor for budget allocations related to
the purpose of the program.
Assembly Amendments:
Specify which committees of the Legislature will receive the report from
CDI regarding recommendations for budget allocations related to the
program.
Further clarify program grant criteria to include complementing wildfire
mitigation priorities identified in local and state hazard mitigation plans and
in after-action reports following federal major disaster declarations related to
wildfires.
Add regional and property-level risk assessments to the promotion of
publicly accessible information as part of the grant program criteria.
Specify that any data or algorithms used in such a catastrophe model should
be made available for use by the public.
Make other clarifying and technical changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires an admitted insurer with premiums of $10,000,000 or more to submit
a report to the Insurance Commissioner every two years that includes the
following information regarding risk factors in its residential property policies:
a) Fire- or wildfire-incurred losses, if any, reported by property coverage
category and the date of the loss
b) The public protection class or its equivalent, if utilized by the insurer.
These are scores assigned to evaluate fire protection and suppression
activities in a community, and thus the risk associated with insuring them
c) The specific numerical or other fire risk score and source of fire risk score,
if applicable
d) Premium
e) ZIP Code
SB 429
Page 3
2) Requires the Insurance Commissioner to post information on the Department
of Insurance’s website on wildfire risk compiled from the data collected
pursuant to the above provisions.
This bill:
1) Establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program (Program), to be
administered by CDI, with 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 wildfire safety benefits to California communities and assists
alignment of federal, state, and local wildfire risk reduction efforts.
2) Defines a “public wildfire catastrophe model” (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, including but not limited to underlying data and algorithms, for
use by public agencies, organizations, and individuals.
3) Stipulates that funding eligibility under the Program shall be as follows:
a) Projects focused on the development of a public wildfire catastrophe model
that can provide information to assist wildfire safety efforts, develop
wildfire risk mitigation strategies, inform actuarial analyses, create training
opportunities, and support regulation and oversight of insurance rates, risk
assessment and management, and insurer solvency.
b) Projects that develop outreach initiatives that identify and educate potential
users of a model.
4) States that CDI will award grants on competitive basis, and develop standards
for doing so, including:
a) Outlining performance criteria and metrics.
b) Considering relevant data and efforts at all levels of government to
mitigate and prevent wildfire-related loss.
SB 429
Page 4
c) Promoting pubic access to such information to mitigate the risk of wildfire
catastrophes.
d) Leveraging federal and state funding.
e) Complementing current community wildfire safety priorities and efforts in
the public and private sector.
f) Considering the recommendations of the Public Wildfire Catastrophe
Model Strategy Group.
5) States that CDI shall give priority to proposals that demonstrate one or more of
the following:
a) A benefit to disadvantaged communities, and to those areas where
insurance access has become challenging due to wildfire risk.
b) Assistance to state and local governments in protecting communities from
wildfire disasters and promoting equitable recovery.
c) Educational benefit to students in higher education by developing
workforce skills related to use of modeling, and affiliated data and efforts.
d) Availability for use by governments and others in postulating how to help
reduce the risks of loss of life and property.
e) Availability of publicly accessible information for community and
property-level wildfire risk assessment and mitigation.
f) Understanding of environmental factors that affect wildfire loss risk.
g) Ability to improve consumer information, relief, transparency, and
understanding regarding catastrophe modeling.
6) Requires CDI to create, and publish on its website, a multi-year framework and
plan to develop, demonstrate, and deploy a model created by a grant from the
Program.
SB 429
Page 5
7) Creates the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Account within the Insurance
Fund, with the purpose of funding the development, demonstration, and
deployment of public wildfire catastrophe modeling.
8) Specifies that after initial grant funding is issued under the Program, CDI will
provide information on its website regarding accomplishments and further
actions needed to complete the model.
9) Requires CDI to provide, before September 1, 2026, recommendations to the
Legislature, Budget Committees, and the Governor for budget allocations
related to the purposes of the Program.
10) Stipulates that this bill’s provisions will become operative upon legislative
appropriation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
“Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount, likely in the millions of dollars,
depending on the amount of any appropriation made by the Legislature to CDI to
award Program grants (General Fund (GF)). CDI notes that the Budget Act of
2025 provided $12.5 million to CDI to support community hardening oversight
and wildfire risk mitigation efforts, including measuring risk for communities and
individual residential property owners, pursuant to pending legislation, which
includes this bill, among others.
Annual costs of an unknown amount, likely in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to CDI to administer the Program (Insurance Fund). Generally, an agency
will use approximately 5% of the amount appropriated for a grant program for
administrative costs.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/25)
Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner/California Department of Insurance
(Source)
Americans for Financial Reform
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Association of Realtors
California Farm Bureau Federation
Carbon Plan
Consumer Federation of America
SB 429
Page 6
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Watchdog
Environmental Defense Fund
Little Hoover Commission
Livable California
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Plant-Based Advocates
Public Citizen
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
United Policyholders
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/25)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, sponsor of this bill, states:
“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. The Wildfire
Public Model Act would be a first-of-its-kind, establishing California as a national
leader on innovation and safety.
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. SB 429 harnesses the power of California’s public and private
university systems, charging the Department with initiating a competitive grant
program to create a research and educational center housed at one or more
California universities.
SB 429
Page 7
Publicly accessible information is essential to driving positive changes on the
ground. A public wildfire model will be an important resource for state agencies,
local governments, and other groups focused on protecting lives and homes from
catastrophic wildfires and making insurance more available and affordable.
Wildfire models can provide insight for state and local emergency planners, aid
wildfire safety efforts that save lives and property, and support effective regulation
of insurance rates. By analyzing past wildfire disasters, a model can point to
changes needed to prevent future ones. Wildfire modeling can also provide a
consistent foundation for the alignment of planning and risk mitigation actions
among multiple jurisdictions.”
Click here to enter text.
Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110
9/13/25 1:57:34
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 454
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 454
Author: McNerney (D), et al.
Amended: 9/2/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/2/25
AYES: Blakespear, Valladares, Dahle, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Padilla,
Pérez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 37-0, 5/28/25
AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear,
Cabaldon, Caballero, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove,
Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh,
Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern,
Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Limón, Reyes
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 9/8/25 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: State Water Resources Control Board: PFAS Mitigation Program
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill, upon an appropriation by the Legislature, creates the per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Mitigation Fund in the State Treasury and
authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to use the
fund to cover or reduce the costs associated with treating PFAS in drinking water,
recycled water, stormwater, and wastewater.
SB 454
Page 2
Assembly Amendments of 9/2/25 allow funds to be used to address PFAS
contamination in stormwater and for the State Water Board to seek out nonstate,
federal, and private funds that are designated for PFAS remediation and treatment.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Authorizes, pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to set standards for
drinking water quality and to oversee the local entities that implement those
standards. (42 United States Code (USC) § 300 (f) et seq.)
2) Establishes the California SDWA and requires the State Water Board to
maintain a drinking water program. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 116270,
et seq.)
3) Provides, under federal Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
statute, financial assistance to help water systems and states achieve the health
protection objectives of the SDWA. States must create a drinking water
revolving loan fund to receive a federal DWSRF grant. (42 USC § 300j-12, et
seq.)
4) Establishes the state DWSRF to provide financial assistance for the design and
construction of projects for public water systems to meet safe drinking water
standards. (HSC §116760, et seq.)
5) Creates the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund (SADWF) in the State
Treasury to help water systems provide an adequate and affordable supply of
safe drinking water. (HSC § 116766.)
6) Establishes the Cleanup and Abatement Account (CAA) within the State Water
Quality Control Fund, which is administered by the State Water Board. (Water
Code (WC) § 13440)
7) Authorizes the State Water Board to award CAA funds to help clean up a waste,
abate the effects of a waste, or address an urgent drinking water need. Public
agencies, tribal governments, non-profit organizations serving disadvantaged
communities, and community water systems that serve a disadvantaged
community are all eligible to receive funds from the CAA. (WC § 13442)
SB 454
Page 3
8) Establishes the Emerging Contaminants for Small or Disadvantaged
Communities Funding Program (EC-SDC) to provide grants to address
emerging contaminants in small or disadvantaged communities (WC § 116774)
9) Establishes the policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe,
clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption,
cooking, and sanitary purposes. (WC § 106.3)
This bill:
1) Creates the PFAS Mitigation Fund in the State Treasury, contingent upon an
appropriation by the Legislature.
2) Authorizes the State Water Board to expend moneys deposited in the fund upon
appropriation by the Legislature to provide specified technical assistance
services related to PFAS to water suppliers and sewer system providers.
3) Authorizes the State Water Board to seek out and accept non-state, federal, and
private funds designated for PFAS remediation and treatment and deposit those
funds into the PFAS Mitigation Fund.
4) Establishes eligibility criteria for water or sewer system providers in order to
receive funds.
5) Requires the State Water Board to adopt guidelines to implement this chapter.
Background
1) The paths of PFAS. PFAS are a broad class of human-made chemicals
consisting of chains with bonded carbon and fluorine atoms. Because of their
physical and chemical nature, PFAS are very durable making them extremely
useful in many industrial, commercial, and medical applications. As a
consequence of their durability, they are persistent, meaning that they do not
degrade easily in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living things.1,2,3
The PFAS on or in products find different ways into the environment
throughout a product’s life cycle. When some products are manufactured,
PFAS gets released into the atmosphere and through wastewater. Common
1 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkly Substances.
2 Henry, B. J., et. al. (2018). A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern.
3 Jacobs, S. A., et. al. (2024). Assessment of Fluoropolymer Production and Use With Analysis of Alternative
Replacement Materials (No. SRNL-STI-2023-00587).
SB 454
Page 4
household products, such as pots and cleaners, leach PFAS into household
wastewater. PFAS can also leach from products at their end-of-life in landfills.
PFAS compounds have been detected globally in soil, groundwater, and
surface water.
Humans are primarily exposed to PFAS through eating and drinking water.4
The drinking water of at least 70 million Americans contains PFAS at levels
high enough to require reporting under federal law. California has multiple
water systems that contain at least double the reporting concentration level.5
Exposure to certain types of PFAS may lead to adverse health effects,
including reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of cancer,
suppressed immune systems, and endocrine disruption.6
2) Meeting water quality standards. The State Water Board's Division of
Drinking Water implements and enforces the federal and state Safe Drinking
Water Acts, monitors drinking water quality, and issues permits to public water
systems throughout the state. The U.S. EPA requires drinking water systems to
test and monitor their drinking water and take action if the contamination
exceeds the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are based on human
exposure limits to harmful chemicals and the extent to which they cause
adverse health impacts.7 Last year, the U.S. EPA updated the enforceable
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 2029.8 If a public water system does not resolve the
contamination through treatment and comply with the required standards
within a period of time, then state agencies can take enforcement actions,
including administrative orders, legal actions, or issue fines.9,10
3) California’s programs for PFAS mitigation. Efforts of the state to address the
PFAS problem have included prohibiting the use of the chemicals in products,
data collection, and mitigation and treatment down the line. The Legislature
has enacted bans for products containing intentionally added PFAS for non-
essential use, including but not limited to cosmetic products AB 2771,
(Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging AB 1200, (Ting,
4 Kibuye, F. (2023). Understanding PFAS – What they are, their impact, and what we can do.
5 Fast, A. et. al. (2024). 70 million American s drink water from systems reporting PFAS to EPA.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). How EPA regulates drinking water contaminants.
8 U.S. EPA (2025). Final PFAS national primary drinking water regulation.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2024). Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Resources and FAQs.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act.
SB 454
Page 5
Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); and juvenile products AB 652, (Friedman,
Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021). The PFAS in these products can leach into the
environment and may have frequent physical contact with the human body.
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 2022/23 and $20 million for fiscal year 2023/24.
4) Where does funding flow? The Division of Financial Assistance administers the
State Water Board’s financial assistance programs, including the DWSRF and
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The DWSRF is a financial
assistance program to help water systems achieve the health protection
objectives of the SDWA. Funds originate from congressional appropriation and
are allocated based on the results of the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey and Assessment. The grants from the federal government are matched
by state funds, then flow into a dedicated revolving loan fund which provides
loans and assistance to water systems for eligible infrastructure projects. As
water systems repay their loans, the repayments and interest flow back into the
dedicated revolving fund. The issues this fund addresses are broad, from
improving treatment or water sources to repairing or updating distribution or
system infrastructure.
The CWSRF behaves similarly but provides mainly for water quality
infrastructure projects and has the capacity to support large projects ( $100
million). For fiscal year 2024/25, the State Water Board intended to apply for
nearly $100 million for the DWSRF and CWSRF and transfer the full amount
to the DWSRF program. The federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $5
billion nationwide through the CWSRF and DWSRF for the EC-SDC to reduce
exposure to PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water,
wastewater, and non-point sources in small or disadvantaged communities. For
FFY 2024, the state intended to apply for approximately $83 million from this
grant program.11
11 California Water Boards. (2024). Supplemental intended use plan: state fiscal year 2024-25.
SB 454
Page 6
Other funds include the SADWF (Monning, Chapter 120, Statutes of 2019)
which helps water systems provide an adequate and affordable supply of safe
drinking water. This fund is broad in a drinking water sense, as it also applies
to consolidating water systems and operation and maintenance costs. The CAA
provides grants for the cleanup or abatement of a condition of pollution when
there are no viable responsible parties available to undertake the work.
Because the needs that are addressed through funding from these programs are
diverse and the demand for certain projects may be high, funding to address all
or most PFAS concerns across the state may be scarce. This bill would create a
dedicated fund to address PFAS mitigation through grants, loans, or other
contracts, with funds originating from a variety of sources.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. 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) How the costs of contamination trickle down. Part of the burden in addressing
PFAS contamination can fall on municipal drinking water systems, especially if
the source of contamination is unknown. In 2019, 74 community water systems
serving 7.5 million Californians with drinking water were found to have PFAS
levels that exceeded levels considered safe by independent research, with at
least 40% of systems far exceeding the MCLs established by the U.S. EPA
today.12 Water systems that exceed these MCLs are required to take action,
from public notification to sufficient treatment methods to meet the respective
water quality standards. As mentioned above, if drinking water systems do not
meet the required water quality standards by 2029, they may face enforcement
actions. The costs of enforcement could further inhibit the ability to comply.
Treatment is expensive, and addressing contamination levels could cost on the
order of tens of millions of dollars. This financial burden can then be shifted to
the public. Because water rates are directly tied to the cost of service, costly
12 Environmental Working Group. (2019). Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ detected in drinking water supplies across
California.
SB 454
Page 7
updates to infrastructure to treat contamination can be passed down and
increase utility rates. Some water agencies, such as Orange County Water
District and Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, have joined class action
lawsuits with hopes of supplementing the costs of treatment with the
settlements.13 However, not all water agencies may have the capacity to litigate
and it’s not guaranteed that a settlement will cover the full costs. In some cases,
if sources of drinking water supply cannot meet MCLs and have no ability to
treat the contamination, those systems can be shut down, eliminating access to
water supplies.
One water agency currently grappling with this issue is Sweetwater Authority, a
municipal water agency in San Diego County. The water agency found that the
concentration of PFOA, a PFAS compound, exceeded the recently established
MCL for PFOA that is set to take effect in four years.14 This gives the water
agency time to treat the drinking water supply, but the costs to address this issue
are upwards of $40 million and source funds have yet to be identified. This also
puts into context the financial demand of individual water agencies to address
PFAS contamination compared to the grants available. The need from this local
water agency is half of what would be available through the EC-SDC grant for
FFY 2024 and this is only one of at least 74 water systems.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, “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
13 Withrow, K. (2024). The PFAS Challenge: How Two California Water Agencies are Responding.
14 Hinch, J. (2024). South County Report: ‘Forever’ Chemicals Discovered in South County Water.
SB 454
Page 8
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.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/25)
A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Association of California Water Agencies
Bella Vista Water District
Burbank Water and Power
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
California-nevada Section, American Water Works Association
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Camarillo; City of
Camrosa Water District
Carmichael Water District
City of Agoura Hills
City of Pico Rivera
City of Point Arena
City of Roseville
City of Santa Rosa
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Vernon
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Reality Project San Diego
Climate Reality Project San Fernando Valley Chapter
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, Orange County
Coachella Valley Water District
Crescenta Valley Water District
Crestline-lake Arrowhead Water Agency
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Desert Water Agency
Diablo Water District
East Valley Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Helix Water District
Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District
SB 454
Page 9
Jurupa Community Services District
Lake Arrowhead Community Services District
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation
Mesa Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Mid-peninsula Water District
Monte Vista Water District
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Orange County Water District
Paradise Irrigation District
Rancho California Water District
Regional Water Authority
Rowland Water District
San Gabriel County Water District
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency
Santa Rosa; City of
Scotts Valley Water District
Stockton East Water District
Sustainable Rossmoor
Sweetwater Authority
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
Walnut Valley Water District
Western Municipal Water District
Yorba Linda Water District
Zone 7 Water Agency
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/25)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 9/8/25
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, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark
González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson,
SB 454
Page 10
Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, 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, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa,
Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
Prepared by: Taylor McKie / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
9/8/25 19:42:27
**** END ****
SB 456
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 456 (Ashby)
As Amended April 2, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
This bill exempts an artist who creates, restores, or preserves a mural from licensure under the
Contractors State License Law.
Major Provisions
1) Exempts from the Contractors State License 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.
2) Defines "mural" as a "unique work of fine art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label,
or patent and that is drawn or painted by hand directly onto interior or exterior walls or
ceilings, fixtures, or other appurtenances of a building or structure." Specifies "mural" does
not include painted wall signs.
COMMENTS
Due to licensure requirements, cities across California have been instructing their public arts
administrators to cease or stall the implementation of mural projects. This creates significant
roadblocks for initiatives, like the State's Clean CA Program, which seeks to beautify public
spaces like highways, local roads, parks, and pathways.
Requiring muralists to obtain a contractor's license imposes significant challenges. To qualify for
these commercial licenses, muralists must accumulate four years of specialized experience under
a licensed contractor, pass the Law and Business examination, and pay annual licensing fees.
These requirements not only create unnecessary barriers to work on public art projects, but also
expose city employees and artists to fines if such requirements are not met. Murals are
considered works of art, protected under federal copyright laws and are fundamentally different
from construction projects.
Standard practice of existing law previously identified the distinction between muralists and
commercial painters. This bill clarifies standard practice of current law and adds "muralist",
narrowly defined, to the list of activities in the Business and Professions Code that are not
subject to licensure.
According to the Author
"Murals are powerful tools for transforming neighborhoods. They are placemaking and defining
in many cities, like Sacramento. Public art and murals are proven drivers of enhanced
community and economic health, attracting tourists, supporting jobs, generating revenue, and
improving public health outcomes. However, current law has led to confusion regarding
licensing requirements for muralists. [This bill] clarifies that muralists are not subject to
licensure and allows them the flexibility to continue sharing their artistic expression throughout
our communities."
SB 456
Page 2
Arguments in Support
According to the California Arts Advocates, co-sponsor of the bill, in support, "Requiring a
contractor's license creates unreasonable barriers for muralists. Obtaining these commercial
licenses necessitates working as an apprentice under a licensed contractor and paying annual
fees. These requirements not only restrict participation in mural creation but also hinder artistic
expression, adding to the challenges artists may already face in the traditional art community.
"Furthermore, artistic works are protected under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
Constitution and the 1976 Copyright Act. Additionally, the California Arts Preservation Act
(CAPA) and the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) protect an artist's moral rights, distinguishing
their work from commercial painting. Given the fundamental difference between the services
provided by muralists and painting contractors, a narrow exception to the state's licensing
requirements for muralists is warranted. Painting a mural constitutes expressive first amendment
protected speech and should not be subject to licensure."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the organization Fight Back in Sac in opposition, "Why not just exempt all
painters from the law? That would solve all of the issues without creating any inequities. What
part of the existing law pertaining to painters is served that doesn't serve a purported muralists?
The licensing requirement as it is today was obviously enacted to serve the public in some
manner, so why does it not also serve the same for "muralists"?
"'Muralists' would certainly obtain the same benefits as painters and decorators that the law
provides, ie learning about contract laws, liens, payment and liability. The term "Muralist" is so
ambiguous in [this bill], that it excludes very little. They apply coatings such as paint, stucco,
texturing and other substances, which painters and decorators already do. They prepare the
surfaces using sandblasting, pressure washing, priming even special substrates where existing
surfaces are not "mural ready". Existing law requires anyone doing pressure washing, stucco or
texturing for works over $1,000 to be licensed. Calling oneself a muralist would then evade this
requirement."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the Contractors State License Board
(CSLB) anticipates no costs resulting from this bill. They note an exempted classification of
work will not require action from CSLB for licensing or enforcement.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2
YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon,
Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird,
Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio,
Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson,
Wiener
ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Reyes
ASM ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, AND TOURISM: 9-0-0
YES: Ward, Lackey, Elhawary, Jeff Gonzalez, McKinnor, Ortega, Quirk-Silva, Valencia, Zbur
SB 456
Page 3
ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 17-0-1
YES: Berman, Flora, Ahrens, Alanis, Bains, Caloza, Chen, Elhawary, Hadwick, Haney, Irwin,
Jackson, Krell, Lowenthal, Macedo, Nguyen, Pellerin
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart,
Pacheco, Pellerin, Jeff Gonzalez, Solache, Ta, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: April 2, 2025
CONSULTANT: Brian V. Anderson, Jr. / A.,E.,S., & T. / (916) 319-3450 FN: 0001216
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 616
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 616
Author: Rubio (D), Cortese (D) and Stern (D), et al.
Amended: 9/5/25
Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/9/25
AYES: Rubio, Niello, Becker, Caballero, Jones, Padilla, Wahab
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/22/25
AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern,
Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/3/25
AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear,
Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez,
Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar,
Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-
Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-4, 9/13/25 – Roll call vote not available.
SUBJECT: Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program
SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of
Insurance
DIGEST: This bill creates an independent Community Hardening Commission
(Commission) within the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to develop fire
SB 616
Page 2
mitigation/community hardening standards, and generate guidelines to enable the
creation of a wildfire data sharing platform.
Assembly Amendments of 9/5/25
State that the joint powers agreement between the Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Office of Emergency Services
(CAL OES) that administers the California Wildfire Mitigation Program
(CWMP) shall consider revising this program in accordance with the
standards and guidelines developed by the Commission.
Revise the membership of the Commission and its advisory council.
Include risk mitigation specific to farm and agricultural land management,
water service reliability, and the delivery of electrical service in the
development of new wildfire community hardening standards.
Add water and electric utilities to the stakeholders the Commission will
consult.
Clarify that that CAL FIRE shall consider revising their home inspection
program to align with the Commission’s recommendations.
Stipulate that any standard, recommendation, or requirement developed by
the Commission as a building standard will be proposed to CAL FIRE for
consideration in its recommendations to the California Building Standards
Commission.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law authorizes formation of a joint powers agreement between the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Office of Emergency Services
to administer the California Wildfire Mitigation Financial Assistance Program,
known as the California Wildfire Mitigation Program 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.
This bill:
1) Creates the Community Hardening Commission as an independent unit within
the Department of Insurance, and states that the Commission will consist of
seven members:
SB 616
Page 3
a) The Insurance Commissioner, who will serve as chair, 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 Emergency Services or their designee.
e) The Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety or their designee.
f) A member of the public appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
g) A member of the public appointed by the Senate President pro Tempore.
2) Creates an advisory council for the Commission consisting of:
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.
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.
SB 616
Page 4
h) A representative of the California Fire Chiefs Association, as appointed by
the Insurance Commissioner.
i) A public member appointed by the Governor.
3) Instructs the Insurance Commissioner to convene the Commission
commencing January 1, 2026, and quarterly thereafter, and tasks the
Commission with:
a) Developing, by July 1, 2027, new wildfire community hardening standards
as specified, to reduce fire risk and improve access to fire insurance. These
standards will be reported to the Legislature, and updated and reviewed
periodically.
b) Reviewing existing home hardening regulations and making
recommendations for revisions to those regulations to reduce risk and
improve access to insurance.
c) Making recommendations to expedite proven and cost-effective community
hardening practices that reduce fire risk and improve insurability, and
encourage investment in such practices.
d) Making recommendations to encourage vegetation and landscape
management.
e) Overseeing participation in a wildfire data sharing platform.
4) States that the Commission will make recommendations to promote alignment
across state agencies and departments with these new community hardening
standards, and create 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 regulations.
5) Requires the Commission to identify specific catastrophe events, and complete
an after-action investigation and report, as specified, which includes relevant
post-disaster data, an analysis of the effectiveness of the community hardening
measures in impacted communities, and recommendations to update future
hardening standards.
SB 616
Page 5
6) States that on or before July 1, 2027, the Department of Insurance, in
consultation with CAL FIRE, CAL OES, and the Commission, shall develop
guidelines, as specified, for state and local agencies to aggregate and make
available data related to parcel-, neighborhood-, and community-level wildfire
risk for the purpose of supporting a wildfire data sharing platform. This
wildfire data sharing platform will seek to measure, monitor, and enable
targeted mitigation of wildfire risk in wildland-urban interface communities.
7) Specifies that the Commission shall appoint a governing board from within its
membership to provide oversight of state and local agency participation in a
wildfire data sharing platform.
8) Requires that the Commission, on or before July 1, 2027, and by every January
1 thereafter through January 1, 2032, shall report to the Legislature its
assessment of any statutory changes or budgetary resources needed to facilitate
participation of state and local agencies in a wildfire data sharing platform.
9) Finds that in order to protect the privacy of California residents while also
gathering useful data related to wildfire mitigation, the Community Hardening
Commission must be allowed to enter into confidential data sharing
agreements for purposes of reviewing information to help protect the public
from wildfires.
10) Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be
made pursuant to statute.
Background
Sources Available for Wildfire Risk Mitigation. There are multiple sources of
varying information available to residents of the state regarding preventative
actions and standards for wildfire risk mitigation. Below are some examples of
these sources:
a) California Department of Insurance’s “Safer from Wildfire” Regulations – An
interagency partnership between the Insurance Commissioner and the
emergency response and readiness agencies in the Governor's administration.
b) United Policyholders’ “Wildfire Risk Reduction and Asset Protection” (WRAP)
Initiative.
SB 616
Page 6
c) Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety’s “Wildfire Prepared Home”
Program
d) State Fire Marshal’s Low-Cost Retrofit List
e) California’s Building Code, Chapter 7A Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
Regulations
f) California’s Fire Code, Chapter 49: Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface
Areas Regulations
g) State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: General Guidelines for Creating
Defensible Space
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 429 (Cortese) of the current legislative session would, upon appropriation, fund
the development, demonstration, and deployment of a public wildfire catastrophe
model.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
“Costs of approximately $226,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $426,000 in FY
2026-27, and $367,000 annually thereafter to CDI to establish the Community
Hardening Commission (CHC), develop new wildfire community hardening
standards, complete an after-action investigation and report after identified wildfire
catastrophe events, and develop guidelines for state and local agencies to enable
the wildfire data sharing platform (Insurance Fund). CDI notes that the Budget
Act of 2025 provided $12.5 million to CDI to support community hardening
oversight and wildfire risk mitigation efforts, including measuring risk for
communities and individual residential property owners, pursuant to pending
legislation, which includes this bill, among others.
Annual costs of approximately $226,000 to HCD for one additional position to
accommodate CHC-related staff workload (General Fund (GF)). Additionally,
Housing and Community Development (HCD) anticipates additional costs for
consultant fees to support research and other informational needs.
SB 616
Page 7
Costs of an unknown amount to Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety (OEIS) to
serve on the CHC. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
does not anticipate costs from this bill.
Annual costs of approximately $929,000 to OES for four additional staff positions
to serve on the CHC and change CWMP regulations and program operations
pursuant to the CHC’s revised community hardening standards, including
providing technical assistance and outreach to local communities (GF).
Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount, likely in the tens of millions of
dollars, between OES and CAL FIRE to provide additional community hardening
grants under the revised CWMP (GF, special fund, or Proposition 4). Since 2020,
approximately $35 million has been allocated across budget years to support
CWMP administrative costs and grants.
Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount, potentially in the millions of dollars,
to CDI to develop or procure the wildfire data sharing platform and facilitate
optimal participation, after developing the data guidelines for state and local
agencies (Insurance Fund or GF). To the extent such guidelines require a state or
local agency to participate in data sharing, the impacted agencies would also incur
costs related to data collection and synthesis (GF, special fund, or Proposition 4).
If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill’s requirements to be a
reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local
agencies.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)
Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner/California Department of Insurance
(Source)
Cal Fire Local 2881
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Professional Firefighters
California State Association of Counties
City of Arcadia
Consumer Watchdog
County of Fresno
County of Madera
County of Mendocino
East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments
Fire Districts Association of California
SB 616
Page 8
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of California, INC.
League of California Cities
Little Hoover Commission
Oakland; City of
Rural County Representatives of California
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Santa Barbara; City of
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
United Policyholders
U.S. Green Building Council California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)
Consumer Federation of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
According to Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, sponsor of this bill:
“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.
Senate Bill 616 creates the California Community Fire Hardening Commission
within my Department to bring clarity, consistency, and collaboration to wildfire
mitigation efforts. Beginning in 2026, the Commission would review existing
hardening regulations and policies, and recommend cost-effective measures that
improve insurability and reduce risk. It will also oversee the creation of guidelines
towards a comprehensive wildfire data sharing platform, ensuring that all agencies
across California could have the information they need to make informed
decisions. And after a disaster, this Commission will conduct post-catastrophe
reports, providing valuable insights into what worked, what didn’t, and make
recommendations to improve fire mitigation strategies moving forward.”
SB 616
Page 9
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
The Consumer Federation of California, in opposition to a previous version of this
bill, states:
“CFC certainly welcomes more emphasis on community hardening and also on
improving data collection and data sharing with communities and community
partners, all of which is contained in the bill. However, we are concerned that a
good amount of what is contained in the bill could be done right now by the
Insurance Commissioner and the California Department of Insurance. CDI has
broad authority under the Insurance Code. Additionally, the structure of the
Community Hardening Commission created by the bill is awkward in a number of
ways. For example, having the commission serve as a ‘separate unit’ within CDI
and then having the bill state that 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’ is puzzling.
We are also concerned that the seven members of the Commission rely too heavily
on Executive and Legislative branch members, and not enough on the broader
community. When it comes to the commission's advisory council, 9 of the 10
members of the advisory council are appointed by the Insurance Commissioner,
while one is appointed by the Governor, which seems incongruous. The advisory
council is also exceedingly light on voices from the very communities that it is
supposed to be working with, and only has one member representing consumers
and policyholders. These provisions should be modified. Ultimately the overall
success of the commission in the bill will rely in part on the ability of this and
future Insurance Commissioners to more directly link community hardening with
insurance availability and affordability.”
Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110
9/13/25 2:37:55
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 707
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 707
Author: Durazo (D), et al.
Amended: 9/5/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/2/25
AYES: Durazo, Arreguín, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Cabaldon
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/22/25
AYES: Umberg, Arreguín, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson,
Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Allen, Caballero, Valladares
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 24-6, 6/3/25
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon,
Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney,
Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber
Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Seyarto, Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Choi, Grayson, Hurtado, Menjivar, Niello,
Ochoa Bogh, Reyes, Rubio, Valladares
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 42-16 , 9/13/25 – Roll call not available.
SUBJECT: Open meetings: meeting and teleconference requirements
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes various changes to the rules for local agencies to hold
public meetings pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).
SB 707
Page 2
Assembly Amendments of 9/5/25 (1) require local agencies to take specified steps
when there is a disruption to a broadcast of a meeting; (2) clarify the languages that
must be translated and revise the special districts subject to this bill’s new
requirements; (3) delay implementation of new requirements to July 1, 2026; (4)
clarify that this bill’s new requirements for translation and public participation do
not affect or supersede applicable civil rights, nondiscrimination, and public access
laws; (5) explicitly authorize remote participation as a reasonable accommodation
for a disability and make related changes; (6) authorize a new type of just cause for
participating remotely due to military service; (7) allows subsidiary bodies that
teleconference to present recommendations at a meeting of their governing body;
(8) establish limits on the number of times members of multijurisdictional bodies
can teleconference; (9) extend the authority to limit disruptions to members of the
public participating remotely; and (10) make other changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Guarantees, pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution, that
“the people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government
for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common
good.” This includes a right to access information concerning the meetings
and writings of public officials.
2) Requires, pursuant to the Constitution, local agencies to comply with certain
state laws that outline the basic requirements for public access to meetings and
public records. If a subsequent bill modifies these laws, it must include
findings demonstrating how it furthers the public’s access to local agencies and
their officials.
3) Provides, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, guidelines for how local agencies
must hold public meetings:
a) Defines a “meeting” as “any congregation of a majority of the members 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.”
b) Requires local agencies to notice meetings in advance, including the
posting of an agenda, and requires these meetings to be open and
accessible to the public.
SB 707
Page 3
c) 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.
d) If a member of the public, including the respective district attorney,
believes a local agency violated the Brown Act, it must first send an order
to the local agency to correct the violation. If the local agency disagrees
with the complaint and does not correct it, the submitter can pursue the
complaint through the courts. If the court agrees with the complaint,
outcomes range from invalidating certain actions of the local agency to a
misdemeanor.
4) Authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing for
the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in
connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law, provided that
the teleconferenced meeting complies with all of the following conditions:
a) Teleconferencing, as authorized, may be used for all purposes in
connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting must be
by rollcall.
b) If the legislative body elects to use teleconferencing, it must post agendas
at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a
manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or
in the public appearing before the legislative body of the local agency.
c) Each teleconferencing location must be identified in the notice and agenda
of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location must 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 exercised jurisdiction, except as
otherwise specified.
e) The agenda must provide an opportunity for members of the public to
address the legislative body directly, as the Brown Act requires for in-
person meetings, at each teleconference location.
f) For purposes of these requirements, “teleconference” means 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.
SB 707
Page 4
5) Authorizes, until January 1, 2026, a local agency to use teleconferencing for a
public meeting without complying with the Brown Act’s teleconferencing
quorum, meeting notice, and agenda requirements, in any of the following
circumstances:
a) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of
emergency as specified;
b) Allows members of legislative bodies to participate remotely for “just
cause” and “emergency circumstances” as specified.
c) The legislative body is a community college student organization or a
neighborhood council.
This bill:
1) Revises and recasts existing alternative teleconferencing provisions, until
January 1, 2030, by providing a standard set of requirements that must be
complied with, including:
a) Clearly identifying the location of the in-person meeting on the agenda,
which must be open to the public and within the boundaries of the local
agency’s jurisdiction;
b) Providing means by which the public may remotely hear and visually
observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body;
c) Providing notice of the means for the public to access the meeting and offer
public comment;
d) Identifying and including an opportunity for all persons to attend and
address the legislative body directly via a call-in or internet-based service
option, including at any in-person location;
e) Including in meeting minutes any member of the legislative body who
participates from a remote location;
f) Having and implementing a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving
requests for reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities;
g) Requiring instructions on joining the meeting by the telephonic or internet-
based service option; and
SB 707
Page 5
h) Identifying and making available to subsidiary bodies a list of meeting
locations they may use to conduct their meetings.
2) Authorizes, until January 1, 2030, alternative teleconferencing provisions for
an eligible subsidiary body, which is defined as one which:
a) Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity;
b) Cannot take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses,
permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds;
c) Does not have a majority of its membership made up of members of the
legislative body that created it or its staff; and
d) Does not have subject matter jurisdiction over elections, privacy, budgets,
police oversight, taxes or related spending, or removing materials from, or
restricting access to, library materials.
3) Requires authorization by the governing body for a subsidiary body to
teleconference, and establishes procedures for subsidiary body
teleconferencing, including that:
a) The governing body must hear recommendations from the subsidiary body
upon request of the subsidiary body, as specified; and
b) Elected officials on subsidiary bodies cannot participate by
teleconferencing unless they participate from a publicly accessible
location.
4) Authorizes, until January 1, 2030, alternative teleconferencing provisions for
an eligible multijurisdictional body, which is defined as a legislative body that
includes representatives from more than one county, city, city and county,
special district, or joint powers entity.
5) Expands the teleconferencing flexibility authorized during state-declared
emergencies to include local emergencies.
6) Authorize a new type of just cause for participating remotely due to military
service.
7) Specifies that the teleconferencing flexibilities authorized by the bill may be
used in conjunction.
SB 707
Page 6
8) Lowers the vote requirement to a simple majority for members of a
neighborhood council to meet via teleconference.
9) Allows members of legislative bodies with physical or mental disabilities to
participate remotely and count towards any applicable in-person quorum
requirements.
10) Requires, commencing July 1, 2026 until January 1, 2030, eligible legislative
bodies, as defined, to:
a) Provide a two-way telephonic option or audiovisual platform for the public
at all their open and public meetings, as specified. If it elects to use a two-
way audiovisual platform, it must publicly post and provide a call-in
option, and have active captioning functions included in the system. The
eligible legislative body must adopt a policy for restoring service in the
event of a disruption to the broadcast, and requires good faith efforts
consistent with that policy.
b) Make efforts to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented
communities and non-English-speaking communities, to participate in
public meetings, by creating and maintaining a public meetings website
and providing public meeting information to the public, as specified.
c) Translate agendas into applicable languages, as specified.
11) Provide that the requirements in 9) shall not be construed to affect or supersede
any other applicable civil rights, nondiscrimination, or public access laws.
12) Removes the ability of any legislative body to decline to provide public
comment on items previously discussed in committee if the subject matter of
the committee pertains to elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy,
removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries,
or taxes or related spending proposals, as well as any committees that did not
participate with an in-person quorum.
13) Extends the existing authority of a legislative body to remove or limit
participation by 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, to members of the public
participating in a meeting via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way
audiovisual platform.
14) Makes various other changes to the Brown Act.
SB 707
Page 7
Background
On March 19, 2025, the Senate Local Government held a hearing on the Brown
Act called Meeting the Moment: Strengthening Community Voices in Local
Government Meetings. At this hearing, the Committee:
Heard from experts on the factors that make for effective local meetings;
Learned strategies for communicating with the community throughout
disasters;
Considered different local agencies’ experiences holding public meetings;
and
Engaged with community groups to identify strategies to improve local
agency meetings.
The Committee heard that public meetings are an imperfect, but valuable, tool for
public participation, and key to democratic responsibility. The challenge local
agencies face is a gap between what is administratively sustainable and politically
acceptable. The City of Los Angeles brought up their recent experiences dealing
with the aftermath of the January 2025 fires, and setting up disaster recovery
centers as well as worker and family support centers, ensuring those affected,
regardless of their language ability, had access to services. Various local agencies
highlighted the challenges they have faced with disruptions during teleconferenced
meetings, and, along with some community groups, expressed an interest in further
expansion of recent teleconference flexibility. Finally, the Committee heard
concerns about how additional flexibility could lead to public transparency
challenges. For more information on the Brown Act, please see the Committee’s
backgrounder and recording of the meeting.
Comments
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “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 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
SB 707
Page 8
closely with stakeholders – listening to their feedback and incorporating many of
their suggested changes. This bill signifies a momentous time in the history of
Brown Act where many stakeholders worked together in a fair compromise.
“SB 707 presents an opportunity to strengthen our governments and empower
community members to be engaged. 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 creates a historic path forward to strengthen our governments and
empower our community members statewide - it's time for Brown Act to be
modernized.”
Related/Prior legislation
SB 707 includes provisions substantially similar to those in the following bills:
AB 259 (Rubio) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on
teleconferencing flexibility for just cause and emergency situations.
AB 409 (Arambula) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on the
provisions of law enabling teleconferencing flexibility for community
college organizations.
AB 467 (Fong) extends, until January 1, 2030, the sunset date on
teleconferencing flexibility for the City of Los Angeles neighborhood
councils.
SB 239 (Arreguín) allows subsidiary bodies of a local agency to use
teleconferencing without having to notice and make publicly accessible each
teleconference location.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Ongoing costs to local agencies of an unknown but likely significant amount
to meet new Brown Act requirements, such as providing translation services
and two-way telephonic services or audiovisual platforms for public
meetings, and performing numerous new administrative duties. Local
SB 707
Page 9
agencies may also incur additional legal costs due to increased legal
exposure. However, any costs imposed on local agencies as a result of this
bill are not state-reimbursable. Proposition 42, passed by voters on June 3,
2014, amended the state Constitution to require all local governments to
comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Brown Act,
and eliminated reimbursement to local agencies for costs of complying with
the CPRA and Brown Act.
Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown
amount to the courts to adjudicate violations of this bill in civil actions
brought to enforce this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases
filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally
costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although
courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the
Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts
from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2025-26 state budget provides $82
million ongoing General Fund to the Trial Court Trust Fund for court
operations.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/25)
All Voting Members of the North Westwood Neighborhood Council
Association of Bay Area Governments
California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS
California Collaborative for Long-Term Services and Supports
California In-Home Supportive Services Consumer Alliance
California Senior Legislature
California State Association of Counties
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Democracy Winters
Fresno Council Member Nick Richardson
Fresno County Supervisor Nathan Magsig
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
Korean American Federation of Los Angeles
Koreatown Youth and Community Center Inc.
La Defensa
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment
Rural County Representatives of California
Student Senate for California Community Colleges
SB 707
Page 10
Urban Counties of California
Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/25)
City of Artesia
California Municipal Clerks Association
City of Carlsbad
City of Foster City
City of La Palma
City of Paramount
City of San Marcos
City of Santa Monica
City of Santa Rosa
City of Willows
County of Kern
League of California Cities
Town of Hillsborough
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the League of California Cities,
“The League of California Cities must respectfully oppose SB 707 unless
amended. While we appreciate the author’s intent and willingness to engage
stakeholders, the bill, as drafted, imposes inequitable, prescriptive, and unfunded
mandates. … The bill applies only to certain cities based on arbitrary population
cutoffs. For example, roughly 100 smaller cities would be exempt from the new
rules. However, 100 cities of the same size would need to comply simply because
they are in larger counties. ... SB 707 requires new audiovisual systems, translation
services, staffing, and website redesigns—at a time of significant fiscal
uncertainty. This bill requires eligible legislative bodies to have remote public
comment. The Legislature and state boards are exempt from this requirement and
many others. Cal Cities opposes changes to open meeting laws that solely apply to
California cities and local officials, unless such law or regulation also applies
equally to the state of California and state officials. Click here to enter text.
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119
9/13/25 1:04:27
**** END ****
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
August 20, 2025
The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8620 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 79 (Wiener) –Transit-Oriented Upzoning Tri Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Wiener:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville—we write to express our opposition to SB 79, which, even as recently amended, would override local land use authority, undermine state-certified housing elements, and assign unprecedented land use control to transit agencies—without guaranteeing the production of a single housing unit, let alone affordable housing.
We acknowledge the committee amendments intended to address implementation timelines, transit agency guardrails, and local flexibility via alternative TOD plans. However, the core structural concerns remain: SB 79 represents a dramatic expansion of state preemption over local
planning and an erosion of public accountability in housing policy.
While our cities are committed to addressing California’s housing shortage—and are actively
implementing state-certified housing elements—we oppose SB 79 because it doubles down on a problematic trend of the state bypassing the very housing plans it has mandated. This bill would unilaterally impose new zoning standards for transit-oriented development (TOD) projects in
“urban transit counties” (defined as those with more than 15 rail stations), requiring by-right approval of developments up to seven stories and 120 dwelling units per acre within a half-mile of designated transit stops, regardless of local general plans, environmental constraints, or community input. For jurisdictions in non-urban transit counties, similarly broad mandates would authorize projects up to five stories and 80 units per acre, again by right.
Even more concerning is the provision that empowers transit agencies—which are not accountable to local voters and lack land use planning expertise—to unilaterally adopt development standards on land they own or control via easement. Under SB 79, these agencies could preempt city zoning and design standards, dictating height, density, FAR, and use—even on sites currently governed by certified general plans and zoning codes. This authority extends
not only to residential development, but also to commercial projects, which could be pursued with no housing component whatsoever, even while the state continues to pressure cities to build housing near transit.
The amended bill attempts to temper this authority by imposing modest affordability requirements and a public hearing process for transit agency-adopted zoning standards. Yet the reality remains: the legislation permits transit agencies to act as de facto land use authorities, with minimal checks and no assurance that their developments will produce meaningful housing outcomes.
We also note the inclusion of a “local TOD alternative plan” as a compliance pathway, which on its face appears to offer flexibility. In practice, however, the bill requires this plan to be
ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
implemented through a housing element amendment, placing cities at risk of losing certification—despite already completing a long, complex, and costly process to comply with the state’s existing housing laws. As drafted, SB 79 introduces new uncertainty, administrative burden, and cost for jurisdictions that have made good-faith efforts to plan for growth. Allowing cities to adopt a TOD
alternative plan through local ordinance, subject to HCD review, would be a more workable approach that preserves the integrity of the housing element certification process.
State-driven, by-right housing approval laws like SB 79 continue to chip away at public involvement and local discretion—failing to acknowledge the years of community engagement, environmental review, and careful planning that underpin general plans and housing elements.
While we share your commitment to increasing housing production near transit, this bill will not accomplish that goal in a way that is equitable, accountable, or effective. Instead, it introduces another layer of state mandates disconnected from funding, infrastructure coordination, or the unique needs of our communities.
We respectfully urge you to reconsider this approach and to work collaboratively with local governments to develop TOD policies that empower cities, reward good planning, and produce real housing—particularly affordable housing—supported by meaningful state investment.
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
August 27, 2025
The Honorable María Elena Durazo California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7530 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Senate Bill 707 (Durazo): Open Meetings: Meeting and Teleconference Requirements Tri Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Durazo,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition—comprised of the Cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Town of Danville—we must respectfully oppose SB 707 (Durazo), which would substantially modify the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for local government meetings.
Our Coalition supports transparency and expanded public access. However, SB 707 imposes costly, ambiguous, and in many cases unworkable requirements that will undermine effective governance at the local level.
The bill requires all public meetings of “eligible legislative bodies” to include real-time two-way telephonic or audiovisual participation. While conceptually valuable, this requirement does not
account for the operational realities of local government. Cities frequently hold meetings in community centers, libraries, or partner facilities with limited connectivity. Guaranteeing uninterrupted two-way access in every setting is technically infeasible.
Moreover, the requirement to adjourn meetings when a technical outage occurs could put local agencies in direct conflict with state deadlines for:
•Housing project approvals subject to statutory shot clocks.
•Procurement and contracting tied to time-sensitive bids.
•Adoption of budgets or emergency ordinances.
•Ballot measure preparation and election-related actions.This requirement risks halting essential public actions despite no fault of the agency.
Further, SB 707 recasts teleconference provisions n a highly prescriptive manner, requiring agencies to track individual “just cause” remote attendances, document statutory justifications in meeting minutes, and mandate disclosure of whether other adults are present in a member’s remote location. These requirements:
•Raise privacy concerns.
•Create substantial new administrative burdens for staff.
•Risk uneven enforcement across jurisdictions.
Rather than improving flexibility, the bill establishes rigid rules that will complicate local compliance and detract from effective meeting management.
The Coalition supports multilingual access and appreciates that SB 707 allows digital and AI-assisted translations. However, the bill’s mandate remains impractical for several reasons: ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
• Scope: Requiring all agendas and dedicated webpages to be translated into every “applicable language” (up to three at once) for every meeting is a major operational burden, especially for smaller cities.
• Data Source Limitations: The bill relies solely on American Community Survey (ACS) data,
which carries wide margins of error at the tract level. This creates uncertainty and could expose jurisdictions to litigation if different interpretations of “applicable languages” emerge.
• Resource Constraints: Even with AI tools, staff must review, post, and manage multiple versions for accuracy and legal defensibility, diverting resources from core services.
Finally, across local agency stakeholders, there are already differing interpretations of how SB 707 applies to councils, commissions, boards, subsidiary bodies, and joint powers authorities. This ambiguity creates compliance risks and undermines the Brown Act’s purpose of providing clear, consistent public access rules. The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition strongly supports open and inclusive government. However, SB 707 creates impractical mandates, increases fiscal and legal risks, and fails to provide the clarity needed for uniform compliance. Instead of enhancing transparency, the bill risks frequent disruptions, administrative burdens, and diminished public confidence in local government. For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition must respectfully oppose SB 707. Thank you for
your consideration.
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