Town Council Legislative Committee
August 25, 2026

TO: Mayor and Town Council August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: August Legislative Report

BACKGROUND
Upon returning from summer recess on August 3, the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees had until August 14 to pass bills identified as having a fiscal impact on the state.

On the final day before the deadline, both Appropriations Committees held their Suspense File hearings, a process that allows each house to consider the cumulative fiscal impact of proposed legislation on the state budget before determining which measures will continue through the legislative process.

This year, more than 800 bills were considered on the Suspense File, with nearly onequarter being held and effectively ending their progress for the 2026 legislative session.

Bills that passed the Suspense File hearings advanced to their respective floors, initiating the final two weeks of floor session before the August 31 deadline for each house to pass bills and send them to the Governor for consideration. Bills amended in the second house must return to their house of origin for a concurrence vote before being sent to the Governor.

Governor Newsom has until September 30 to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature.

Bills signed by the Governor are chaptered into law by the California Secretary of State and generally take effect on January 1, 2027, unless a different effective date is 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 2026 State Legislative session including: Transportation and Infrastructure, Climate, Environment, and Health, Public Safety, Economic Development, Affordable Housing and August Legislative Update 2 August 25, 2026
Homele8ssness, Mental Health, and Fiscal Sustainability and General Governance. The bills and positions that are a priority for the Tri-Valley coalition are discussed in the second half of this report.

The following bills have been identified as having an impact on Danville.

SB 1408 (Arreguin) Contra Costa Transportation Authority: transactions and use tax.

This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2045, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 1%. (Transportation & Infrastructure) This bill is currently being heard on the Assembly Floor.

Position: Support
AB 2007 (Bauer-Kahan) Youth programs: identifying information of youth.

This bill requires entities or organizations that operate youth programming to obtain the parent or guardian’s expressed written consent to using certain identifying information of a youth including their picture, video, audio recording, likeness, and attributed statements, for communications, marketing, or other purpose that exposes that information to the public. Notice of consent would need to be contained on a single document or separate page within an online form. (Fiscal Sustainability & General Governance) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

Position: Support if Amended
The following bill(s) have been identified as legislation to track during the 2026 Legislative Session by the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition.

AB 762 (Irwin) Disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices: prohibition and penalties.

This bill would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, a person from importing or manufacturing for sale in this state a new or refurbished disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device, and, beginning January 1, 2028, a person from selling, distributing, or offering for sale a new or refurbished disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device in this state. This bill also authorizes local agencies to enforce the ban by imposing civil liability on a person or entity in violation of the ban. (Climate, Environment & Health) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Support
AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits.

This bill would authorize a public employer and recognized employee organization to negotiate a prospective increase to the Defined Benefit (DB retirement formulas for existing and new safety plan members by: (1) lowering the benefit factor from age 57 to 55 for three existing safety DB retirement formulas, and (2) create a fourth PEPRA safety August Legislative Update 3 August 25, 2026
DB retirement formula of three percent (3%) at age 55. (Fiscal Sustainability & General Governance) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Oppose
AB 1569 (Davies) Pupil safety: electric bicycle parking: safety and training program.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2028, the State Department of Education and the Department of Highway Patrol to develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for children in grades 7 to 12. (Public Safety) This bill passed through the Legislature and has been forwarded to the Governor for consideration.

TVC Position: Watch
AB 1614 (Dixon) Vehicles: bicycles.

This bill would require a person operating a bicycle, including electric bicycles, on a Class I bikeway to ride on or astride a permanent or regular seat unless designed to be ridden without a seat. The bill also requires passengers to be on a separate seat attached to the bicycle. (Public Safety) This bill passed through the Legislature and has been approved by the Governor.

TVC Position: Support
AB 1632 (Johnson) Trespass.

Existing law requires a property owner, or owner’s agent, that makes a single request for peace officer assistance with trespassing when there is a fire hazard to the premises or property, the owner is absent from the premises or property, or the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Existing law also requires the requestor to notify the requested law enforcement agency when assistance is no longer needed by submitting a notarized form. This bill would remove the requirement that the submitted form be notarized and would instead require the request to include a written declaration that the requestor is the owner of the property and has legal authority to request assistance. (Public Safety) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Support
AB 1738 (Carrillo) State Housing Law: remote inspections.

This bill would require a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county to offer a homeowner the option of requesting remote inspections for all or a subset of an inspection required by a building permit for specified works in one- or two-family dwelling units, by July 1, 2028. (Fiscal Sustainability & General Governance) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a townhome housing development project that is subject to a prescribed ministerial August Legislative Update 4 August 25, 2026
approval process if the development complies with certain procedural requirements and satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would also require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a townhome development project that meets all specified requirements, including that the proposed subdivision will result in parcels and residential units that will meet prescribed densities and that the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet. (Affordable Housing & Homelessness) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Oppose
AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time.

This bill would authorize agencies to extend the response time to public record requests to 10 business days, and 14 business days under unusual circumstances. (Fiscal Sustainability & General Governance) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Support
AB 1997 (Lee) Land use: housing development approvals: timelines and processes.

This bill would prohibit a plan, entitlement, or permit that has been approved by a previous local utility or agency from being overturned or revised by a subsequent utility or agency, unless the development proponent makes a material change to the project, as described. This bill would reduce various of those approval or disapproval timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act and would also require project approval or disapproval within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA and certain other conditions are met. (Affordable Housing & Homelessness) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Senate Floor.

TVC Position: Watch
AB 2346 (Dixon) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits.

This bill would require class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with a speedometer. This bill would also authorize a local authority to set a speed limit on a bicycle path or on a multiuse trail of 10, 15, or 20 miles an hour, subject to specified signage requirements, that did not have a speed limit established prior to January 1, 2029. (Public Safety) This bill passed through the legislature and has been forwarded to the Governor for his consideration.

TVC Position: Support
SB 222 (Weiner) Residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC systems.

The bill would require a city, county, or city and county, on or before July 1, 2028, to implement an online, automated permitting process that issues permits in real time to a licensed contractor for the installation of a residential heat pump water heater or residential heat pump HVAC system that meets certain criteria. (Fiscal Sustainability & August Legislative Update 5 August 25, 2026
General Governance) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Assembly Floor.

TVC Position: Watch
SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.

This bill would explicitly state that a fee, charge, or surcharge imposed by or for a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to provide public service or public. (Transportation & Infrastructure) This bill passed through the Legislature and has been forwarded to the Governor for consideration.

TVC Position: Support
SB 959 (Grayson) Average daily attendance: emergencies: major safety hazard.

Existing law allows local law enforcement agencies to determine an imminence of a major safety hazard resulting in school closure without impacting the average daily attendance for funding purposes. This bill would extend the authority to make the determination of the imminence of a major safety hazard to local fire agencies. (Public Safety) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Assembly Floor.

TVC Position: Support
SB 1164 (Cervantes) Elections.

This bill would expand the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) to allow challenges to district-based election systems that impair protected groups’ ability to elect candidates of choice or influence election outcomes. This bill would also create a new cause of action allowing affected voters to challenge election policies or practices that result in voter suppression, including practices unrelated to district boundaries, such as placement of voting locations or the timing of the election. This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Assembly Floor.

TVC Position: Oppose Unless Amended
SB 1167 (Blakespear) Vehicles: electric bicycles.

This bill would amend the type of vehicles that are prohibited from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles, including, among others, motordriven cycles and mopeds. The bill would additionally make a violation of this provision a misleading statement for purposes of unfair competition and false advertising provisions of the Business and Professions Code. (Public Safety) This bill passed Appropriation and is currently being heard on the Assembly Floor.

TVC Position: Support
Wildfire Liability Reform
Legislative leaders and the Governor continue to negotiate a potential wildfire liability reform package that is expected to be introduced as a late-session "gut-and-amend" measure. As of the date of this report, bill language has not been released.

August Legislative Update 6 August 25, 2026
Based on information provided by legislative advocates, discussions have included potential changes to California's wildfire liability framework that could affect how damages are recovered following utility-caused wildfires. Proposed concepts include limiting local agencies' recovery of emergency response costs, public infrastructure repair and replacement costs, and lost tax revenues, as well as requiring local agencies to pursue other sources of reimbursement before seeking recovery from the responsible utility.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Town Council Legislative Sub-Committee accept this report and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.

Prepared by:

Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:

Tai J. Williams
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summaries/Analysis
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Oppose Unless Amended SB 1164 (Cervantes) Attachment C – TVC Letter of Support AB 1831 (Pacheco)
Attachment D – TVC Letter of Concern Wildfire Liability Reform SB 1408

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1408 (Arreguín)
As Amended April 14, 2026
Majority vote

SUMMARY
Allows the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to impose a transaction and use tax (TUT) that exceeds the 2% statutory limitation.

Major Provisions
1) Allows CCTA to impose a TUT for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 1% that would, in combination with all TUTs imposed, exceed the 2% cap in existing law, if all the following requirements are met:
a) CCTA adopts an ordinance proposing the TUT by any applicable voting approval requirement.
b) The ordinance proposing the TUT is submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting on the ordinance in accordance with the California Constitution. c) The TUT conforms to TUT Law.
2) Provides that a TUT rate imposed to 1), above, shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit established in existing law.
3) Specifies that if an ordinance proposing the TUT authorized by this bill is not approved on or before January 1, 2045, this bill shall be repealed on January 1, 2045.

COMMENTS
1) Sales and Use Taxes. State law imposes the sales tax on every retailer "engaged in business in this state" that sells tangible personal property, and requires them to register with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), as well as collect the appropriate tax at purchase and remit the amount to CDFTA. Sales tax applies whenever a retail sale occurs, which is generally any sale other than one for resale in the regular course of business. The current rate is 7.25%.

Unless the purchaser pays the sales tax to the retailer, he or she is liable for the use tax, which the law imposes on any person consuming tangible personal property in the state. The use tax is the same rate as the sales tax, and also like the sales tax, must be remitted on or before the last day of the month following the quarterly period in which the person made the purchase.
2) Transactions and Use Taxes. The California Constitution states that taxes levied by local governments are either general taxes, subject to majority approval of its voters, or special taxes, subject to 2/3 vote (Article XIII C). Proposition 13 (1978) required a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature for state tax increases, and a 2/3 vote for local special taxes.

Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes without majority approval of local voters, and a 2/3 vote for special taxes. Proposition 218 (1996)

ATTACHMENT A
SB 1408

extended those vote thresholds to charter cities, and limited local agencies' powers to levy new assessments, fees, and taxes. Local agencies generally propose to increase taxes by adopting an ordinance or a resolution at a public hearing.

State law allows cities, counties, and specified special districts to increase the sales and use tax applicable in their jurisdiction, also known as district taxes or TUTs. Generally, the combined TUT tax rate imposed within a local jurisdiction cannot exceed 2%. To determine whether a county has reached this rate limitation, all countywide taxes and the highest combined rate imposed by a city within the county are counted towards the county's rate limit. For example, if a county imposes three 0.5% countywide taxes and two cities within the county each impose a 0.5% tax, the combined rate in those two cities would be 2%. In such a circumstance, the two cities could not impose another TUT, and the county could not impose another countywide TUT, absent special authority to exceed the rate limitation.

Prior to 2003, cities lacked the ability to place TUTs before their voters without first obtaining approval by the Legislature to bring an ordinance before the city council, and, if approved at the council level, to the voters. This was remedied by SB 566 (Scott), Chapter 709, Statutes of 2003, which imposed the uniform 2% countywide cap.

AB 464 (Mullin) of 2015 would have increased the maximum combined rate of all TUTs that may be levied by authorized entities within a county from 2% to 3%. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown stating, "This bill would raise, on a blanket basis, the limit on local transactions and use tax for all counties and cities from two percent to three percent.

Although I have approved raising the limit for individual counties, I am reluctant to approve this measure in view of all the taxes being discussed and proposed for the 2016 ballot." As of April 1, 2026, local agencies impose 486 district taxes for general or special purposes:
408 imposed citywide, 72 imposed countywide, and six imposed in unincorporated county areas. Generally, local agencies impose these taxes throughout the entire area of a single county, the entire unincorporated area within a single county, or a single incorporated city.

However, three transportation operators in the Bay Area have regional district taxes:
a) The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, which covers Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties.
b) The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CalTrain), which covers San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.
c) The Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit District, which includes Sonoma and Marin counties. 3) Contra Costa Transportation Authority. CCTA is a public agency formed by Contra Costa County voters in 1988 to manage the county's transportation sales tax program and oversee countywide transportation planning efforts. CCTA manages a multibillion-dollar suite of projects and programs and is responsible for planning, funding, and delivering transportation infrastructure projects. Some major projects, primarily on state highways, are being developed directly by CCTA. Others are administered by cities, the county, or transit districts with funds provided by CCTA
CCTA is also responsible for developing and updating the transportation plan for the county which contributes to the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's SB 1408

regional transportation plan and sustainable communities' strategy. Additionally, CCTA serves as the county's designated congestion management agency, and is responsible for developing, adopting, and updating the county's congestion management program.

The Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act authorizes CCTA to impose a TUT of up to 1% to fund projects relating to highways, local streets and roads, and public transit systems. In 1988, the CCTA used this authority to impose a .5% district tax, known as Measure C, to support a wide range of transportation projects. The measure was later renewed as Measure J in 2004, which is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2034. 4) Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County has 24 TUTs levied within its borders—three countywide taxes (two for transportations purposes and one for general or specific purposes), and 23 city-wide taxes. Currently, two of the three countywide TUTs remain subject to the 2% combined TUT rate limitation, while one, imposed by BART, is exempt. An additional countywide TUT rate of up to .5%, that is not subject to the 2% combined district tax rate limitation is authorized; however, this tax is not yet imposed under that authority.

According to the Author
According to the Author, "SB 1408 would allow the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to place a sales tax measure on the ballot that would be subject to voter approval by residents of Contra Costa County. The revenue would continue the County's investment in transportation solutions, including public transit, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, highway and local street improvements, and programs that expand mobility options." Arguments in Support
According to CCTA, the sponsor of this bill, "This measure will give county voters the opportunity to shape the next phase of transportation funding and deliver solutions that meet the evolving needs of our communities.
"CCTA's existing funding measure, Measure J, is set to expire in 2034. Over its lifespan, Measure J has supported critical freeway and interchange improvements, including key corridors such as Interstate 80, Interstate 680, and State Route 4, and played a significant role in funding the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel. It has also enabled investments in expanded bus and rail service and the extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Antioch, as well as enhancements for active transportation like pedestrian and bicycle bridges. Measure J supports essential programs such as paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities, transportation demand management initiatives, and youth transportation programs. The measure also provides direct funding to local jurisdictions for street maintenance and repair. "SB 1408 authorizes the CCTA, until January 1, 2045, to propose a transactions and use tax at a rate not to exceed one percent, subject to voter approval, to support continued investment in countywide transportation programs and infrastructure." Arguments in Opposition
According to the California Taxpayers Association, The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "…By lowering the threshold for passage of a tax increase in the countywide Contra Costa Transportation Authority, SB 1408 would make it easier to enact a transactions and use tax in an area that already has a very high tax burden. This tax is among the most regressive forms of taxation, and has an especially heavy impact on low-income Californians because it increases the cost of necessities. As inflation, tariffs, shipping costs and SB 1408

other factors drive up the prices of goods, the sales tax burden grows in tandem, further straining household budgets and exacerbating economic inequality. Contra Costa County already is a very expensive place to live, and a tax increase on everyday items would only make things worse. "…After comparing the costs of operating in California with the costs in other states, many employers have left our state in recent years. A Hoover Institution report found that from 2018 to 2022, at least 352 companies relocated their headquarters out of California – with many businesses citing the state's tax burden as the deciding factor in their relocation. Many other large employers have left since that report was released. The relocation of these companies and their employees to lower-cost states has a major impact on state and local tax revenue, causes unemployment for workers who cannot move to the new location, and is a sign that California must find ways to be more competitive. SB 1408 takes a large step in the wrong direction, paving the way for additional taxes that will encourage more employers to move workers and investments to other states.
"…Unlike the federal government, state and local agencies must pay sales tax on their purchases.

As more sales taxes are enacted, the cost of government operations – including schools, universities, and municipal services – will rise, diverting resources away from core public functions."

FISCAL COMMENTS
None.

VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 30-9-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-1-1
YES: Carrillo, Pacheco, Fong, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Stefani, Ward, Wilson NO: Ta
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis
ASM REVENUE AND TAXATION: 4-2-1
YES: Gipson, Carrillo, McKinnor, Quirk-Silva
NO: Sanchez, DeMaio
ABS, ABST OR NV: Michelle Rodriguez

UPDATED
VERSION: April 14, 2026
CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003268

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 2007

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2007
Author: Bauer-Kahan (D), et al.

Amended: 7/2/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 6/23/26
AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH., & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/29/26 AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Umberg, Wiener NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Ochoa Bogh
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/13/26
AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Youth programs: identifying information of youth SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires youth-focused programs, such as extracurricular and after-school programs, to obtain parental consent before using images of a child or other protected information in their communications, marketing, educational, or training materials, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing constitutional law provides that all people are, by nature, free and independent and have inalienable rights, including the fundamental right to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.)
AB 2007

Existing state law:
1) States that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them,” and that the Legislature finds all of the following:
a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies.
b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits. (Civil (Civ.) Code, § 1798.1.)
2) Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to businesses’ collection of their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civ. Code, div. 3, pt. 4, tit. 1.81.5, §§ 1798.100 et seq.)
3) Defines “personal information” within the CCPA as information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably linked, directly, or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household, including the following:
a) Identifiers such as a real name, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, IP address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other similar identifiers.
b) Characteristics of protected classifications under California or federal law. c) Commercial information, including property records and records of purchases.
d) Biometric information.

AB 2007

e) Internet or other electronic network activity information, including browser and search history.
f) Geolocation data.
g) Audio, electronic, visual, thermal, olfactory, or similar information. (Civ.

Code, § 1798.140(v)(1).)
4) Excludes, from the definition of “personal information” within the CCPA:
a) Publicly available information or lawfully obtained, truthful information that is a matter of public concern.
b) Deidentified or aggregate consumer information. (Civ. Code, § 1798.140(v)(2) & (3).)
5) Prohibits a business from selling or sharing the personal information of a consumer if the business has actual knowledge that the consumer is less than 16 years of age, unless the consumer, in the case of those who are between 13 and 16 years of age, or the consumer’s parent or guardian, in the case of a consumer who is less than 13 years of age, has affirmatively authorized the sale or sharing of the information. (Civ. Code, § 1798.120.)
6) Provides that any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of their parent or guardian, shall be liable for the following:
a) Statutory damages of $750 per violation or the actual damages suffered by the person, whichever is greater.
b) Any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. c) Punitive damages.
d) Attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ. Code, § 3344(a).)
7) Provides that the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under 6) solely because the material containing the use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising; rather, it shall be a question of fact as to AB 2007

whether or not the use of the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under 6). (Civ.

Code, § 3344(f).)
This bill:
1) Defines the following relevant terms:
a) “Covered entity” means an entity or organization that operates a covered program.
b) “Covered program” means a program or activity, including, but not limited to, a program related to expanded learning, visual or performing arts, athletics, recreation, or educational enrichment or a day or overnight camp, that meets both of the below criteria, but excludes a business that is hosting or participating in a covered entity’s program, as specified:
i. The program or activity requires a parent signature or consent form authorization, or the program or activity is an event in which a parent provides written authorization for an organization to act in loco parentis. ii. The program or activity is offered primarily to youth outside of school hours, including periods when school is not in session, and is not operated by a public or private elementary or secondary school. c) “Covered information” means a picture, video, audio recording, likeness, attributed statement, personal information as defined under the CCPA, or any other identifying information.
d) “Marketing purposes” means promotions, newsletters, brochures, social media, or other public-facing materials that describe the programs or solicit participation.
2) Prohibits a covered entity from making a youth’s enrollment or participation in a covered program contingent upon a parent or guardian consenting to the covered program’s use of the youth’s covered information for any communications, marketing, or other purpose that exposes that information to the public.
3) Prohibits a covered entity from using a youth’s covered information for communications, marketing, educational, or other purpose that exposes that information to the public unless the covered entity obtains the parent or AB 2007

guardian’s express written consent on a notice that complies with all of the following:
a) The notice communicates the requested uses of the youth’s covered information clearly and meaningfully, including a description of any proposed use of the youth’s covered information, including a description of the types of materials or media in which the information may be used and a list of internet websites on which the covered information may be published. b) The notice is contained in a single document or single page within an online form that is separate from enrollment forms, waivers of liability, and any other document.
c) The notice includes, in clear and understandable language, that the parent or guardian is providing consent for use of the youth’s covered information for communications, marketing, or other purpose that exposes that information to the public as communicated in the required description. d) The notice includes, in clear and understandable language, that the parent or guardian may revoke consent at any time and clearly and conspicuously states that the youth’s enrollment or participation is not contingent upon consent.
e) The notice provides an electronic mail address at which the parent or guardian can contact the covered program relating to the scope of consent, revocation of consent, or other issues relating to a youth’s covered materials. 4) Prohibits a covered entity from selling covered information of a youth for any reason, regardless of whether the parent or guardian provided consent to that use.
5) Permits a parent or guardian to revoke consent through the email address provided in 3)(e) at any time during the youth’s enrollment in the covered program and up to one year after the youth is no longer in the program. 6) Provides that a covered entity that receives a revocation of consent pursuant to 5) is not required to remove covered information from communications, marketing, educational, or training materials that were published or printed before receiving a notice revoking consent.
7) Permits a parent or guardian to bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against a covered entity for a violation of the section created by this AB 2007

measure; a parent who prevails in an action may be awarded any of the following relief:
a) Up to $2,500 for the first offense and $5,000 for any subsequent offenses, or a lesser amount as determined by the court, per youth who had their covered information disclosed.
b) Injunctive or declaratory relief.
c) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
d) Any other relief the court deems appropriate.
8) Provides that the measure does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law, including, but not limited to, the statutory right of publicity; and that the remedies are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.

Comments
Parents and guardians are becoming increasingly concerned with their children’s digital footprints. An innocently posted photo or video of a child, without privacy protections, can be used for a host of nefarious purposes, such the creation of deepfake materials, identity theft, and training AI. Many parents and guardians want to protect their children from these consequences, but not at the expense of participation in youth-focused programming, like sports leagues, camps, or other recreation activities. According to the author, however, some youth-focused programs are apathetic, or downright hostile, to parents’ and guardians’ requests that the program not use their child’s personal information in the program’s publicfacing materials.

To provide parents with greater control over the use of their child’s image, this bill requires organizations that offer youth-serving programming to provide a parent or guardian with a standalone release document that details specifically how and where a youth’s information is intended to be used, and requires a program to obtain a parent or guardian’s affirmative written consent before using their child’s information in those manners. Additionally, this bill prohibits organizations from making participation in programming contingent on a parent or guardian’s waiver of their child’s privacy rights, and prohibits the organization from sharing or selling the child’s covered information. This bill also creates a private right of action against a covered entity that violates the bill’s requirements, which may be brought by the parent or guardian of the child whose image or information was used without consent.

AB 2007

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the fiscal impact is as follows:

This bill creates a private right of action against a covered entity that violates the bill’s requirements, which may be brought by the parent or guardian of the child whose image or information was used without consent. Unknown, potentially significant costs to the courts to adjudicate civil enforcement actions. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems.

While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026–27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)
California Catholic Conference
CFT — A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO Informed Policy Advocates
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)
City of Chino Hills
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Catholic Conference:

The California Catholic Conference particularly appreciates that the bill requires express written parental consent after providing clear notice regarding how a youth’s identifying information will be used. Equally important, the bill prohibits organizations from conditioning a child’s participation in a program on the provision of such consent. This protection ensures that families are not forced to choose between participation opportunities and their child’s privacy rights.

AB 2007 also appropriately prohibits the sale or sharing of a youth’s identifying information and limits the use of that information solely to the purpose for which consent was granted. These provisions provide meaningful safeguards at a time when concerns regarding privacy, data collection, digital marketing, and the use of children’s personal information continue to grow.

AB 2007

Catholic Social Teaching emphasizes the inherent dignity of every human person and the responsibility of society to protect vulnerable populations, especially children. The principles of human dignity, subsidiarity, and the common good all support policies that empower families, respect parental authority, and protect children from exploitation or misuse of their personal information. AB 2007 advances these principles by placing decision-making authority where it belongs—with parents and guardians—while establishing clear and reasonable expectations for organizations serving youth.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the City of Chino Hills:

Cities routinely obtain parental permission before using photographs or videos of youth participants in activity guides, brochures, newsletters, websites, and social media to promote community programs. These materials are intended to inform residents of available services, encourage participation, and highlight the success of City programs. They are not intended to exploit, endanger, or otherwise misuse a child’s image…
AB 2007 authorizes private civil actions, statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. Even an inadvertent failure to identify an archived photograph or video could expose a city to significant legal liability despite acting in good faith and obtaining appropriate parental consent at the time the material was created.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, 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: Arambula, Chen, Garcia, Hoover, Irwin, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez
Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 8/15/26 14:16:00
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 762

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 762
Author: Irwin (D)
Amended: 6/30/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/17/26
AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar
NOES: Valladares, Dahle
SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/24/26
AYES: McNerney, Ashby, Becker, Grayson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26
AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NOES: Seyarto, Dahle
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-17, 1/29/26 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device: prohibition and penalties
SOURCE: Californians Against Waste
California Product Stewardship Council

CALPIRG
ReThinkWaste
DIGEST: This bill prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, distribution, or offering for sale disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices containing a tobacco product.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law establishes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to authorize the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

AB 762

EPA) to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes throughout the wastes’ life cycle. (42 United States Code (USC) § 6901 et seq.)
Existing state law:
1) Establishes the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) and provides the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) with responsibility for overseeing the management of hazardous waste in California. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 25100 et seq).
2) Enacts the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act of 2006, which requires every retailer to have a system in place, on or before July 1, 2006, for the acceptance and collection of used rechargeable batteries for reuse, recycling, or proper disposal. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 42451 et seq.) 3) Enacts the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 (EWRA), which established a program for consumers to return, recycle, and ensure the safe and environmentally sound disposal of video display devices, such as televisions and computer monitors that are hazardous wastes when discarded. (PRC §§ 42460 et seq.)
4) Adds battery-embedded products to the EWRA. (PRC § 42463) 5) Creates the Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022, which requires producers of covered batteries, as defined, to establish a stewardship program for the collection and recycling of covered batteries. (PRC § 42420) 6) Prohibits a tobacco retailer from selling, offering for sale, or possessing the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer. (HSC § 104559.5(b))
This bill:
1) Defines “disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device” to mean a vaporization device that contains a tobacco product, as specified, but not cannabis or a cannabis product, as defined, and that is not designed or intended to be reused, and includes any vaporization device that meets either, or both, of the following requirements:
a) The vaporization device is not refillable, as specified; and b) The vaporization device is not rechargeable, as specified.

AB 762

2) Provides that a “disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device” does not include a device, as defined in Section 321(h) of Title 21 of the United States Code, if either of the following applies:
a) It is a class I device as defined in subsection (a) of Section 360(c) of Title 21 of the United States Code, and either of the following applies:
i) It is a device described in Section 414.202 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or
ii) Either of the following applies:

I. The device is predominantly used in a health care setting by a provider; or
II. The device is predominantly prescribed by a health care provider; or
b) It is a class II or class III device as defined in subsection (a) of Section 360c of Title 21 of the United States Code.
3) Prohibits a person from importing or manufacturing for sale a new or refurbished disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device on and after January 1, 2027.
4) Prohibits a person from selling, distributing, or offering for sale a new or refurbished disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device on and after January 1, 2028.
5) Authorizes the Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) or a law enforcement agency to seize disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices containing a tobacco product, amongst other specified tobacco products, upon discovery that a retailer possesses, stores, owns, or has made a retail sale of a device.
6) Requires CDTFA to issue a civil penalty against a retailer that possesses, stores, owns, or has made a retail sale of a disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device equal to $50 per device.
7) Requires the CDTFA to suspend a license to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products of any person with a license who is in violation of these provisions upon a second seizure and forfeiture and revoke a license upon a third seizure and forfeiture.
8) Authorizes a city, county, or the state to enforce these provisions and impose civil liability on a person or entity in violation of these provisions in the AB 762

amount of $500 for the first violation, $1,000 for the second violation, and $2,000 for the third and any subsequent violation.
9) Requires any civil penalties collected to be paid to the office that brought an action, including the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General (AG).
10) Authorizes the penalties collected by the AG to be expended by the AG to enforce these provisions, upon appropriation by the Legislature. 11) Requires any person in violation of these provisions to be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $500.
12) Makes any penalty described in these provisions in addition to the other penalties authorized by these provisions.
13) Requires the costs incurred by a state agency in carrying out these provisions to be recoverable by the AG upon the request of the agency, from the liable persons.
14) Makes these provisions severable.

Background
1) California’s regulation of batteries. Many types of batteries exhibit hazardous characteristics and are considered universal and/or hazardous waste when they are discarded. Both single-use and rechargeable batteries can contain corrosive chemicals and toxic metals, so they must be handled appropriately.1 The state Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) prohibits the disposal of batteries in the trash or household recycling collection bins intended to receive other nonhazardous waste and/or recyclable materials. If batteries end up in the trash or a recycling bin, owners/operators of solid waste transfer stations, municipal landfills, and recycling centers who discover the batteries are required to remove and manage the batteries separately. The facility then becomes a generator of hazardous waste batteries and must comply with the applicable regulations. Depending on the type of battery and applicable management requirements, batteries must be sent to a facility permitted or authorized by DTSC to accept hazardous waste batteries, universal waste, or spent lead acid batteries.2
1 Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). Universal Waste – Batteries. 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Discarded Battery Management at Facilities Handling Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Fact Sheet.

AB 762

Outside of the HWCL, there are additional statutory frameworks that implicate the responsible management of batteries. The Electronic Waste Recycling Act (EWRA) established a funding system for the collection and recycling of specified electronic waste.3,4,5 The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act of 2006 prohibits retailers from selling rechargeable batteries unless there is a system for their collection.6 The Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022 created an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for batteries that can be easily removed from a product.
2) The dangers of improper vape disposal. Vapes are handheld battery powered electronic devices that vaporize a liquid containing nicotine or cannabis products. Vapes may be single-use and “disposable”, or rechargeable with refillable cartridges. Consumers may find single-use vapes appealing for their simplicity and lower upfront cost and single-use vapes are expected to experience a compound annual growth rate of 27.1% until 2035.7In California, hundreds of thousands of single-use vapes containing nicotine have been sold monthly, although a drastic reduction in sales followed the prohibition on flavored tobacco products.8,9,10 Researchers estimate that nearly half a million single-use vapes are disposed of daily in the United States in recent years.11 Vapes are known to carry and emit a variety of harmful substances, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).12 Each component of a vape may generate pollution if improperly disposed of as the plastic components are not biodegradable and are challenging to recycle; liquid containers may release residual substances; and electronic components, including lithium-ion batteries, can deteriorate, releasing toxic substances or pose a fire risk if mismanaged.12 Single-use vapes typically contain a lithiumion battery because the battery can store high amounts of energy in a small 3 CalRecycle. (2026). Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003. 4 CalRecycle. (2026). Covered Electronic Waste (CEW) Recycling Program. 5 CalRecycle. (2026). SB 1215 Covered Battery-Embedded Products. 6 Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2007). DTSC AB 1125: Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act Fact Sheet.
7 Gandhi, K. (2026). United States E-Cigarette and Vape Market Size and Share – Growth Analysis Report and Forecast Trends (2026-2035).
8 Monitoring Tobacco Product Use. (2026). California E-Cigarette Unit Sales by Product Type and Flavor. 9 LegalClarity California. (2026). California Vape Ban: What’s Banned and What’s Still Legal. 10 Ali, F. R. M., et. al., (2025). Changes in E-Cigarette and Cigarette Sales in California and Neighboring States Following a Law Prohibiting Flavored Tobacco Product Sales. 11 Gutterman, L. and Park, F. (2025). Vape Waste 2: The environmental, financial, and security cases for banning disposable vapes.
12 Constantin, A. and Mihălțan, F. (2025). E-Cigarette and Environment.

AB 762

space and are well suited to efficiently vaporize the contained liquid.13 Disposed vapes waste this critical mineral, and the batteries may even retain the majority of their capacity.11,14 The lithium in vapes disposed annually is equivalent to the lithium needed for over 3,000 electric vehicles batteries. 11 Most notably, single-use vape devices are considered hazardous waste under RCRA at their end-of-life due to both the corrosive properties of the embedded lithium-ion battery and the residual substances in the cartridge if filled with liquid nicotine.15 Liquid nicotine is also considered to be acutely hazardous, thus more stringent requirements for management apply. The processes associated with solid waste collection, recycling and disposal during transport and at facilities can apply various stressors to lithium-ion batteries, increasing the risk of damage and potential subsequent fires or explosions.16 In recognition of wide-spread improper disposal of single-use vapes and the potential for these vapes to lead to fires in waste management infrastructure, this bill bans “disposable”, single-use battery-embedded vapes containing a tobacco product.
3) Regulatory gaps in managing waste vapes. Although single-use vapes are considered hazardous waste at the end-of-life, they are largely unregulated under existing statutory frameworks and the frameworks that apply are difficult to enforce. State law requires vapes to be disposed of at a household hazardous waste collection facility, or other authorized hazardous waste facility, however the onus falls on the consumer to manage their waste vapes properly and millions of vapes still end up in landfills.

California has established robust frameworks for the collection and recycling of batteries, however, single-use vapes has continued to evade them. Single-use vapes are exempted from the definition of “covered battery-embedded products” under the EWRA, so they are exempt from any required tracking, fees, and associated collection activities. Additionally, vapes are not covered under the Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022, as the EPR program only covers batteries that are designed to be easily removed from the product with common household tools.
13 Power, J. (2024). The breathtaking waste of batteries in disposable vapes. 14 Reid, H., et. al. (2023). Up in smoke: Considerations for lithium-ion batteries in disposable e-cigarettes. 15 U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. (2026). How to Safely Dispose of E-Cigarettes: Information for Schools and Small Businesses.
16 Gausden, A. and Cerik, BC. (2024). Single-Use Vape Batteries: Investigating Their Potential as Ignition Sources in Waste and Recycling Streams.

AB 762

The U.S. EPA has issued guidance for schools and businesses on how to safely dispose of vapes containing nicotine and designates the hazardous waste generator categories. While this information can serve as a resource for entities that may inevitably possess vapes, statewide collection systems and resources for single-use vapes are inadequate. This is, in part, why regulatory bodies have moved towards banning these products.

Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Single-use vapes pose a significant threat to California's environment as well as to our public health. These devices contain highly flammable lithium-ion batteries that cannot be removed, and are designed to be thrown away after just a week or two of use. Without a standardized way to recycle single-use vapes, they are sent to material recovery facilities and landfills, where they can ignite dangerous and costly fires. Not only is this dangerous, it is unsafe for workers and costly to local governments to clean up. Long after these devices have been used and discarded, both the battery and the residual nicotine liquid can continue to pose a toxic threat to our marine and terrestrial environments.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
• The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) estimates revenue losses for the partial fiscal year of 2027-28 of $3.3 million in Sales and Use Tax, $4.6 million in California Electronic Cigarette Excise Tax (CECET), and $9.6 million in other tobacco products (OTP); totaling $17.4 million.

However, AB 762’s revenue impact is complex and uncertain. • Potential loss in license renewal fee revenue to CDTFA (Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund) and Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) (Cannabis Control Fund) of an unknown amount. It is difficult to estimate the revenue loss because it is unknown how many licenses will be suspended or revoked under the requirements of the bill.
• CDTFA anticipates ongoing costs ranging from $408,000 to $732,000 (General Fund) to notify licensees of the prohibition, seize and destroy prohibited products, issue civil penalties, suspend or revoke retailer licenses for repeat violations, handle appeals, and perform collections.

AB 762

• DCC anticipates any costs associated with suspending or revoking cannabis product licenses to be absorbable within existing resources (Cannabis Control Fund).
• The Department of Justice anticipates minor and absorbable costs. This bill would require costs incurred by a state agency in carrying out these provisions to be recoverable by the Attorney General, upon the request of the agency, from the liable person or persons.
• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the courts to adjudicate actions brought by the Attorney General (AG) and public prosecutors to enforce violations. Actual costs would 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 Governor’s January budget proposal for fiscal year 2026-27 provides $70 million ongoing General Fund to the Trial Court Trust Fund for court operations.
• Civil penalty and fine revenue of an unknown amount. This bill would require any civil penalties collected to be paid to whichever office brought the action, as specified, and authorize the Attorney General to expend any penalties it collects, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce these provisions.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/14/26)
Californians Against Waste (source)
California Product Stewardship Council (source)
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group (source) Rethinkwaste (source)
350 Bay Area Action
350 Contra Costa Action
350 Contra Costa Action (350 Cca)
350 Sacramento
350 Ventura County Climate Hub
7th Generation Advisors
A Voice for Choice Advocacy
ACR Solar
Action on Smoking and Health
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
AB 762

Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition
Alameda; County of
Algalita Marine Research and Education
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Bird Conservancy
American Nurses Associaition - California
American Nurses Association/california
American Sustainable Business Network
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
Anti-vaping Champions of Ucla
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Atlas Disposal
Azul
Ban Single Use Plastic
Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group
Bay Area Student Activists
Blue Ocean Warriors
Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Breathe California Sacramento Region
Breathe Sacramento Region
Breathe Southern California
CA League of United Latin American Citizens
Cal Poly Center for Health Research
California Chapters of the Solid Waste Association of North America's Legislative Task Force
California Communities Against Toxics
California Electronic Asset Recovery
California Health Coalition Advocacy
California League of United Latin American Citizens
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
California Optometric Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Resource Recovery Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Pta
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Stockton
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
AB 762

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Chico Bag
Children Now
City and County of San Francisco
City of Alameda
City of Arcadia
City of Foster City
City of Live Oak
City of Long Beach
City of Marysville
City of Mountain View
City of Oxnard
City of Petaluma
City of Sacramento
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
City of Thousand Oaks
Clean Air Orange County Coalition
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Now
Community Environmental Council
Contra Costa County
County of Alameda
County of Humboldt
County of Monterey
County of Sacramento
County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Barbara
County of Santa Clara
County of Sutter
Courage California
Cr&r, INC.

Daniel Sauter District 3 Supervisor, San Francisco
David Newman, Mayor of Thousand Oaks
Defend Our Health
Defend Our Health (formerly Environmental Health Strategy Center) Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority
Delta Diablo
AB 762

Eco-catalyst INC
Ecology Center
Elder's Climate Action Norcal
Elders Climate Action: Northern California
Elders Climate Action: Southern California
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Protection Information Center
Equity and Wellness Institute
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety Faith in Action East Bay
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
Green Science Policy Institute
Heal the Bay
Ivan's Recycling
Jab Sabriskie, Mayor of Truckee
James Tucker, Mayor of Imperial
Jan Sabriskie, Mayor of Truckee
Jeff Schmidt, Councilmember of Menlo Park
Just Zero
Kavita Tankha, Mayor, City of Los Altos Hills
Kevin Mcdonnell, Mayor, Petaluma
LA Sanitation and Environment
League of California Cities
Lisa Gillmor, Mayor, City of Santa Clara
Little Kamper, Lp
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Margaret Clark, Mayor of Rosemead
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Marin Residents for Public Health Cannabis Policies
Marin Sanitary Service
Marin Sanitary Services
Mayor Adam Loraine, City of San Mateo
Mayor Alma Beltran, Parlier
Mayor Betsy Nash, City of Menlo Park
Mayor Bobbie Singh-allen, City of Elk Grove
AB 762

Mayor Cheryl Kelly, City of Trinidad
Mayor Chris Herrod, City of Healdsburg
Mayor Christine Boles, City of Pacifica
Mayor Dale Byrne, City of Carmel by the Sea
Mayor Debbie Ruddock, City of Half Moon Bay
Mayor Frank J. Navarro, City of Colton
Mayor Jim Light, City of Redondo Beach
Mayor Lesa Heebner, City of Solana Beach
Mayor Michael K. Hannon, City of Newark
Mayor of Rex Richardson, City of Long Beach
Mayor Robert Serrato, City of Oxnard
Mayor Sally Meadows, City of Los Altos
Mayor Sue Zwahlen, City of Modesto
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
Mill Valley Refuse Service
Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority
Monterey Waterkeeper
Monterey; County of
Napa Recycling and Waste Services
National Association of Environmental Medicine
National Association of Environmental Medicine
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nicol Jones, Mayor of Villa Park
Non-toxic Neighborhoods
Northern California Recycling Association
Oakland Public Works
Oakland Recycles
Oceanic Preservation Society (OPS)
Office of Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange; County of
Pacific Beach Coalition
Pacoima Beautiful
Parents Against Vaping
Parents Against Vaping E-cigarettes
Penny Sylvester, Mayor of Agoura Hills
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter AB 762

Plastic Free Future
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Plastic Pollution Coalition, a Project of Earth Island Institute Plastic Soup Foundation
Plasticfreemarin
Product Stewardship Institute
Project Ropa
Recology
Recycle1234
Recyclesmart
Regen Monterey
Republic Services
Republic Services INC.

Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Rethink Disposable
Rural Counties Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority Rural County Representatives of California
Rural County Representatives of California
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
San Diego Bird Alliance
San Diego Pediatricians for Clean Air
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Francisco County Supervisor Danny Sauter
San Francisco Department of the Environment
San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Coalition
Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Authority Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Santa Cruz County Supervisor Manu Koenig
Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition
Save Our Shores
Save the Albatross Coalition
Save the Bay
Sea Hugger
See (social Eco Education)
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Sespe Creek Collective
Seventh Generation Advisors
AB 762

Shanti Landon, Placer County Supervisor, District 2
Sierra Club California
Simply Recycle
Smokefree Air for Everyone
Smokefree Air Foreveryone
Socal 350 Climate Action
Socal Elders Climate Action
Social Eco Education
South Bayside Waste Management Authority (sbwma ) Dba Rethinkwaste South Tahoe Refuse & Recycling Services
Southern California Public Health Association
Stopwaste
Sunnyvale Mayor, Larry Klein
Sunrise Bay Area
Sustainable Mill Valley
Sustainable Rossmoor
Sustainable Works
Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Last Beach Cleanup
The Last Plastic Straw
The Ocean Project
The Salvador E. Alvarez Institute for Non-violence
The Story of Stuff Project
The Surfrider Foundation
Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee
Tobacco Prevention Coalition (contra Costa)
Tony Ayala, Mayor of Norwalk
Torus Consulting
Town of Truckee
Trash Free Trails
Tri-ced Community Recycling
Turn Climate Crisis Awareness & Action
Upstream
Upstream Policy
Veolia North America
Vice Mayor Shebreh Kalantari-johnson, City of Santa Cruz Waste Management
Wastenot
Wastenot Nevada County
AB 762

Wendy Root Askew, Supervisor, Monterey County
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
West Marin Environmental Action Coalition
Western Placer Waste Management Authority
Wheatland; City of
Wilmington Recyclers
Wm (waste Management)
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
Youth Leadership Institute
Yuba City
Yuba County
Yuba-sutter Regional Waste Management Authority
Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority
Zero Waste San Diego
Zero Waste Sonoma
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/14/26)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Distributors Association
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
1 Individual
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-17, 1/29/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas NOES: Alanis, Ávila Farías, Chen, DeMaio, Ellis, Flora, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Castillo, Davies, Gallagher, Gipson, Krell, Nguyen, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Valencia, Wilson
Prepared by: Taylor McKie / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
8/15/26 10:35:03
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1383

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1383
Author: McKinnor (D), et al.

Amended: 7/1/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/24/26
AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Cortese, Durazo, Laird SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26
AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-2, 1/29/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public employees’ retirement benefits
SOURCE: California Professional Firefighters
DIGEST: This bill (1) freezes existing Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) safety formulas to apply only to service from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2026; (2) provides new formulas for service from 1/1/27; and (3) requires public employers to raise their PEPRA firefighter and peace officer safety pension benefit formulas to this bill’s new formulas effective January 1, 2027, to give at age 55 what their PEPRA formula gives at age 57 unless the parties bargain for a higher or lower formula, as specified. It also (4) increases the PEPRA pensionable compensation caps for all PEPRA members, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Establishes PEPRA which applies to all public employers and public pension plans on and after January 1, 2013. (Government Code § 7522 et seq.) 2) Establishes a cap on the amount of compensation that can be used to calculate a retirement benefit for all new members, as specified, of a public retirement AB 1383

system equal to the Social Security wage index limit (originally $110,100, now $159,733 ) for employees who participate in Social Security, or 120% of that limit (originally $132,120, now $191,679) if they do not participate in Social Security. (Government Code § 7522.10)
3) Requires the retirement systems to adjust the compensation cap annually, as specified, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers. (Government Code § 7522.10 (d))
4) Specifies that the Legislature reserves the right to modify the annual CPI adjustments to the compensation cap prospectively. (Government Code § 7522.02 (d)(2))
5) Prohibits an employer from offering a defined benefit (DB) plan, or combination of DB plans, on compensation in excess of the compensation cap. (Government Code § 7522.02 (e))
6) Allows an employer to offer a defined contribution (DC) plan on earnings above the compensation cap up to the federal limit on compensation that can be creditable to DB plans. Any such DC plan must comply with federal laws, and employees do not have a vested right to an employer contribution to such a plan. (Government Code § 7522.02 (f))
7) Defines “new member” with regard to eligibility for PEPRA as:
a) An individual who has never been a member of any public retirement system prior to January 1, 2013.
b) An individual who moved between retirement systems with more than a six month break in service, as specified.
c) An individual who moved between public employers within a retirement system after more than a six month break in service, as specified. (Government Code § 7522.04 (f))
8) Defines “Normal Cost” to mean the portion of the present value of projected benefits under the defined benefit that is attributable to the current year of service, as determined by the public retirement system’s actuary according to the most recently completed valuation. (Government Code § 7522.04 (g)) AB 1383

9) Specifies that the retirement formula for the DB plan will be 2% at age 62 for all new non-safety employees, excluding teachers. The formula is adjusted to encourage members to retire at later ages. The earliest an employee would be eligible to retire is age 52 with a 1% factor and the maximum retirement factor of 2.5% is provided at age 67. (Government Code § 7522.20) 10) Specifies that the retirement formula for new members of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) will be 2% at age 62. The earliest an employee would be eligible to retire is age 55 with an actuarially reduced formula, and with a maximum formula of 2.4% at age 65. (Government Code § 7522.02 (c), Education Code § 24202.6 and § 24202.7)
11) Provides for three retirement formulas for the DB plan that apply to new safety employees, as specified. The three formulas are: 2% at age 57 (basic plan);

2.5% at age 57 (safety option plan one); and 2.7% at age 57 (safety option plan 2). (Government Code § 7522.25)
12) Requires contributions from employees to the DB plan to equal to one-half of normal cost of the DB. (Government Code § 7522.30)
13) Requires that final compensation be defined for all new employees as the highest average annual compensation over a three-year period. (Government Code § 7522.32)
14) Defines “pensionable compensation” and prohibits the following types of compensation from being used to calculate a retirement benefit: compensation paid to enhance a retirement benefit; compensation previously provided “inkind” and converted to cash in the final comp period; one-time or ad hoc payments; severance pay; pay for unused leave or time off; pay for work outside of normal hours; uniform, housing or vehicle allowances; pay for overtime, except planned overtime, extended duty workweek, or pay defined in the federal labor codes; employer contributions to DC plans; bonuses, and other pay determined to not be pensionable compensation. (Government Code § 7522.34)
15) Limits the maximum salary taken into account for any retirement plan (DB and DC combined) to the federal limit established under 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and prohibits an employer from seeking a federal exemption from the limit. (Government Code § 7522.42)
AB 1383

16) Prohibits an employer from making contributions to any public retirement plan (DB or DC) on any amounts of compensation that exceeds the 401(a)(17) limit. (Government Code § 7522.42)
17) Prohibits a public employer from offering a benefit replacement plan for any member or survivor who is subject to the federal limit on benefits established by section 415(b) of the IRC for an employee first hired on and after January 1, 2013, or to any group of employees that was not offered a benefits replacement plan prior to that date. (Government Code § 7522.43)
18) Prohibits a retroactive enhancement to a benefit formula, either due to a change to an existing formula, or due to a change to the retirement classification for a specific job. (Government Code § 7522.44)
19) Requires a public employer’s contribution to a defined benefit plan, in combination with employee contributions, to be not less than the normal cost rate for that defined benefit plan for that fiscal year. (Government Code § 7522.52)
20) Prohibits post-retirement employment from exceeding 960 hours in a consecutive 12 month period. If a retiree receives unemployment benefits, he or she is prohibited from working for 12 months as a retiree for a public employer.
21) Prohibits a person who retires on or after January 1, 2013, from returning to work as a retired annuitant for a period of 180 days after retirement unless the action is approved in an open meeting, as specified by the governing body of the employer, or by California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) authority if state retiree, as specified. However, in no case could a person who receives a retirement incentive (e.g., a “golden handshake”) return to work as a retired annuitant for a period of 180 days after retirement. (Government Code § 7522.56)
22) Establishes the following exceptions to 180 day rule:
a) The retiree is participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the California State University. b) The retiree is a public safety officer or firefighter.

AB 1383

c) The retiree is a trustee, administrator, or fiscal advisor appointed to address academic or financial weaknesses in a school or community college district, pursuant to specified requirements.
d) The retiree is a subordinate judicial officer whose position, upon retirement, is converted to a judgeship and he or she returns to work in the converted position.
e) The retiree is a person taking office as a judge, as specified. (Government Code § 7522.56)
23) Allows more flexibility for bargaining increased cost sharing between employers and existing employees in CalPERS and retirement systems established pursuant to the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937 (37 Act). Using impasse procedures to impose cost sharing arrangements achieved through this new flexibility would be prohibited if the proposed contribution exceeds statutorily required contributions for current employees or half of the normal cost of benefits for employees first hired on or after January 1, 2013. (Government Code § 7522.30)
This bill:
1) Freezes existing PEPRA safety formulas and makes them applicable only for service from 1/1/2013 – 12/31/26, increases safety retirement plans as of 1/1/2027 for all public employers, and makes this bill’s new formulas bargainable, as specified.
2) Requires employers to move, beginning January 1, 2027, from their existing PEPRA safety formula1to one of three new, richer retirement formulas that would give at age 55 what their PEPRA formula gives at age 57 unless the parties bargain for a higher or lower formula, as specified. 2 However, this bill prohibits employers from using impasse procedures to impose a lower plan. 1 Current law requires employers to offer one of three PEPRA safety formulas:
o Basic Safety 2% @ 57
o Safety Option One 2.5% @ 57
o Safety Option Two 2.7% @ 57
o (PEPRA has no fourth formula like the New Option Three) 2 The bill creates the following four new formulas; mandates employers to move to one of the first three, as specified; and authorizes bargaining to move from that formula to one of the other new formulas. o New Basic Safety 2% @ 55
o New Safety Option One 2.5% @ 55
AB 1383

3) Establishes a bargainable fourth formula that would provide 3% @ 55 rather than PEPRA’s current maximum formula that provides 2.7% @ 57. 4) Increases, through a two-step modification, PEPRA’s limits on compensation that a retirement system is permitted to include in the calculation of a member’s retirement, thereby increasing pensions for all members, both safety and miscellaneous, who are above the current pensionable compensation caps. a) First, this bill mandates the systems use the 2027 Social Security 430 (b) base instead of the 2013 base to determine the pensionable compensation caps. This provision raises the cap from $159,733 to $184,500 for members covered under Social Security (e.g., miscellaneous members). b) Second, it raises the cap even further for members not covered under Social Security (e.g., safety members, or other members not covered under Social Security) by increasing it the from 120% to 135% of the new 2027 Social Security 430(b) base. This provision raises the cap from $191,679 to $249,075.
c) The provisions thus increase pensionable compensation by someone over the limits up to $24,767 and $57,396 respectively, depending on whether they are covered by Social Security.
5) After imposing one of the new formulas closest to the employer’s PEPRA formula, authorizes a public employer and a recognized employee organization to negotiate for a different new formula for a prospective increase to the retirement benefit formulas for safety members and new safety members. 6) Exempts the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS) and JRS II from this bill’s provisions.
7) Requires that benefit formula increases adopted pursuant to this bill, be established in accordance with PEPRA’s prohibition against retroactive benefit increases.
8) Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that this act shall not be construed to affect any retirement benefits or pension rights accrued before its effective date.
o New Safety Option Two 2.7% @ 57
o New Safety Option Three 3% @ 55 w/ pension limited to 90 % final comp AB 1383

9) Finds and declares the following approximately: the state is experiencing significant challenges recruiting firefighters, police, and other first responders; firefighters face heightened risks of occupational diseases; these high-stress positions contribute to increased rates of disability, injury, and early retirement; it is necessary to adjust safety employee pension formulas to sustain an effective workforce and address occupational challenges; retirement benefits should be collectively bargained; and current compensation caps are too low.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations committee:
• The current California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) actuarial analysis estimates that the bill would increase pension costs for state, school, and local agency plans by approximately $4.8 billion in the present value of future benefits (PVB) and increase annual normal cost contributions by approximately $233 million. The estimated impact varies depending on which provisions of the bill are implemented, as follows:
o Increasing the pensionable compensation limit for all PEPRA members: This provision would increase annual normal cost contributions by approximately $241 million in the first year and increase the PVB by approximately $4.2 billion. The higher costs would apply to all affected employee groups with members whose benefits are impacted by the increased compensation limit. o Increase the benefit age factor for PEPRA safety members: This provision would increase annual normal cost contributions by approximately $38 million in the first year and increase the PVB by approximately $560 million. These costs could be partially offset by an unknown amount if earlier retirement reduces workplace injuries or disability-related costs among safety members.
o Allowing PEPRA and new safety members to receive a 3 percent at age 55 retirement formula: This provision would increase annual normal cost contributions by approximately $353 million in the first year and increase the PVB by approximately $3.4 billion. However, these costs would only occur if an employer and employees negotiate adoption of the enhanced formula through a memorandum of understanding.
• Under current law, PEPRA member and employer contributions generally share the normal cost of benefits equally. Therefore, for the first two scenarios— AB 1383

which would take effect without collective bargaining—the employer share of the estimated increase in normal cost contributions is approximately $141 million annually across state, school, and local employers (General Fund, special funds, and local funds). Additionally, these estimates reflect costs for current PEPRA members only; employer costs would increase over time as additional employees are hired under the bill’s expanded benefit provisions. • CalPERS would incur approximately $1.2 million in one-time administrative costs for information technology updates, revised publications and training materials, increased member call volume, and program support (Public Employees’ Retirement Fund).

Background
Pension Systems Prior to 1999. Before 1999, California's public retirement systems, including CalPERS, provided defined benefit pensions based on a formula incorporating three primary factors: (1) years of credited service, (2) age at retirement, and (3) final compensation. Rather than depending on investment returns or employee contributions, retirees received a guaranteed lifetime benefit determined by statute and, if applicable, collective bargaining agreements.

Retirement formulas varied by employee classification, with public safety employees generally receiving more generous benefits than miscellaneous employees because of the physical demands and earlier retirement expectations associated with those occupations.

Prior to 1999, the retirement formulas available to state employees were generally more modest than those adopted in subsequent years. For example, many state miscellaneous employees were covered by a formula that provided approximately 2 percent of final compensation for each year of service at age 60 ("2 percent at 60"), while safety employees typically received formulas such as 3 percent at age

50. Final compensation for many members was based on the highest average compensation earned over a three-year period, which moderated pension costs by reducing the effect of end-of-career salary increases.

Senate Bill 400 (1999). Enacted during a period of exceptional investment returns and strong funding levels, SB 400 (Ortiz, chapter 555, statutes of 1999) significantly enhanced retirement benefits for many CalPERS members. The legislation was premised on the expectation that robust investment earnings would finance much of the increased cost without requiring substantial additional employer contributions. Among its most significant provisions, SB 400:

AB 1383

• Increased retirement formulas for many state miscellaneous employees from 2 percent at age 60 to 2 percent at age 55, with benefit factors increasing to 2.5 percent at age 63.
• Applied the enhanced benefit formulas retroactively to both past and future service, substantially increasing the pensions of current employees. • Changed the calculation of final compensation for many state and school members from the highest consecutive three-year average salary to the highest consecutive 12-month salary, resulting in larger pension benefits. • Authorized numerous state and local employers to adopt enhanced retirement formulas for additional employee groups, particularly public safety employees.

Impact of SB 400. SB 400 substantially increased long-term pension liabilities for CalPERS and participating public employers. Although the legislation was enacted when CalPERS was more than fully funded and investment markets were producing historically high returns, subsequent market downturns—particularly the dot-com collapse and the 2008 financial crisis—revealed that investment earnings alone were insufficient to finance the enhanced benefits. Employer contribution rates increased significantly over time as unfunded liabilities grew, placing additional pressure on state and local government budgets. While investment losses and other actuarial factors also contributed to the growth in pension liabilities, SB 400's retroactive benefit enhancements are widely regarded as one of the principal factors increasing the long-term cost of California's public pension systems.

Assembly Bill 340 (2012) – Public Employees' Pension Reform Act. In response to growing pension liabilities and escalating employer costs, the Legislature enacted AB 340 (Furutani, Chapter 296, Statutes of 2012), establishing the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). The reforms took effect on January 1, 2013, and primarily apply to individuals who first entered California public retirement systems on or after that date ("new members"). Existing employees (referred to as “classic” members) generally retained the retirement benefits they had already earned. PEPRA implemented numerous reforms designed to reduce future pension costs, including:
• Establishing lower retirement formulas for new employees, such as 2% at age 62 for many miscellaneous state employees and 2.7% at age 57 for many public safety employees.
• Increasing normal retirement ages for many employee groups.

AB 1383

• Requiring new members to pay at least 50% of the normal cost of their pension benefits, subject to collective bargaining.
• Imposing limits on pensionable compensation that may be used to calculate retirement benefits.
• Narrowing the definition of pensionable compensation by excluding certain forms of pay from retirement calculations.
• Restricting pension-spiking practices and placing new limits on post-retirement employment.

Impact of AB 340 (PEPRA). PEPRA fundamentally changed the trajectory of California's public pension systems by reducing the cost of retirement benefits for employees hired on or after January 1, 2013, while preserving the vested benefits of existing employees. Because the reforms apply only to new members, their fiscal effects have accumulated gradually as the workforce has turned over. As a result, an increasing share of employees is now covered by lower-cost benefit formulas, reducing normal pension costs and slowing the growth of future pension liabilities.

These reductions, however, do not represent actual budgetary savings or cash available for other state priorities. Instead, they reflect avoided costs—estimates of how much higher employer pension contributions would have been absent PEPRA.

Employer pension contributions have generally continued to increase as governments fund benefits earned by current employees and pay down substantial unfunded liabilities associated with benefits earned before PEPRA's enactment.

Thus, while PEPRA has improved the long-term sustainability of California's public retirement systems by lowering the cost of future benefits, it has not eliminated existing pension debt or reduced annual pension expenditures in absolute terms.

Thus, PEPRA did not eliminate existing unfunded liabilities associated with benefits previously earned by employees and retirees, which continue to require significant employer contributions. As a result, while PEPRA improved the longterm sustainability of California's public retirement systems, governments remain responsible for amortizing pension obligations that accrued before the reforms took effect.

Comments
AB 1383 Risks. According to the California Actuarial Advisory Panel (CAAP):

AB 1383

“In addition to increasing liabilities and normal cost rates, the changes to the benefit formulas and compensation limits can be expected to increase the future volatility of costs. Higher benefits must eventually result in higher liabilities and assets. With more assets invested in the market, investment risk will go up. With higher liabilities, changes in behavior or assumptions that affect those liabilities - such as a potential future reduction in the discount rate - will have a greater impact on the required contributions.

The changes in the benefits may also result in modifications in member behavior that could result in other unexpected downstream effects. For example, improvements in the benefit multiplier for public safety members at earlier ages could result in changes in the retirement patterns for these members. These changes may not only affect plan costs, but also other compensation and personnelrelated costs, such as post-retirement medical benefits and training or recruitment expenses.”
In other words, if the market significantly deteriorate and/ or members work longer to earn higher pensions under the new formulas than they otherwise would have under the PEPRA formulas, both pension costs and other post-employment benefit costs will be higher than these estimates. Moreover, CalPERS’ estimates for AB 1383 are based on 2024 data. The economy has become much more volatile in the last 2 years with the Iran war-related and Trump tariff-related inflation spikes, the increasing concern over private equity valuations (where CalPERS has substantially increased its portfolio weighting), the potential that we are living through another era of “irrational exuberance” in the stock market driven by AI technology investments, and the expected disruption of economic activity by those AI innovations.

AB 1383’s Potential Inequity from Lifting the Compensation Caps. According to CAAP: “For PEPRA members, current statutes require that members pay at least half of the normal cost (subject to rounding provisions for some groups). As discussed above, the overall normal cost is expected to increase for all groups if they include members with benefits that are expected to be affected by the current PEPRA compensation limits, including non-Safety groups. If this occurs, PEPRA member contribution rates will increase for all members of the group [, unless the employer negotiates to pay more than half the normal cost, which would now be allowed under AB 1383 3]. In other words, it is likely that all PEPRA members 3 The bill no longer authorizes employers and employee representatives to negotiate for the employer to pay the employee contribution. Thus, any increase to normal costs will most likely impact lower-wage employees who will never benefit AB 1383

would be required to contribute more, even though only the more highly compensated individuals will experience any benefit improvement, at least for the non-Safety groups.”
In other words, lower compensated employees whose salary will never hit the current compensation limits will pay more so that highly compensated employees can get an even larger pension.

Unintended Victims if Cost Estimates Are Incorrect. Pension benefits, with good reason, have special protection in California under constitutional case law. Once given, employers can almost never take back the benefits for members who were working when the new benefits were offered. If benefit costs exceed projections, pension systems’ unfunded liability goes up. That requires the systems to raise employer and employee pension contributions. Those increased costs reduce public funding that could otherwise be used to support vulnerable communities who depend on public services for other critical services, especially in health and welfare programs. Because projected costs are likely to increase during economic downturns, these reductions hit those vulnerable communities at the moment they most need public services and when public employers’ resources are most strained.

Ironically, public employee recruitment and retention can also suffer significantly since public employers often respond to resource and cost pressures from increased personnel costs and economic downturns by eliminating positions. That can result in fewer employees being pressured to do far more work with a lot less help and fewer resources. It can also lead to younger employees being blocked from advancement opportunities because of position and wage freezes.

AB 1383’s Effect on Local Government with Pension Systems other than CalPERS.

The proponents have focused exclusively on costs to the state from changes to CalPERS’ plans. However, AB 1383’s provisions mandate that all public pension funds adopt the McKinnor compensation caps and formulas. There are 20 CERL county systems and several other independent systems that will face increasing costs because of AB 1383’s mandate. Those costs have not been evaluated, presumably because they are local costs not General Fund costs. Yet should those local governments fail to be able to pay the increased pension costs, there will be great pressure for the state to bail them out. In any event, those costs will compound the reduction for services to vulnerable populations as outlined above, from the increased pensionable compensation caps. Effectively, lower-paid employees will partially subsidize larger pensions to highly compensated employees.

AB 1383

given that counties and local districts play an outsized role in providing those services. Committee time constraints prevent a substantive analysis of this bill’s potential impact on local government, but opponents and researchers have expressed significant concern that local governments are already under-resourced and unprepared for AB 1383’s costs. 4 For example, according to a coalition of local government associations, including the California State Association of Counties:
“Unfortunately, pension costs for many California public agencies continue to be a challenge, threatening the delivery of basic public services, compromising general fund budgets and, indeed, posing a long-term fiscal challenge to the State itself.

That is why it is increasingly important that any change to the system be sustainable, fair to taxpayers and employees, and provide long-term financial stability. Any change to PEPRA must protect the fiscal integrity of public agencies and retirement for public employees.”
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1054 (Gipson) would establish a Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) to allow participating State Bargaining Unit (BU) 5 peace officers (CAHP) and State BU 8 firefighters (CalFire Local 2881) to elect a deferred retirement date, continue working 1-5 years, freeze their defined benefit (DB) pension benefit accrual, divert their employee contributions and potentially the employer contributions to their DROP account, earn a guaranteed specified interest rate on their DROP savings, and upon reaching the deferred retirement date, receive their pension and a one-time lump-sum payment of their program account balance upon termination of employment and subsequent retirement from CalPERS. The bill is currently on the Senate Floor.

SB 292 (Pan, 2015) specified that the requirement for employees subject to PEPRA to pay 50 percent of the actuarial normal cost of their pension benefits does not apply in specific cities and one county in which voter-approved tax levies were enacted prior to 1978 for the purpose of paying pension costs. The Governor vetoed the bill.

SB 13 (Beall, Chapter 528, Statutes of 2013) made technical corrections to PEPRA in order to clarify the Legislature’s intent in enacting PEPRA and to assist affected employers and retirement systems in implementation of PEPRA. 4 State Association of County Retirement Systems (SACRS) June 3, 2025, letter to Honorable Tina McKinnor; Local Governments Not in Position for AB 1383, Reason Foundation, May 2026 AB 1383

AB 340 (Furutani, Chapter 296, Statutes of 2012) established PEPRA, which made major revisions to the public retirement systems’ laws and applied to all public employers and public pension plans on and after January 1, 2013.

SB 400 (Ortiz, Chapter 555, Statutes of 1999), among other things, provided enhanced retirement formulas for State Peace Officer/Firefighter members who retire on or after January 1, 2000. The enhanced formula provided a retirement benefit factor of 3 percent at and after age 55 and allowed members to retire, on a discounted basis, as early as age 50 and also provided enhanced pension formulas for state patrol members who retire on or after January 1, 2000. The enhanced formula provided a retirement benefit factor of 3 percent at age 50 and was also available as a contract option for local contracting agencies.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)
California Professional Firefighters (source)
Aaron Read & Associates
Alameda City Firefighters Local 689
Alameda County Firefighters IAFF Local 55
Alameda Police Officers Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Anaheim Firefighters Association Local 2899
Apple Valley Professional Firefighters Association Local 4742 Arcadia Firefighters Association Local 3440
Arcata Professional Firefighters Local 4981
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
Atascadero City Firefighters Local 3600
Barstow Professional Firefighters Association Local 2325 BART Police Officers' Association
Berkeley Fire Fighters Association Local 1227
Brea Professional Firefighters Association
Burbank Fire Fighters Local 778
Cal Fire Local 2881
Calaveras Professional Firefighters Association Local 5149 California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Federation of Labor Unions
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Fish & Game Warden Supervisors and Managers Association California Fraternal Order of Police
AB 1383

California School Employees Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
Calistoga Professional Firefighters Association Local 5606 Carlsbad Firefighters Association Local 3730
Cathedral City Firefighters Association Local 3654
Cathedral City Police Management Association
Central Firefighters Local 3535
Chico Firefighters Local 2734
Chino Valley Professional Firefighters Local 3522
Chowchilla City Police Officers' Association
Chula Vista Firefighters Local 2180
City of Downey Police Department
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
Compton Fire Fighters Local 2216
Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Contra Costa County Professional Firefighters Local 1230 Corona Firefighters Association Local 3757
Coronado Fire Fighters Association Local 1475
Costa Mesa Firefighters Local 1465
Culver City Firefighters Association Local 1927
Davis Professional Firefighters Association Local 3494
Deputy Sheriff's Association of Santa Clara County
El Cajon Firefighters Local 4603
El Cajon Police Officers' Association
El Dorado Hills Professional Firefighters Local 3604
El Segundo Firefighters Association Local 3682
Encinitas Firefighters Association Local 3787
Escondido Firefighters Local 3842
Fallbrook Firefighters Association Local 1622
Fire Districts Association of California
Five Cities Professional Firefighters Local 4403
Fountain Valley Firefighters Local 4530
Fremont Fire Fighters Local 1689
Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association
Fullerton Firefighters Association Local 3421
Gilroy Fire Fighters Local 2805
Glendale Professional Firefighters Local 776
Hanford Police Officers Association
Hawthorne Police Officers Association
Hayward Fire Fighters Local 1909
AB 1383

Healdsburg Fire Fighters Local 2604
Heartland Firefighters of LA Mesa Local 4759
Heartland Firefighters of Lemon Grove Local 2728
Hemet City Firefighters Association Local 2342
Huntington Beach Firefighters Association Local 3354
Imperial Beach Firefighters Association Local 4692
Kern County Firefighters Local 1301 Union
LA Mesa Police Officers Association
LA Verne Firefighters Association Local 3624
Laguna Beach Firefighters Local 3684
Lakeside Firefighters Association Local 4488
Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis
Livermore-Pleasanton Firefighters Local 1974
Long Beach Firefighters Local 372
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Los Angeles Port Police Association
Marin Professional Firefighters Local 1775
Marina Peace Officer Association
Merced City Firefighters Local 1479
Milpitas Firefighters Local 1699
Modesto City Firefighters Local 1289
Monrovia Firefighters Local 2415
Montebello Firefighters Association Local 3821
Monterey Firefighters Association Local 3707
Murrieta Fire Fighters Local 3540
Napa City Fire Fighters Local 3124
Nasa JPL Professional Firefighters Local I-94
National City Firefighters Association Local 2744
Nevada County Professional Firefighters Local 3800
Newport Beach Firefighters Association Local 3734
Oakland Firefighters Local 55
Oceanside Firefighters Association Local 3736
Ontario Professional Firefighters Local 1430
Orange City Firefighters Local 2384
Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631 Oxnard Firefighters Local 1684
Palm Springs Firefighters Association Local 3601
Palo Alto Police Officers' Association
AB 1383

Palo Alto Professional Firefighters Local 1319
Pasadena Firefighters Local 809
Paso Robles Professional Firefighters Local 4148
Patterson Firefighters Association Local 4577
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Petaluma Firefighters Local 1415
Plumas County Sheriff's Employees' Association
Poway Firefighters Association Local 3922
Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County Local 1401
Rancho Cucamonga Firefighters Association Local 2274
Rancho Santa Fe Professional Firefighters Association Local 4349 Redlands Police Officers Association
Redlands Professional Firefighters Association Local 1354 Redondo Beach Fire Association Local 2787
Rialto Professional Firefighters Local 3688
Richmond International Association of Firefighters Local 188 Riverside City Firefighters Association Local 1067
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Running Springs Professional Firefighters Local 5308
Sacramento Area Firefighters Local 522
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Salinas Fire Fighters Local 1270
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association San Diego City Fire Fighters Local 145
San Diego County Probation Officers Association
San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798
San Gabriel City Firemen’s Association Local 2197
San Joaquin County Correctional Officers Association
San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230
San Luis Obispo City Firefighters Local 3523
San Marcos Firefighters Association Local 4184
San Mateo County Firefighters Local 2400
San Ramon Valley Firefighters Association Local 3546
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Barbara City Firefighters Association Local 525
Santa Barbara County Firefighters Local 2046
Santa Clara City Firefighters Local 1171
Santa Clara County Firefighters Local 1165
Santa Cruz City Firefighters Local 1716
Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriffs Association
AB 1383

Santa Maria City Firefighters Local 2020
Santa Monica Fire Fighters Local 1109
Sausalito Police Association
Seaside Firefighters Local 1218
SEIU California
Sierra County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Sierra County Sheriff
Sierra Madre Professional Firefighters Local 5216
Sierra Nevada Firefighters Local 3800
Solana Beach Firefighters Local 3779
Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association
St. Helena Police Officers' Association
Stanislaus Consolidated Firefighters Local 3399
Stockton Firefighters Local 456
Templeton Firefighters Local 5422
Torrance Fire Fighters Association Local 1138
Tracy City Fire Fighters Local 3355
Union City Police Officer's Association
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
Vacaville Firefighters Association IAFF Local 3501
Vandenberg Professional Firefighters Local F-116
Ventura City Firefighters Association Local 3431
Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Ventura County Professional Firefighters Association Local 1364 Ventura County Professional Peace Officers Association
Vista Firefighters Association Local 4107
Walnut Creek Police Officer Association
Watsonville Professional Firefighters Local 1272
West Covina Fire Fighters Local 3226
Williams Police Officers Association
Woodland Professional Firefighters Local 4029
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)
Amador Water Agency
Association of California Cities - Orange County
Association of California School Administrators
Beverly Hills; City of
Brea; City of
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
AB 1383

California Association of School Business Officials
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
California Transit Association
City of Adelanto
City of Alameda
City of Belmont
City of Benicia
City of Big Bear Lake
City of Burbank
City of Calimesa
City of Carpinteria
City of Citrus Heights
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Del Mar
City of Dublin
City of Fairfield
City of Firebaugh
City of Folsom, California
City of Fontana
City of Fortuna
City of Garden Grove
City of Grand Terrace
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Highland
City of Inglewood City Hall
City of Irwindale
City of LA Palma
City of LA Quinta, Riverside County, California
City of Lakewood CA
City of Lancaster
City of Larkspur
City of Livermore
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Lynwood
City of Manteca
City of Mill Valley
AB 1383

City of Morro Bay
City of Napa
City of Norwalk
City of Pacific Grove
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Perris
City of Pleasanton
City of Port Hueneme
City of Poway
City of Rohnert Park
City of Salinas
City of San Rafael
City of San Ramon
City of Santa Paula
City of Santa Rosa
City of Solvang
City of Sonoma
City of St. Helena
City of Stanton
City of Suisun City
City of Sunnyvale
City of Vernon
City of Walnut
City of Weed
City of Yorba Linda
Coalinga; City of
Conejo Recreation and Park District
Contra Costa County
County of Humboldt
County of Kern
County of Napa
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Danville; Town of
Fillmore; City of
Fresno Mosquito and Vector Control District
Hemet; City of
Herlong Public Utility District
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Kingsburg; City of
AB 1383

LA Habra: City of
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Unified School District
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Mission Viejo; City of
Murrieta; City of
Oceanside; City of
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Soledad; City of
Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association
Stanton; City of
Templeton Community Services District
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Fairfax
Town of Moraga
Tulare; City of
Urban Counties of California
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Valley Sanitary District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to a coalition of firefighter unions:
“Firefighting is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs imaginable. Those who answer the call to serve their communities put their mental and physical health on the line every time they respond to an incident, risking a known range of injuries and illnesses to serve the public. Firefighters carry a 14% higher risk of dying of cancer than the general population. This risk is so great that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified occupational exposure as a firefighter as a Group 1 known human carcinogen.

These cancer risks come from innumerable sources, including circadian rhythm disruption, smoke inhalation, exposure to toxic chemicals and substances, and many more. Every day on the job represents a new set of exposures to these known risks.

Asking firefighters to work for a significantly longer period in a deadly profession for a reduced pension does not make economic sense. While changes to the pension systems that disadvantage workers are nearly always framed in financial terms such as increasing the health of the fund and reducing taxpayer costs, these costs are not fully eliminated but transferred.

AB 1383

Put most simply – the longer a firefighter is forced to work, the more likely it is they will develop cancer or another job-caused illness, thereby incurring significant workers’ compensation and industrial disability retirement costs. Due to minimum staffing requirements, every day that a firefighter is off the job due to a job-caused injury or illness, another member must be assigned to take their place, adding the cost of mandatory overtime to what is necessary for treatment. With these health risks in mind, the adjustments proposed by AB 1383 will help protect firefighters by providing pathways for a dignified retirement by age 55.

Outside of health-related issues, a recent report by the National Institute on Retirement Security found that pension benefits drive significant economic activity in California, both through the direct support of jobs and their wages as well as the spending power granted to retirees by their secure retirement. This activity included $28.4 billion in wages and salaries, $86.9 billion in economic output, and $16.6 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues. This results in the “pension benefit multiplier” that means each dollar paid out in pension benefits results in $1.27 in economic output, and the “taxpayer investment factor” that means each dollar contributed by taxpayers results in $4.30 in economic output.” ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to a coalition of approximately several local government associations, including the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Special Districts Association:
“AB 1383 increases mandated costs without a way for public agencies to absorb them.

The potential cost of this bill comes at a time of fiscal uncertainty. Much like the state, local agencies are facing budget challenges, as revenues are not keeping pace with the costs of delivering services or new mandates and are facing significant loss of resources and heightened responsibilities due to passage of H.R. 1. Some local agencies are currently considering significant budget cuts across all departments. AB 1383 would cause increased benefit costs and new cost pressures, leading to serious cost increases for local government.

According to CalPERS, given the current discount rate of 6.8%, AB 1383 is expected to increase the required contributions of employers and PEPRA members and increase the present value of future benefits (PVB) by $4.8 billion across State, Schools, and Local Agency plans. In addition to the change in PVB, CalPERS estimates that the change to the accrued liability to be $233 million across State, Schools, and Local Agency plans. Additionally, AB 1383 further proposes that employers may increase their PEPRA formula to 3% at age 55 through individual AB 1383

agency collective bargaining. The benefit for this formula will be limited to 90 percent of final compensation. The increase in the normal cost due to this change could lead to increased annual normal cost contributions of $353 million in the first year and increase the present value of future benefits by $3.4 billion.

The CalPERS analysis does not include estimates for non-CalPERS pension systems, including for the twenty county-operated pension systems. Additionally, these costs are based on a snapshot of current compensation for public employees and could be heightened significantly if compensation increases rise and exceed the current compensation cap.

As of June 30, 2025, the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) was approximately 79% funded. If CalPERS misses its investment return mark of

6.8%, local agencies in CalPERS and the State have to pay the difference. Again, this bill would compound costs for local governments and the State and do nothing to offset the costs.

While this bill may be prospective, agencies have already been authorizing salary increases since the passage of PEPRA under the assumption that the cost of benefits would remain in line with current PEPRA law. The prospective costs would likely cause an immediate financial strain on any agency, especially those with a large number of PEPRA safety employees.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-2, 1/29/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, BauerKahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas NOES: DeMaio, Tangipa
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Ellis, Gipson, Johnson, Macedo, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Valencia
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 8/14/26 9:58:05
**** END ****

Assembly Bill No. 1569
Passed the Assembly May 14, 2026
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
Passed the Senate August 10, 2026
Secretary of the Senate
This bill was received by the Governor this day
of , 2026, at o’clock m.

Private Secretary of the Governor

CHAPTER
An act to add Article 9 (commencing with Section 49397) to Chapter 8 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to pupil safety.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1569, Davies. Pupil safety: electric bicycle: safety and training program.

Existing law establishes the State Department of Education in state government, and vests the department with specified powers and duties relating to the state’s public school system. Existing law establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol, under the control of the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, within the Transportation Agency. Existing law requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to develop statewide safety and training programs based on evidence-based practices for users of electric bicycles.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2028, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, to develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, as provided. In developing the program, the bill would authorize the State Department of Education and the Department of the California Highway Patrol to collaborate with local law enforcement agencies or local governments that have implemented electric bicycle training programs already to ensure the program reflects proven best practices. The bill would encourage local educational agencies and parent organizations to offer training demonstrations to pupils and parents on electric bicycle operations in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies or local governments, as specified.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Article 9 (commencing with Section 49397) is added to Chapter 8 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, to read:
96 AB 1569 — 2 —
Article 9. Electric Bicycle Safety
49397. (a)  (1)  On or before March 1, 2028, the department, in consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, shall develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive. (2)  The program developed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include, but is not limited to, an online component consisting of instructional videos and a knowledge-based comprehensive assessment covering rules of the road, operating differences between the classes of electric bicycles, required safety equipment, and the civil and criminal implications of operating noncompliant electric bicycles that exceed legal speed limits.
(3)  The department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol may collaborate with local law enforcement agencies or local governments that have already implemented electric bicycle training programs to ensure the program developed pursuant to paragraph (1) reflects proven best practices. (b)  A local educational agency or parent organization, in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies or local governments, is encouraged to offer training demonstrations to pupils and parents on electric bicycle operations related to safe mounting, braking, signaling, yielding, and riding protocols. These training demonstrations may be administered on school campuses or at a designated community facility.
(c)  For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)  “Classes of electric bicycles” include “class 1 electric bicycles,” “class 2 electric bicycles,” and “class 3 electric bicycles,” as defined in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(2)  “Local educational agency” means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
96 — 3 — AB 1569
Approved , 2026
Governor
Assembly Bill No. 1614
CHAPTER 40
An act to amend Section 21204 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor June 30, 2026. Filed with Secretary of State June 30, 2026.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1614, Dixon. Vehicles: bicycles.

Existing law, the California Bicycle Transportation Act, establishes 4 classifications of facilities, referred to as bikeways, that provide primarily for, and promote, bicycle travel. Existing law requires a person operating a bicycle, which includes an electric bicycle, upon a highway to ride the bicycle upon or astride a permanent and regular seat unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat. Existing law requires a person riding as a passenger on a bicycle upon a highway to be upon or astride a seat attached to the bicycle, as specified. A violation of these provisions in punishable as an infraction.

This bill would make those provisions applicable to the operation of a bicycle upon a Class I bikeway. By expanding an existing infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 21204 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21204. (a)   A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or a Class I bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto, unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat.
(b)   An operator shall not allow a person riding as a passenger, and a person shall not ride as a passenger, on a bicycle upon a highway or a Class I bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, other than upon or astride a separate seat attached thereto. If the passenger is four years of age or younger, or weighs 40 pounds or less, the seat shall have adequate provision for retaining the passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle.

97 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

O
97 Ch. 40 — 2 —

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1632

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1632
Author: Johnson (R)
Amended: 3/19/26 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26
AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-0, 5/7/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Trespass
SOURCE: City of Riverside
DIGEST: This bill removes the requirement that trespass letters of authorization be submitted in notarized writing on a law enforcement agency (LEA)-provided form and instead requires that the form be signed under penalty of perjury.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Provides that a person is guilty of misdemeanor trespass if they enter and occupy real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession (hereafter “owner”). (Pen.

Code, § 602, subd. (m).)
2) Punishes trespass as a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. (Penal (Pen.) Code, §§ 19, 602.)
3) Provides that a person is guilty of misdemeanor trespass if they refuse or fail to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by the AB 1632

owner, or by a peace officer at the request of the owner upon being informed by the officer that they are acting at the request of the owner. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
4) Requires the owner to make a separate request to an officer on each occasion when an officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
5) Authorizes an owner to make a single request for an officer’s assistance, made in a notarized writing on an LEA-provided form, to cover up to 12 months or a period determined by local ordinance, whichever is shorter, and identified by specific dates, during a period where there is a fire hazard or the owner is absent from the premises or property. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).) 6) Authorizes an owner to make a single request for an officer’s assistance, made in a notarized writing on an LEA-provided form, to cover up to 12 months when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
7) Requires the requester to inform the LEA to which the request was made, in writing, if assistance is no longer desired before the 12-month authorization period expires. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
8) Specifies that this offense does not apply to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
9) Provides that land, real property, or structures owned or operated by a housing authority for tenants, as defined, constitutes property not open to the general public, although this offense does not apply to persons on the premises who are engaging in constitutionally protected activities, or who are there at the request of a resident or management and who are not loitering or otherwise suspected of violating a law or ordinance. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).) 10) Provides that a request for a peace officer’s assistance shall expire upon transfer of ownership of the property or upon a change in the person in lawful possession. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).)
11) Provides that a request for an officer’s assistance in dealing with a trespass may be submitted electronically, and a local government may accept electronic submissions of requests. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).) AB 1632

12) Establishes numerous other trespass crimes, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 602, subds. (a)-(y).)
13) Establishes that every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. (Pen. Code, § 118.)
14) States that perjury is punishable as a realigned felony with imprisonment in county jail for two, three, or four years.

This bill:
1) Eliminates the requirement that the written request for officer assistance in dealing with a trespass be notarized.
2) Requires that the written request be signed under penalty of perjury.

Background
As a general rule, a person who enters and occupies real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner is guilty of misdemeanor trespass. (Pen.

Code, § 602, subd. (m).) Trespass is typically a misdemeanor, though California law does include a felony for aggravated trespass. (Pen. Code, § 601.) For misdemeanor trespass, the penalty is up to six months of jail time or up to a $1,000 fine, or both. (Pen. Code, §§ 19, 602.) California’s primary trespass statute—Penal Code section 602—has nearly an entire alphabet of subdivisions. Most of the subdivisions in Section 602 define separate crimes, typically each with slightly different elements than the other subdivisions.

Most relevant to this bill, a person is guilty of misdemeanor trespass if they refuse or fail to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by the owner or by a peace officer at the request of the owner. (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o).) Owners of such property may request law enforcement assistance in ejecting trespassers from their property. Owners are generally required to submit a separate request to law enforcement for each occasion where law enforcement AB 1632

assistance in ejecting the trespasser is required. However, during a period where there is a fire hazard or the owner is absent, or when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as such, a single request for assistance may be valid for the shorter of either 12 months or a period determined by local ordinance. Such requests must be made in a notarized writing on an LEA-provided form and may be submitted electronically. A request for assistance expires upon transfer of ownership of the property or upon a change in the person in lawful possession.

Lastly, the owner must inform the LEA to which the request was made, in writing, when assistance is no longer desired, before the period not exceeding 12 months expires. (Ibid.)
Requests for law enforcement assistance in enforcing trespass laws are generally made via a “Trespass Letter of Authority.” These letters, also known as “602 Letters,” authorize local authorities to enter the premises to enforce trespass laws in the owner’s absence.

Criminal trespass laws, enforced in part through trespass authorization letters, are often used to address homelessness. For example, in 2019, Bakersfield officials proposed a program to fight homelessness by more aggressively prosecuting and incarcerating trespassers. In 2025, San Jose voted to adopt a new ordinance subjecting an unhoused person to arrest for trespass if that person has rejected three offers for shelter.

Critics argue that trespass authorization letters exacerbate homelessness by disproportionately targeting homeless individuals. According to a report by the ACLU, “trespass letters of authorization enable police, local businesses, public services, and even homelessness service providers to work together to control the movements of unhoused people and exclude them from both public and private spaces.” In a case study conducted in Laguna Beach, the ACLU found that “[s]eventy percent of trespass letters of authorization reference unhoused people as an impetus for the letter” and that from 2020 to April 2021, “three-quarters of all trespassing citations were issued to people that police officers identified as being unhoused.”
Trespass letters can constitute a significant portion of the total citations issued to unhoused persons. According to the ACLU Report, of the 97 citations issued to unhoused people in Laguna Beach from January 2020 to April 2021, 67 (69 percent) resulted from trespass authorization letters. Such strict enforcement of trespass laws can contribute to a cycle of arrests, hearings, and fines that make emerging from homelessness more difficult.

AB 1632

This bill removes a procedural requirement that applies to trespass authorization letters for the trespass offense of refusing or failing to leave private property upon being requested to leave by the owner or a peace officer. Specifically, it removes the requirement that the request for assistance in dealing with a trespasser be made in a notarized writing on an LEA-provided form, during a period where there is a fire hazard or the owner is absent, or when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as such. The author contends that this notarization requirement is onerous and overly burdensome. This notarization requirement was recently added by SB 602 (Archuleta, Chapter 404, Statutes of 2023), and has only been in effect for approximately two years. This requirement largely functions to protect the credibility of 602 Letter submissions by verifying the identity of the owner submitting the letter.

Instead of notarization, this bill now requires these forms to be signed under penalty of perjury, which is a felony punishable but two, three, or four years in county jail.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified 6/23/26)
City of Riverside (Source)
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of Realtors
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
City of Corona
City of Eastvale
City of Norwalk
City of Palm Desert
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
AB 1632

Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
The California Baptist Capitol Ministry
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/9/26)
ACLU California Action
California Public Defenders Association
Housing California
Initiate Justice
Justice2Jobs Coalition
La Defensa
Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union, Local 148
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The City of Riverside writes:

Under current law, property owners must obtain a notarized form to allow peace officers to act on their behalf when trespass occurs. This creates unnecessary delays and costs for residents and imposes a significant administrative burden on local law enforcement agencies.

For Riverside, the notarization mandate has had real operational impacts. Since the requirement took effect, the Riverside Police Department has processed roughly 1,400 notarizations, each taking about 30 minutes of Community Service Officer time at a billable rate of $54.02 per hour, totaling over $37,800 in staff costs. The City also spent $8,177.68 to certify additional employees as notaries to meet demand. These resources are better directed toward public safety work rather than duplicative paperwork.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: ACLU California Action writes:

As a case study for the harms unhoused people experience with California Penal Code 602 citations for trespass, the ACLU report shows that trespassing citations issued in Laguna Beach demonstrates that unhoused people are overwhelmingly targeted for enforcement.

From the beginning of 2020 through April 22, 2021, a full threequarters of all trespassing citations were issued to people that police officers identified as being unhoused (see Figure 11). In some of the remaining cases, the housing status of the person issued the citation is unknown. Most of the citations issued to unhoused people resulted from trespass letters: of the 97 citations issued to unhoused people, 67 AB 1632

(69 percent) resulted from trespass letters of authorization. Moreover, a full 87 percent of all citations resulting from trespass letters of authorization were issued to people police officers identified as being unhoused (See Figure 12.)
Finally, this policy would fall disproportionately on people experiencing homelessness, and extensive evidence shows it would likely exacerbate and prolong their homelessness. Trespassing is often one of the most common offenses used to cite people experiencing homelessness. Yet the arrests, citations, and fines that arise from these offenses often make it harder for people to move back into housing— one recent study showed citations and arrests prolonged a person’s homelessness for nearly two years, even when controlling for other factors.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-0, 5/7/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, BauerKahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, SharpCollins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Chen, Elhawary, Flora, Hart, Hoover, Kalra, Lee, McKinnor, Petrie-Norris, Celeste Rodriguez, Wallis, Ward, Wicks
Prepared by: Marshal Lawler / PUB. S. /
6/24/26 16:28:32
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1738

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1738
Author: Carrillo (D), et al.

Amended: 7/2/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/17/26
AYES: Durazo, Arreguín, Cervantes, Laird
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Ashby
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-2, 6/30/26
AYES: Arreguín, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Padilla NOES: Seyarto, Ochoa Bogh
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-0, 5/22/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: State Housing Law: remote inspections
SOURCE: Permit Power,
SPUR
DIGEST: This bill requires cities and counties to offer a homeowner or contractor the option of a remote virtual inspection for specified projects in singleor two-family dwelling units.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Establishes State Housing Law (SHL) to ensure uniform statewide code enforcement to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and accessory buildings.

AB 1738

2) Establishes the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) within the Department of General Services. Requires CBSC to adopt building standards and codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. 3) Authorizes any officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency to enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent violation of, SHL, the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations.
4) Requires local building departments to complete inspections of permitted residential work for 1- to 10-unit residential projects that are no more than 40’ tall within 10 business days of receiving notice of completion. 5) Allows the governing body of any county or city, including a charter city, to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by SHL or rules and regulations adopted pursuant to SHL and prohibits these fees from exceeding the amount reasonably required to administer or process these permits, certificates, or other forms or documents, or to defray the costs of enforcement required by SHL to be carried out by local enforcement agencies, as specified.
6) Requires, if the local enforcement agency fails to conduct an inspection of permitted work for which permit fees have been charged pursuant to 5), above, within 60 days of receiving notice of the completion of the permitted work, the permittee to be entitled to reimbursement of the permit fees. The local enforcement agency shall disclose in clear language on each permit or on a document that accompanies the permit that the permittee may be entitled to reimbursement of permit fees.

This bill:
1) Requires a city or county to offer a homeowner or contractor the option of requesting a Remote Virtual Inspection (RVI) for inspections required by a building permit for any of the following projects in single- or two-family dwelling units:
a) Residential heat pump water heaters, including the alteration, extension, or replacement of components of an existing electrical system to support the installation of a heat pump water heater.

AB 1738

i) As part of the electrical work appurtenant to the installation of the residential heat pump water heater, the local agency shall not be required to allow for RVIs of new or upgraded main electrical services as part of the included scope, but may at their discretion elect to remotely inspect new electrical service installations in support of residential heat pump water heater installations.
b) Subject to the discretion of the inspector, residential heat pump heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems (HVAC), including the alteration, extension, or replacement of components of an existing electrical system to support the installation of a heat pump HVAC system.
i) As part of the electrical work appurtenant to the installation of the residential heat pump HVAC system, the local agency shall not be required to allow for RVIs of new or upgraded main electrical services as part of the included scope, but may at their discretion elect to remotely inspect new electrical service installations in support of residential heat pump HVAC system installations.
c) Residential reroofs.
d) Photovoltaic systems with an alternating current nameplate rating less than or equal to 15 kilowatts and energy storage systems.
e) Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
2) Requires a remote inspection to be conducted offsite, with the homeowner or contractor using one of the following methods, at the discretion of the local construction inspector:
a) Videoconferencing.
b) Recorded photos and videos.
3) Requires that, if a local agency requires an RVI, the contractor must disclose to the homeowner that the inspection is required to be conducted remotely. 4) Exempts a city with a population of fewer than 5,000 people, or a county with a population of fewer than 150,00 people, and each city within those counties.

AB 1738

5) Requires a city or county with a population of greater than 50,000 to comply with the bill’s requirements by January 1, 2028. Other cities and counties (except those that are exempt) have an additional six months to comply. 6) Requires a city or county to offer a remote inspection at no greater cost and with no greater delay than in-person inspection. It allows local agencies to adopt reasonable protocols governing the technical conduct of an RVI, including to ensure that:
a) The inspector is able to adequately observe the work that is the subject of the RVI, as specified;
b) The work shown in the RVI is the actual work performed under the building permit, at the permitted location, and the video or photo inspection begins at the street, clearly showing the property address at the front of the building or proof of location; and
c) The technology and broadband connectivity used during the RVI are sufficient for the inspector to reliably observe and verify the work. 7) Allows, if a homeowner or contractor fails an RVI, a construction inspector to, at their discretion, conduct future inspections required by that building permit remotely or in person. The bill also provides that it does not limit, supersede, or otherwise abridge the authority of a construction inspector, after they have attempted to verify compliance with applicable codes and regulations, to terminate that remote inspection and require that the inspection be conducted in person.
8) Allows a city or county, if the homeowner or contractor is found to have willfully misrepresented the work that is the subject of an RVI, to temporarily ban the homeowner or contractor from using RVIs for up to 6 months for the first offense and 12 months for subsequent offenses.
9) Applies specified liability protection for cities and counties and their employees to RVIs and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes. 10) Allows a city or county to adopt or implement remote inspections in a manner more permissive, or allowing additional types of building permits to be inspected remotely, than provided in the bill.

AB 1738

Background
Building inspections. Once the building permits are issued and construction begins, the construction phase involves a separate layer of local government oversight through building inspections. These inspections ensure that the actual construction work complies with approved plans, building codes, and safety regulations. Local agency inspectors review critical aspects of construction such as structural components, electrical and plumbing systems, fire safety measures, energy efficiency, and accessibility requirements, at multiple stages of the project.

Inspections occur throughout construction, from foundation and framing to final issuance of a certificate of occupancy, ensuring building safety and compliance with the approved set of plans at every step.

Remote Virtual Inspections (RVIs). During the COVID-19 pandemic, cities and counties explored alternative ways of performing inspection to preserve public health. Some jurisdictions adopted “Remote Virtual Inspections” (RVIs), which allow building inspectors to review permitted construction work without being physically present at the jobsite. Instead, the inspection is conducted using video, photographs, or similar technology while a contractor, property owner, or other representative is present at the site and follows the inspector’s directions, or records media to be sent to the inspector.

Some jurisdictions have continued to offer RVIs following the pandemic, while others have returned primarily to in-person inspections. Approximately 19 out of the 540 cities and counties in California currently allow some use of RVIs for portions of their inspection workload.

Research by SPUR argues that the current system that generally requires in-person inspection increases costs for homeowners. SPUR notes that the total number of inspections of single family homes ranges from 110,000 to 200,000 a year in California. SPUR interviewed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractors for the project, who reported waiting 2 to 6 hours for inspections that take 5 to 15 minutes. This wait time drives costs of $600 to $1,000 per inspection.

SPUR argues that RVIs:
• Reduce travel costs and environmental impacts and free up time for building inspectors to focus on new construction;
AB 1738

• Accelerate the clean energy transition by reducing costs and delays when installing a heat pump water heater or HVAC, upgrading electrical panels, or installing solar panels;
• Reduce work backlogs, shorten permitting timelines, minimize disruptions at job sites, and lower renovation costs;
• Improve inspector safety; and
• Streamline disaster recovery by reducing permit delays, improving efficiency, and enabling faster rebuilding.

Clean energy advocates want the Legislature to require local agencies to adopt RVIs.

Comments
1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Like many of you, I’m a homeowner, and have also experienced the frustration of waiting weeks for an inspection on a simple home renovation. Even once the inspection date is booked, a routine inspection that only takes 15 minutes can take hours, forcing homeowners to take a day off work and a day of lost pay. Even beyond the money lost from missing work, the cost of delaying these inspections can also cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
“AB 1738 proposes an alternative to this, by giving homeowners the choice to request a remote virtual inspection for simple home renovations. These remote inspections are already happening throughout the state; 19 different jurisdictions already offer some form of remote inspections. This bill will require local jurisdictions to allow remote virtual inspections upon request for simple renovations. This is a simple, commonsense affordability measure that will help homeowners save time and money.”
2) Safety or convenience. It is relatively clear that RVIs increase convenience for homeowners, contractors, and building officials when having permitted work inspected. Historically, however, the purpose of inspections has been to preserve public safety and hold contractors accountable to ensure that work performed on behalf of homeowners is done correctly. By removing the physical presence of a building inspector and limiting them to visual and audio means of inspecting, RVIs may not allow the same depth of investigation of the details of construction as an in-person inspection. For example, it may be more difficult for a building inspector to ensure that an electrical connection is tight absent physically touching it. This raises concerns that RVIs could result in AB 1738

substandard work that may pose a safety hazard. AB 1738 lets homeowners and contractors, not building officials, determine when an RVI may be suitable for certain types of permits. A building official that identifies issues can request an in-person inspection, but the default remains remote. Supporters of the bill argue that there is no difference in safety between RVIs and in-person inspections, while building officials and local governments state that safety issues will go undiscovered. Is the convenience of RVIs worth the potential safety impacts?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified 8/4/26)
Permit Power (co-source)
SPUR (co-source)
Alexander Walker-griffin, Councilmember, City of Hercules Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, City of Berkeley
City of El Monte, Mayor Pro Tem, Viviana Longoria
City of Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, First District, City of Los Angeles Councilmember Terry Taplin, Berkeley
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tempore, City of Pinole
Eunisses Hernandez, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles
Igor Tregub, Vice Mayor, City of Berkeley
Janani Ramachandran, Councilmember, City of Oakland
Lindsey P. Horvath, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Rebecca Saltzman, Councilmember, City of El Cerrito
Salvador Melendez, Councilmember, City of Montebello
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, City of Berkeley
Tim Sandoval, Mayor, City of Pomona
Victor Preciado, Councilmember, City of Pomona
Zac Unger, City of Oakland Councilmember
350 Bay Area Action
350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley
350 Humboldt County
350 South Bay Los Angeles
350 Southland Legislative Alliance
Abundant Housing Los Angeles
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet
Activesgv
Advanced Energy United
AB 1738

All-electric California
Apartment Association of Orange County
California Apartment Association
California Center for Sustainable Energy
California Climate Action
California Environmental Voters
California Yimby
Casita Coalition
Central City Association of Los Angeles
City and County of San Francisco
City of Baldwin Park
City of Oakland
City of Pico Rivera
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Resolve
Community Action to Fight Asthma
East Bay Rental Housing Association
East Bay Yimby
Fresnans Against Fracking
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Healing and Justice Center
Housing Action Coalition
Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator
Los Angeles Climate Reality Project
Megafire Action
Menlo Spark
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors Sf
Palisades Recovery Coalition
Peninsula for Everyone
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Redwood Energy
Regional Asthma Management & Prevention
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP)
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition
AB 1738

San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association (SPUR) San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Jose Yimby
San Mateo Forward
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sf Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Sustainable Claremont
The Climate Center
The Two Hundred for Homeownership
U.s. Green Building Council
Vector Green Power, LLC
Ventura County Yimby
Yes! in Redwood City
Yimby Action
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby Monterey Peninsula
Yimby Slo
Zillow Group
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/4/26)
California Building Officials
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of La Verne
City of Thousand Oaks
League of California Cities
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-0, 5/22/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
AB 1738

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Gabriel, Gallagher, Irwin, Jackson, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Schiavo, Ta, Valencia
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119 8/5/26 14:57:39
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1751

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1751
Author: Quirk-Silva (D) and Wicks (D)
Amended: 8/4/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26
AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/1/26
AYES: Durazo, Arreguín, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Seyarto NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:

This bill establishes the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, which creates a streamlined, ministerial approval process for townhome developments on residentially zoned lots.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Establishes, pursuant to SB 79 (Weiner, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025), 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, including increased height, floor area ratio, and density.

AB 1751

2) Establishes, the Starter Home Revitalization Act (SHRA) pursuant to SB 684 (Caballero, Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023), and SB 1123 (Caballero, Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024), which creates a ministerial process for the subdivision of a lot zoned for multifamily development, or lots that are vacant and zoned for single-family residential development, to develop up to 10 residential units. 3) Requires, pursuant to SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021), the streamlined and ministerial approval by a local agency of a duplex in a singlefamily zone, and the urban lot split of a parcel zoned for residential uses into two parcels.
4) Establishes, pursuant to state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Law, uniform statewide standards that compel every California jurisdiction to ministerially approve ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) on residential lots, by establishing statewide planning standards and review shot clocks, and limiting local discretion. Single-family lots can now have up to three ADUs: one interior or conversion ADU, one detached ADU, and one JADU. Multifamily properties must allow at least one ADU within existing non-livable space (or up to 25 % of the number of existing units), two detached ADUs for new construction projects, and up to eight detached ADUs for existing multifamily buildings, so long as the total number of ADUs do not exceed the number of existing units. 5) Establishes, pursuant to SB 35 (Weiner, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017)/SB 423 (Wiener, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023), a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain infill multifamily affordable housing projects that are compliant with local zoning and objective standards and that are proposed in local jurisdictions that have not met their regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).
6) Establishes, pursuant to AB 2011 (Wicks, Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022), a streamlined, ministerial approval process, not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for certain infill multifamily affordable housing projects that are located on land that is zoned for retail, office, or parking.
7) Establishes, pursuant to SB 6 (Caballero, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022), the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, allowing residential uses on commercially zoned property without requiring a rezoning.
8) Establishes the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which, among other things, establishes time limits within which state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits to entitle a development.

AB 1751

9) Establishes standards and requirements for local agencies to review postentitlement phase permits, including time limits within which local agencies must either approve or disapprove these permits.
10) Establishes the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which establishes requirements for a local agency to approve or disapprove an application for a housing development project, as specified.
11) Establishes the Subdivision Map Act, which governs subdivisions of land, establishes requirements for the mapping of subdivided lands, and establishes requirements for recordation of land maps.

This bill:
1) Establishes the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, which creates a ministerial approval pathway for qualifying townhome housing development projects and related subdivision maps, and defines the following terms:
a) “Townhome” as a single-family dwelling unit of three stories or less that either shares a common wall with other single-family units on one or two sides, or is separated from neighboring units by no more than the minimum fire separation distance set forth in the Building Standards Code. b) “Townhome development project” as a housing development consisting entirely of townhomes that satisfies all of the following:
i) The average total area of floorspace for the proposed townhomes does not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet, as specified. ii) The project will meet at least 75% of the applicable Mullin density under Housing Element Law.
iii)The project contains no more than 150 units.
iv) For projects that include 11 or more units dedicate at least 10% of the total units to lower income households, as specified, or the level specified in an applicable local inclusionary requirement, whichever is higher. 2) Requires local agencies to consider qualifying townhome development applications ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. 3) Allows local agencies to apply objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards, but prohibits standards that would
AB 1751

a) Physically preclude the project from meeting the required density; b) Impose special requirements because the project seeks approval under the provisions created by this bill; or,
c) Require covered/enclosed parking where otherwise prohibited or restricted. 4) Allows a local agency to deny a qualifying townhome project only with a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse public health or safety impact with no feasible mitigation or avoidance method.
5) Creates a separate ministerial subdivision process for parcel maps and tentative/final maps for qualifying townhome projects that meet this bill's site, density, ownership, affordability, anti-displacement, environmental, infrastructure, and objective-standard requirements.
6) Limits eligible subdivision sites to those zoned for multifamily residential use or certain underutilized single-family residential sites, and excludes the following sites:
a) Sites eligible for SB 79 upzoning;
b) Sites for mobilehome/RV/special occupancy parks;
c) Sites in non-urban areas that are not infill, as defined; d) Sites that are historic, as specified and
e) Sites that are identified to accommodate any portion of a jurisdictions share of the regional need for low-income or very low-income households. f) Sites that are zoned with a minimum density of 60 units per acre, or more. 7) Allows newly created parcels for townhomes to be as small as 600 square feet and prohibits local parcel-size, width, depth, frontage, or dimension requirements beyond that minimum.
8) Allows townhome units to be structured as fee-simple lots, common interest developments, limited-equity housing cooperatives, shared-equity/community land trust units, or tenancies in common.
9) Includes anti-displacement protections the exclude sites that contained five or more units five years prior to the date of the application, and bars subdivisions AB 1751

that would require demolition of deed-restricted affordable housing, rent- or price-controlled housing, rent or price-controlled housing occupied by tenants within the last five years, or property withdrawn under the Ellis Act within the prior 15 years.
10) Excludes numerous sensitive or hazardous sites from townhome eligibility under this bill, including prime farmland, wetlands, high or very high fire hazard severity zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones unless building-code compliant, flood hazard areas unless specified federal insurance criteria are met, conservation lands, protected-species habitat, and conservation easements.
11) Requires local agencies reviewing a project application to enter into a tribal consultation process, as specified.
12) Provides that local agency approval of a townhome development project under this bill is not a project under CEQA, and that the adoption of a local ordinance implementing this bill is also not a project under CEQA. 13) Provides that a local agency is not required to allow both an SB 9 lot split and this bill's townhome subdivision provisions on the same parcel. 14) Exempts the City and County of San Francisco from this bill's provisions.

Background
Legislative Efforts to Create More Starter Homes. In recent years, the Legislature has passed measures to streamline and simplify the process to subdivide existing residential properties and to build smaller starter homes. These efforts include:

SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021). SB 9, allowed up to four homes on lots where currently only one exists. It did so by allowing existing single-family homes to be converted into duplexes. It also allowed single-family parcels to be subdivided into two lots, while allowing for two units to be constructed on the newly formed lot. Under SB 9, the total number of units that can be built on a formerly single-family zoned lot is capped at four. Under existing law, ADUs may be built in combination with SB 9 so long as the total number of units on a lot does not exceed four. Property owners may use both SB 9 and ADU Law to achieve the maximum allowed density in a configuration that best suits their site and circumstances. SB 9 explicitly prohibits the owner of the parcel being subdivided from also subdividing the adjacent parcels under SB 9 in order to limit its applicability to a two-lot, four-unit cap. The intent of the law is to allow “gentle” density increases in existing neighborhoods.

AB 1751

SB 684 (Caballero, Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023), and SB 1123 (Caballero, Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024). The SHRA established a streamlined, ministerial pathway for small-scale housing development on subdivided lots. Specifically, these laws require local agencies to ministerially approve qualifying subdivisions of up to 10 parcels and associated housing development projects of up to 10 units on lots zoned for multifamily or on lots that are vacant and zoned for single-family residential developments. SB 684/1123 projects are required to meet specified objective standards related to site eligibility, density, environmental factors, and affordability (if it is located on a site identified for lower-income housing in the most recent housing element). The SHRA limits local discretion to objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards, prohibit standards that would physically preclude development at required densities, and imposes firm timelines for approval. Together, these provisions are intended to facilitate “missing middle” housing by enabling smaller, by-right projects in urbanized areas.

Comments
1) Author’s statement. “California is facing a homeownership crisis that reflects the disappearance of the middle-class. With only 18% of households able to afford a median-priced single-family home, the dream of owning a piece of our state and building generational wealth is fading away for millions of hardworking families and the next generation of Californians. I have four young adults who are trying to embark on this journey of home ownership themselves. Yet, the market is almost making it impossible to find a viable path towards this pillar of ownership every adult should have. The evidence is clear, while detached single family units become more expensive, townhomes offer a feasible path forward. AB 1751, the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act removes red tape that has made developing these projects so arduous. By establishing a ministerial approval process for townhomes that meet certain standards that protect housing equity, AB 1751 chooses people over politics protecting existing adorable housing strategies while unlocking the potential for new ownership opportunities. It is time to provide the ‘missing middle’ with a key to their own front door and towards a greater future.” 2) Streamlining Townhomes. Beginning in 2023, the Legislature embarked on a series of efforts to streamline the development of starter homes on infill parcels (largely understood to be townhomes) through the adoption of the SHRA. This effort began with SB 684 (Caballero, Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023). SB 684 included a delayed implementation date to allow local agencies to adapt to the new requirements and to provide time for the legislature to finetune critical details based on feedback from practioners determining how to implement the AB 1751

new statutory provisions in the real world. This approach yielded a comprehensive and iterative amendment process over several legislative sessions. The original legislation was expanded and revised by SB 1123 (Caballero, Chapter 294 Statutes of 2024), and was further refined in the State budget last year (AB 130, Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025).

These efforts collectively led to the first groundbreaking ceremony for an SHRA townhome development in March of this year, approximately 18 months after the original bill took effect. This bill replicates key aspects of the SHRA designed to spur development of townhomes and expands upon them.

3) Affordability. The state has taken steps over the years to create housing affordable to the middle class through streamlining efforts designed to add “gentle density” to developed areas. These efforts, streamline the approval of small infill projects that add 1-10 units on developed and undeveloped parcels in cities and counties. Other streamlining bills such as SB 35 (Weiner), and AB 2011(Wicks) that require local agencies to ministerially approve large multifamily projects are similarly limited to infill parcels. Legislation streamlining these larger projects creates an indirect regulatory subsidy for developers. Specifically, these efforts statutorily unlock and increase land value for developers by making previously undevelopable lots eligible for a range development and significantly reducing the overall time and cost to develop housing. The state preserves the value of this regulatory subsidy in the same manner that it captures the value of a direct financial subsidy, by requiring developers to deed restrict a portion of the units in a project with an affordable rent or sales price.

Measures that limit streamlining to relatively small projects (e.g., ADUs and Duplexes) do not typically include affordability requirements as the relative value conferred on developers through those streamlining measures is small.

Measures that allow larger projects with more than 10 units include affordability requirements that are scaled according to the benefit created for the developer. For example, SB 35 (Weiner) projects must dedicate 10%, 20%, or 50% of the units in a development to affordable housing depending on the jurisdiction that the project is located in. AB 2011(Wicks) projects must dedicate either 12%, 15%, or 30% of units in a development to affordable housing (depending on the depth and mix of affordability for the units). For large- and small-scale streamlining measures alike, the benefits of streamlining are typically limited to infill sites.

This bill continues this paradigm by requiring streamlined townhome projects that include more than 11 units to meet specified affordability requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes AB 1751

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/11/26)
Aia California
Bay Area Council
Bizfed LA
Calasian Chamber of Commerce
California Business Roundtable
California Conference of Carpenters
California Multicultural Business Alliance
California State University, Sacramento
Circulate San Diego
Civic Steward
East Bay Leadership Council
Fieldstead and Company, INC.

Fresno Business Council
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Stewardship Foundation
Greater Ontario Business Council
Greater Sacramento Economic Council
Habitat for Humanity California
Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco & Latin American & Caribbean Business Chamber of Commerce
Hope the Mission
Napa Chamber of Commerce
New California Coalition
North Bay Leadership Council
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Filipino American Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance
Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Sierra Business Council
The Grupe Company
The Two Hundred for Homeownership
Veterans in Business Network
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Western Region United Airlines
Zillow Group
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/11/26)
AB 1751

California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.

City of Artesia
City of Cupertino
City of Hemet
City of Hesperia
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood CA
City of Los Alamitos
City of Mission Viejo
City of Morgan Hill
City of Murrieta
City of Newport Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Orange
City of Palm Desert
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Vacaville
City of Yorba Linda
Communities for a Better Environment
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA)
Housing California
Kennedy Commission
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of California Cities
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
Public Advocates
Public Interest Law Project
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Save Lafayette
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-0, 5/21/26
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Carrillo, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Soria, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, AB 1751

Mark González, Haney, Hart, Kalra, Lackey, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pellerin, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Stefani, Ta, Zbur
Prepared by: Hank Brady / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124
8/12/26 16:18:51
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1821

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1821
Author: Pacheco (D)
Amended: 6/25/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 6/30/26
AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wahab
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-12, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: California Public Records Act: agency response time SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill specifies that the number of days an agency has to make a determination on a request for records of whether the agency is in possession of the requested records and whether they will be disclosed is 10 business days, and that this 10-day period can be extended for specified unusual circumstances for 14 business days.

ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (California Constitution, art.

I, § 3(b)(1).)
a) Requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. const. art.

I, § 3(b)(1).)
AB 1821

b) Requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).) 2) Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Government Code §§ 792.000 et seq.)
a) States that, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.)
b) Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.)
c) Defines “public agency” as any state or local agency. (Gov. Code § 7920.525(a).)
3) Provides that all public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless the record is exempt from public disclosure. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code § 7922.525.)
a) Some records are prohibited from being disclosed and other records are permissively exempted from being disclosed. (See e.g. Gov. Code §§ 7920.505 & 7922.200.)
b) There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.).

AB 1821

4) Requires a public agency to make a determination within 10 days of a records request on whether the agency is in possession of the requested records and whether they are disclosable records, either in part or full, including an explanation for the agency’s determination and an estimated date and time the records will be made available. (Gov. Code § 7922.535(a).) 5) Authorizes an agency to extend the response period in 4), above, by 14 days in specified “unusual circumstances.” (Id. at subd. (b)(1)-(6).) This bill:
1) Specifies that the response period in 4), above, is 10 business days. 2) Specifies that the response period in 5), above, is 14 business days.

Comments
Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.) In 2004, the right of public access was enshrined in the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 59 (Nov. 3, 2004, statewide general election),1 which amended the California Constitution to specifically protect the right of the public to access and obtain government records: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(1).) In 2014, voters approved Proposition 42 (Jun. 3, 2014, statewide direct primary election)2to further increase public access to government records by requiring local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act3, and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, as provided. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(7).) Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of the agency, unless exempted from disclosure. (Gov.

Code § 7922.252.) A public record is defined as any writing containing 1 Prop. 59 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 1 (Burton, Ch. 1, Stats. 2004)).
2 Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 3 (Leno, Ch. 123, Stats. 2013)).
3 The Ralph M. Brown Act is the open meetings laws that applies to local agencies. (Gov. Code §§ 59450 et. seq.)
AB 1821

information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.) The California Supreme Court stated in City of San Jose v. Superior Court ((2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, at 617):

Given the strong public policy of the people's right to information concerning the people's business [Gov. Code § 7921.000] and the constitutional mandate to construe statutes limiting the right of access narrowly (Cal. Const. art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), all public records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary.

The courts have also held that the CPRA “was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies.” (Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, at 425.)
The CPRA requires a public agency to make a determination within 10 days of a records request on whether the agency is in possession of the requested records and whether they are disclosable records, either in part or full, including an explanation for the agency’s determination and an estimated date and time the records will be made available. (Gov. Code § 7922.535(a).) The CPRA allows an agency to extend that response period by 14 days in specified “unusual circumstances.” (Id. at subd. (b).) These “unusual circumstances” are: (1) needing to search for and collect the requested records from facilities that are separate from the office processing the request; (2) needing to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; (3) needing to consult with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; (4) needing to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data; (5) when the agency is unable to access its electronic servers or systems, due to a cyberattack, in order to search for and obtain a record that the agency believes is responsive to a request and is maintained on the servers or systems in an electronic format; or (6) when needed to search for, collect, and appropriately examine records during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor in the jurisdiction where the agency is located. (Id. at subd. (b)(1)-(6).) This bill provides that the number of days an agency has to respond as described above, is 10 business days and for unusual circumstances, an additional 14 business days to respond. Proponents argue that a business-day standard ensures AB 1821

agencies have the full intended amount of working days to prepare initial responses to record requests. Some opponents contend that the current calendar-day deadlines do not present an undue burden to agencies, and any further extensions will slow down a process that many advocates argue is already severely delayed.

Widespread reports of burdensome delays in accessing public records has been a problem reported to the Committee by advocates for many years. Unnecessary delays undermine the important public policy goals of transparency and accountability that the CPRA promotes to ensure a robust and healthy democracy.

However, specifying that the response time is business days recognizes that most agencies are not open on weekends and holidays and provides breathing room to agencies in managing their day-to-day operations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified 8/4/26)
Alameda County Office of Education
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of School Business Officials
California Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Association California Municipal Clerks Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Bakersfield
City of Bellflower
City of Buena Park
City of Canyon Lake
City of Capitola
City of Carlsbad
City of Cloverdale
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of Coronado
City of Cupertino
City of El Cajon
City of El Cerrito
City of Fontana
City of Foster City
City of Grass Valley
AB 1821
Page6
City of Hesperia
City of Los Alamitos
City of Modesto
City of Monterey Park
City of Moorpark
City of Mountain View
City of Needles
City of Norwalk
City of Oakland
City of Oxnard
City of Paramount
City of Pico Rivera
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Redding
City of Riverside
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of San Jose
City of Santa Monica
City of Scotts Valley
City of St. Helena
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tulare
City of Vacaville
City of Woodland
Coachella Valley Water District
County of Fresno
County of Inyo
County of Kern
County of Mendocino
County of Monterey
County of Napa
County of Riverside
County of Solano CPRA Processors Working Group
Dublin San Ramon Services District
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Unified School District
AB 1821

Mckinleyville Community Service District
Orange County Council of Governments
Orange County Fire Authority
Rural County Representatives of California s
San Bernardino County
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Town of Hillsborough
Urban Counties of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/4/26)
Adu Rights.org
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action American Friends Service Committee
Anti Police-terror Project
Association of Alternative Newsmedia Publishers
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, California
Black Lives Matter California
CAIR California
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Coalition for Sheriff Oversight
California Faculty Association
California League of United Latin American Citizens
California News Publishers Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Cancel the Contract
Care First California
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School
Center for Policing Equity
Check the Sheriff
Child Care Law Center
Cleanearth4kids.org
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ) Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Courage California
Dignity and Power Now
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
AB 1821

Environmental Working Group
Family Violence Appellate Project
Fight for the Future
Friends of the Eel River
Gente Organizada
Humboldt Waterkeeper
In Our Care San Mateo County
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Justice Teams Network
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
LA Voice
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles Press Club
Mexican-american Legal Defense and Ed Fund [maldef]
National Housing Law Project
National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles (NLG-LA)
Orale: Organizing Rooted in Abolition Liberation and Empowerment Orange County Rapid Response Network
Parents Against Child Sexual Abuse
Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans
Pillars of the Community
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Reform Whittier
San Diego Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists Saving Lives in Custody California
Secure Justice
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Starting Over Strong
Stop Lapd Spying Coalition
Surfrider Foundation
The Ark
The Black Alliance for Just Immigration
The Daily Californian
The Wage Justice Center
AB 1821

Transparent California
Trial Impact Project
Unite Here Local 11
University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications University of San Francisco Racial Justice Clinic
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Youth Justice Coalition (note - There Is No Drop Down List Available.) Youth Law Center (UNREG)
18 individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) serves as a tool for transparency and accountability in government. By allowing the public to access records related to official actions and decision-making, the CPRA empowers communities to hold government accountable and helps ensure public institutions remain responsive.

In recent years, public agencies have seen a significant increase in public records requests. As digital communication has expanded, submitting requests – often in high volume – has become easier than ever. Some requests are unusually large or require substantial staff time to fulfill. When a small number of requests consume a disproportionate share of resources, agencies can face challenges keeping up with all requests in a timely manner while still providing essential services.

AB 1821 specifies that processing agencies' response times should be tied to business days rather than calendar days. This small change ensures that agencies' timelines actually align with the hours they work. As a result, agencies may continue to respond to requests in a timely manner without being held to timelines that fall outside of standard business or processing hours.

The California Special Districts Association writes:
[…] Under current law, requests made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) require that a public agency, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency. In unusual circumstances, an agency is permitted to extend that time, but they remain prohibited from specifying a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. Neither of these timeframes account for the fact that public agencies generally grant staff weekends and holidays off; during those periods, the time an agency has remaining to respond to a CPRA request continues tolling, AB 1821

notwithstanding the fact that there are no staff members available to be responsive to a request or search for records. AB 1821 would rectify this discrepancy by providing that the 10-day and 14-day periods referenced above span business days rather than calendar days, thereby solving the issue encountered when weekends and holidays fall within the timeframe of a CPRA request. […] ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Disability Rights California writes in opposition, stating:

AB 1821’s proposed shift from a calendar to a business day timeline would normalize delay and further disadvantage communities that depend on timely access to information. This erodes the value of time‑sensitive information and weakens public oversight. The Legislature has repeatedly recognized that prompt access is essential to democratic accountability, especially in areas like policing, incarceration, and public spending where transparency gaps disproportionately harm marginalized communities. Extending response times would compound existing inequities, making it harder for people to challenge government decisions, participate in civic life, and advocate for justice.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-12, 5/27/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Dixon, Ellis, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, SharpCollins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas NOES: Bains, Davies, DeMaio, Gallagher, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bennett, Bryan, Castillo, Chen, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Hadwick, Jackson, Ortega, Celeste Rodriguez, Ward Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/5/26 15:04:20
**** END ****

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-4171
AB 1997

THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1997
Author: Lee (D)
Amended: 6/18/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 5-1, 6/17/26
AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Cervantes, Laird
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 8-1, 6/30/26
AYES: Arreguín, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-3, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Land use: housing development approvals: timelines and processes SOURCE: AIDS Healthcare Foundation
DIGEST: This bill expedites the timeline for approval or disapproval of certain affordable housing development projects.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Allows, pursuant to the California Constitution, cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”
AB 1997

2) Requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits, including housing, under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), including that “lead agencies,” which are public agencies that have principal responsibility for approving a project, must approve or deny the project within:
a) 180 days of certifying an environmental impact report (EIR); b) 90 days of certifying an EIR for a housing project;
c) 60 days of certifying an EIR for a housing project that is at least 49% affordable to very low or low-income households and the project has applied or will apply for state or federal financial assistance; d) 60 days of adopting a negative declaration under CEQA, determining a project is exempt from CEQA, or receiving a complete application if the project is subject to ministerial review; and
e) 60 to 90 days, depending on project size, of receiving a complete application for a housing project that qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to AB 130 (Committee on Budget, 2025), unless specified tribal consultation is ongoing.
3) Deems approved the application if the agency fails to approve or disapprove the application in the applicable time period.

This bill:
1) Requires a lead agency under the PSA to approve a housing project within 30 days of the certification of an EIR for housing project that is at least 90% affordable to very low or low-income households and the project has applied or will apply for state or federal financial assistance, as specified. 2) Makes technical and conforming changes.

Comment
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 1997 reduces from 60 days down to 30 days the period of time a lead agency has to approve or deny an affordable housing project’s environmental impact report (EIR) after the lead agency certifies the EIR. This faster timeline only applies to projects that are 90% affordable to very-low or extremely-low income households, and requires the project applicant to have provided written notice to the agency specifics about the AB 1997

project’s financing. This narrow and very focused streamlining will move 90% affordable housing projects faster.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified 8/5/26)
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/5/26)
City of La Verne
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-3, 5/26/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas NOES: Irwin, Sanchez, Tangipa
NO VOTE RECORDED: Boerner, Dixon, Johnson, Lackey, Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119 8/5/26 15:04:10
**** END ****

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 18, 2026
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 15, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 26, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2346
Introduced by Assembly Members Wilson and Berman
(Principal coauthor: Senator Weber Pierson)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Boerner and Davies)
February 19, 2026
An act to add Sections 12810.1, 21214.8, 21214.9, and 22352.1 to, and to add Article 19 (commencing with Section 28170) to Chapter 5 of Division 12 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2346, as amended, Wilson. Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits.
(1)  Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts, and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions for various purposes.

This bill would require all class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with a speedometer. The bill would also require all electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with an integrated or detachable front lamp and a rear lamp, as specified.

The bill would also require sellers and distributors of electric bicycles to provide specified disclosures disclose specified information at or

96 before the point of sale. sale, including, among other things, the classification and maximum speed of the electric bicycle and a recommendation that persons under 16 years of age should not ride an electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction, as specified.
(2)  Existing law regulates the operation of bicycles on highways and authorizes local authorities to, among other things, prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on equestrian trails or hiking or recreational trails.

This bill would authorize a local authority to set a speed limit on a bicycle path of 10, 15, or 20 miles an hour or on a multiuse trail to 10, 15, or 20 miles per hour, as specified, subject to specified signage requirements. However, the bill would specify that speed limits on a bicycle path or multiuse trail established prior to January 1, 2027, shall remain in effect. The bill would also prohibit a person under 16 years of age from riding an electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour on a highway or a bicycle path, but would require a peace officer to only issue warning citations until December 31, 2027. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(3)  Existing law establishes various prima facie speed limits. Existing law establishes that specified convictions and violations under the Vehicle Code and traffic-related incidents count as points against a driver’s record for purposes of the suspension or revocation of the privilege to drive, except as specified.

This bill would additionally set a prima facie speed limit of 10 miles per hour on a sidewalk and specify that a conviction of a violation of that speed limit shall not result in a violation point count. (4)  Under existing law, a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

By creating new requirements within the Vehicle Code, the violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.
96 AB 2346 — 2 —
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 12810.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, line 2 to read:
line 3 12810.1. Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 12810, a line 4 violation point count shall not be given for a conviction of a line 5 violation of Section 22352.1.
line 6 SEC. 2. Section 21214.8 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
line 7 21214.8. (a)  A local authority may, by ordinance, set a speed line 8 limit on a bicycle path of 15 or 20 miles per hour, or 10 miles per line 9 hour in limited areas with high pedestrian volumes or sign sight line 10 distance challenges, subject to subdivision (c). line 11 (b)  A local authority may, by ordinance, set a speed limit on a line 12 multiuse trail of 15 or 20 miles per hour, or 10 miles per hour in line 13 limited areas with high pedestrian volumes or sign sight distance line 14 challenges, subject to subdivision (c).
line 15 (c)  A local authority that sets a speed limit pursuant to this line 16 section shall place appropriate signs that indicate the limits of the line 17 restricted zone and the applicable speed limit within 400 feet of line 18 each end of the restricted zone.
line 19 (d)  Any speed limit on a bicycle path or multiuse trail line 20 established prior to January 1, 2027, shall remain in effect. line 21 SEC. 3. Section 21214.9 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
line 22 21214.9. (a)  A person under 16 years of age shall not ride an line 23 electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour on a line 24 highway or a bicycle path.
line 25 (b)  A peace officer shall only issue warning citations until line 26 December 31, 2027.
line 27 SEC. 4.
line 28 SEC. 3. Section 22352.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
line 29 22352.1. (a)  In addition to the prima facie speed limits imposed line 30 by Section 22352, the prima facie speed limit for a sidewalk, as line 31 defined in Section 555, is 10 miles per hour and shall be applicable line 32 as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have line 33 been erected giving notice thereof.
line 34 (b)  A conviction of a violation of this section shall not result in line 35 a violation point count pursuant to Section 12810.1. line 36 SEC. 5.
line 37 SEC. 4. Article 19 (commencing with Section 28170) is added line 38 to Chapter 5 of Division 12 of the Vehicle Code, to read:
96 — 3 — AB 2346
line 1 Article 19. Electric Bicycles
line 2
line 3 28170. (a)  Manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles line 4 shall apply a label that is permanently affixed, in a prominent line 5 location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall contain the line 6 classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of line 7 the electric bicycle, and shall be printed in Arial font in at least line 8 9-point type.
line 9 (b)  (1)  Sellers and distributors of electric bicycles shall disclose, line 10 in writing, all of the following information at or before the point line 11 of sale of each electric bicycle:
line 12 (A)  The classification of the electric bicycle. line 13 (B)  The maximum speed of the electric bicycle. line 14 (C)  The continuous and peak wattage of the electric bicycle. line 15 (D)  Any age restrictions on the use of the electric bicycle. line 16 (E)  The helmet requirements for an electric bicycle. line 17 (F)  A written description of California’s electric bicycle laws. line 18 (G)  The internet website address for the electric bicycle safety line 19 and training program developed by the Department of the line 20 California Highway Patrol pursuant to Section 894 of the Streets line 21 and Highways Code.
line 22 (H)  A recommendation that persons under 16 years of age line 23 should not ride an electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles line 24 per hour.
line 25 (2)  Sellers and distributors of electric bicycles shall also provide line 26 a disclosure at or before the point of sale that contains the following line 27 statement in 12-point:
line 28
line 29 “IT IS AGAINST CALIFORNIA LAW FOR A PERSON TO TAMPER line 30 WITH, OR MODIFY, AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE SO AS TO CHANGE THE line 31 SPEED CAPABILITY OF THE DEVICE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD line 32 ALLOW THE DEVICE TO GO FASTER THAN PERMITTED BY LAW. line 33 MODIFYING THE DEVICE TO GO FASTER MAY RESULT IN line 34 REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE THE DEVICE WITH AN M1 OR M2 line 35 LICENSE ENDORSEMENT, TO REGISTER THE DEVICE WITH THE line 36 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TO INSURE THE DEVICE line 37 AS A MOTORIZED BICYCLE OR MOTORCYCLE.”
line 38
line 39 (c)  A violation of this section is an infraction and is punishable line 40 as follows:
96 AB 2346 — 4 —
line 1 (1)  Upon a first conviction of a violation of this section, by a line 2 fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). With respect to a line 3 first conviction, multiple sales of electric bicycles in violation of line 4 subdivision (a) or (b) shall constitute a single violation. line 5 (2)  Upon a conviction of a violation under this section within line 6 three years of a prior conviction under this section, by a fine not line 7 to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
line 8 (3)  Upon a conviction of a violation under this section within line 9 five years of two or more prior convictions under this section, by line 10 a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). line 11 28172. (a)  All class 2 electric bicycles, as defined in Section line 12 312.5, manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January line 13 1, 2029, shall be required to be equipped with a speedometer. line 14 (b)  All electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale line 15 on or after January 1, 2029, shall be required to have the following line 16 equipment:
line 17 (1)  An integrated or detachable front lamp emitting a white light line 18 that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, line 19 sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from line 20 a distance of 300 feet in front, and from the sides, of the bicycle. line 21 (2)  A rear lamp emitting a red light that, while the bicycle is in line 22 motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway behind the line 23 bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 500 feet behind, and line 24 from the sides, of the bicycle.
line 25 SEC. 6.
line 26 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 27 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 28 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 29 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 30 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 31 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 32 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 33 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 34 Constitution.

O
96 — 5 — AB 2346

SB 222

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 222 (Wiener)
As Amended August 17, 2026
Majority vote

SUMMARY
Establishes requirements for cities and counties related to the installation of residential heat pump water heater or heat pump heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system (residential heat pump systems). Makes void and unenforceable any covenants, conditions, or restrictions (CC&Rs) of a common interest development (CID) and any provision of the governing documents of a homeowners′ association (HOA) that prohibits or restricts the installation or use of residential heat pump systems within the CID.

Major Provisions
1) Includes the following definitions:
a) ″Residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system″ means a single heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system that serves one residential dwelling unit. b) ″Swapout″ means a residential heat pump water heater or residential heat pump HVAC system installation where a new heat pump water or HVAC air handler or outdoor coil is being installed in the same location on a property as the prior water heater or air handler and condenser that it is replacing. ″Swapout″ does not include either of the following:
i) An installation that requires modification, replacement, or installation of more than 25 linear feet of ductwork.
ii) An installation that replaces a package unit with a split system or a split system with a package unit.

Provisions related to CIDs and HOAs:
2) Makes void and unenforceable any provision of the governing documents, architectural guidelines, or policies of a CID if the provision prevents the replacement of a fuel-gas burning appliance with an electric appliance.
3) Makes void and unenforceable any CC&R contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property, and any provision of a governing document, of a CID that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system. a) Provides that an HOA shall not prohibit or restrict a member from installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a residential heat pump system in the member′s separate interest.

Prohibits an HOA from doing any of the following:
i) Charge a fee to any member in connection with the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a residential heat pump system;
SB 222

ii) Require a member to use a specific residential heat pump system contractor or product;
iii) Claim to receive any rebate, credit, or commission in connection with a member′s installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a residential heat pump system; and iv) Require a member to remove a residential heat pump system or prevent the replacement or upgrade of an existing residential heat pump system. b) Specifies a) above shall not apply if the HOA establishes either of the following:
i) The installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of the residential heat pump system would violate federal, state, or local law; or
ii) A permit from a designated permitting authority is required for the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of the residential heat pump system, and that permit is not granted.
c) Provides that nothing in 2) and 3) above shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of an HOA to require a member whose installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a residential heat pump system affects the common area or an exclusive use common area to be responsible for the repair of any damage to the common area or an exclusive use common area, or to another member′s separate interest, that is caused by the installation, operation, maintenance, or removal of that residential heat pump system.

Provisions related to inspections:
4) Beginning July 1, 2027, requires a city, county, or city and county (cities and counties) to offer asynchronous inspections for installations of residential heat pump water heaters and heat pump HVAC systems that do not require a licensed contractor and building inspector to be simultaneously present during the inspection of an installation of a residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system.
5) Authorizes a building inspector to contact the licensed contractor who performed the installation by telephone call or real-time video conferencing during their inspection. 6) Provides that a building inspector may require the licensed contractor who performed the installation to schedule an additional inspection in which the building inspector and the licensed contractor who performed the installation must be simultaneously present during the additional inspection if, during the asynchronous inspection, the building inspector determines that there is an issue with an installation and that the licensed contractor who performed the installation must be present to perform tests or cure the installation. a) Specifies that, if a building inspector determines during an asynchronous inspection that a contractor must be onsite in order to allow the building inspector into a place that needs to be inspected, the building inspector may require the licensed contractor who performed the installation to schedule an additional inspection in which the building inspector and the licensed contractor who performed the installation are both required to be simultaneously present during the additional inspection, if deemed necessary by the building inspector.

SB 222

7) Provides that nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city or county to discontinue offering inspection options for the installation of residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system where a building inspector and licensed contractor, who performed the installation, are simultaneously present. Provides that a city or county may adopt and offer remote inspections, consistent with applicable law, for a residential heat pump system in lieu of an asynchronous inspection.

Provisions related to permitting:
8) Specifies cities and counties may require up to one nondiscretionary permit per installation of a residential heat pump system in which the city or county administratively approves an application to install the residential heat pump system. 9) Provides that a city or county is not prohibited from issuing separate permits for a panel replacement or structural work conducted as part of the residential heat pump installation. 10) Provides that, notwithstanding 8) above, a city or county may require more than one nondiscretionary permit requested by a licensed contractor per installation if the building official makes written findings based upon substantial evidence that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

Provisions related to standards:
11) Limits the planning or zoning or workforce labor standards that a city or county may apply, in addition to any state-level requirements, on the installation of a residential heat pump system to the following:
a) Additional standards for setbacks for installations not to exceed three feet in side yards and backyards or 10 feet in front yards;
i) If the city or county requires the submission of site plans for applications for permits for installations of residential heat pump systems, the city or county shall require only site plan information directly relevant to the installation or to determining setback compliance. Site plans shall not be required for applications for permits for a swapout.
b) Additional standards that conform to local laws, including reach codes, designed to encourage the adoption of zero-emission equipment or improvement of building efficiency.
c) Additional planning or zoning standards related to the installation of a residential heat pump system if the city or county adopts an ordinance that includes substantial evidence that the standard is designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.
d) Additional standards that regulate noise in a residential setting for inverter-based heat pump technologies, not to be less than 15 decibels higher than any statutory maximum regulating decibel limits for non-inverter-based technologies.

SB 222

e) Any additional workforce labor standards. Specifies ″workforce labor standards″ includes, but are not limited to, the payment of prevailing wages and the employment of apprentices from apprenticeship programs approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
12) Prohibits a city or county from requiring a permit or inspection for plug-in ready window air conditioner or window heat pump HVAC systems, provided that all of the following requirements are met:
a) The appliance has a voltage rating of 120 volts or less; b) The appliance is a self-contained unit;
c) The installation of the appliance does not require the installation of a dedicated circuit for the appliance;
d) The installation of the appliance does not require an upgrade to the electrical panel to accommodate the additional load of the appliance; and
e) The installation of the appliance does not require the installation of drainage or structural modifications.

Provisions related to automated, online permit processing:
13) Requires a city or county to implement an online automated permitting process that issues permits in real time to a licensed contractor for the installation of a residential heat pump system, on or before July 1, 2028, that meets all of the following:
a) The installation of the residential heat pump system does not require installation of a new electrical panel or structural work;
b) The installation is a swapout; and
c) The licensed contractor certifies under penalty of perjury that they have performed a load calculation to properly size the new residential heat pump HVAC equipment as specified. 14) Provides that the methods that a city or county may use to comply with the requirements in 13) above may include, but are not limited to, an automated platform that can issue permits in real time or using an online form-based system that can instantly issue permits upon completion of the online form.
15) Provides that, if the city or county requires a CF1R form at the time of the permit application, the city or county shall not otherwise require information duplicative to and supplied on the CF1R form provided by the applicant, except for the applicant′s name and the residential address of the project.
16) Provides that all liabilities and immunities applicable to cities, counties, and city and counties shall apply to any permits issued through an online, automated permitting platform and any inspections conducted in connection with those permits.

Provisions related to public posting and electronic submissions:

SB 222

17) Requires a city or county to publish and make publicly available a list of the requirements adopted pursuant to 11) and 12) above, any required permitting documentation, and a list of all relevant fees or fee amounts that may be imposed by the city or county on a residential heat pump system, including, but not limited to, permit fees and inspection fees, on their internet website.
18) Requires a city or county to allow an applicant to submit a permit application and associated documentation electronically, and allow the applicant to submit an electronic signature on all forms, applications, and other documentation instead of a wet signature by an applicant.

Provisions related to permit fees:
19) Prohibits a city or county from charging a permit fee for a residential heat pump system that exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, subject to the following limitations:
a) The permit fee for a residential heat pump water heater system shall not exceed $150. b) The permit fee for a residential heat pump HVAC system shall not exceed $200. 20) Provides that the limitations in 19) above shall not be construed to apply to technology fees charged by third-party vendors for services adopted by jurisdictions to process compliance checks and issue permits.
21) Authorizes a city or county to charge a permit fee for the installation of a residential heat pump system that exceeds the fee limits in 19) above if the city or county, as part of a written finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance, provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit.
22) Provides that a permit fee authorized in 21) shall be subject to all of the following requirements:
a) The fee shall correspond to the typical reasonable cost demonstrated by the city or county for the equipment type;
b) The fee shall be set at a regular fixed amount per appliance type; and c) The fee shall be listed publicly.
23) Prohibits a city or county from applying additional charges above the publicly listed fee.

Small population exemption
24) Exempts cities with a population of fewer than 5,000 persons and counties with a population of fewer than 150,000 persons, including each city within that county, from the online automated permit issuance provisions in 13) above, the public posting and electronic submission provisions in 17) and 18) above, and the permit fee cap provisions in 19) above.

Provision related to the California Energy Commission (CEC):

SB 222

25) Requires a city or county to self-certify to the CEC its compliance with any applicable provisions in 4) through 23) above if a city or county applies to receive any funding from the CEC.

COMMENTS
This bill: This bill establishes several requirements of, and places a number of limitations on, local governments and CIDs to increase the number of residential heat pump systems installations statewide. Certain provisions of this bill are modeled after other permit streamlining legislation, including residential solar system installations and electric vehicle charging station installations. Other provisions are modeled after certain local jurisdictions′ existing permitting programs for similar installation projects. Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author
″Californians need relief from sky-high energy costs and the extreme temperature changes driven by climate change, and heat pumps are an essential solution to both problems. Unfortunately, the permitting process for heat pumps is deeply broken, making homeowners suffer long waits, high fees, and needless hoops just to install a heat pump. SB 222, The Heat Pump Access Act, will create a standardized permitting process across the state that is faster, simpler, and cheaper for homeowners and contractors. Making these dual-use, zero-pollution air filtration and HVAC systems more accessible will help Californians build climate resilience and speed the recovery of communities impacted from climate disasters, such as Los Angeles. Updating the permitting process is also an essential step to help the state meet its goals of installing six million heat pumps by 2030, and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.″ Arguments in Support
According to the Building Decarbonization Coalition, SPUR, and the Bay Area Air District, the co-sponsors of this bill, ″California has set some of the nation′s most ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions, including a goal to install six million heat pumps statewide. This leaves five years to deploy over four million heat pumps – which will require quadrupling the current rate of installation. A heat pump installed in California today will cut emissions from space heating by 93% over the lifetime of the equipment compared to a gas furnace. In order to meet our climate and clean air targets, the state must make it easy, fast, and affordable for customers to install heat pump appliances.″ ″Long timelines for permit approval can also drive up soft costs and push customers towards unpermitted work. While jurisdictions are able to turn around heat pump permits and installations within 48 hours (such as through the City of Palo Alto′s emergency water heater replacement program), contractors have cited waiting for months to receive permits in other municipalities due to extensive plan review and multiple inspections. After the permit is approved, installers also cited long time windows for scheduling inspections, often leading to significant lost labor hours.″ ″The Heat Pump Access Act will take a comprehensive approach to standardizing the permitting process for heat pump installations statewide, reducing time constraints and lowering costs for contractors and consumers alike.″ The Green Building Initiative writes in a support position: ″With Californians facing increasing energy costs, worsening climate-driven temperature extremes, and greater focus on the efficiency and sustainability of our homes and infrastructure, heat pumps offer a critical solution.

Unfortunately, however, current permitting processes result in significant delays, high fees, and unnecessary barriers for homeowners and other asset classes alike. SB 222 is an important step SB 222

towards streamlining and standardizing permitting processes statewide, that while focused in this bill on heat pumps, will inevitably serve as a model for greater efficiencies that expedite installations, provides a simpler approach, and is more cost effective on all fronts.″ Arguments in Opposition
According to the League of California Cities, ″Local permitting is not a barrier to electrification; rather, it is the mechanism through which cities ensure installations are safe, code-compliant, and appropriate for local conditions. Establishing a state-dictated permitting framework for HVAC systems sets a troubling precedent for future preemption of local building, zoning, and land-use authority.″ ″Asynchronous inspections fundamentally alter established inspection workflows and labor practices and increase municipal liability exposure. In-person inspections – where inspectors and contractors are present simultaneously allow for immediate clarification, real-time problem-solving, and verification of compliance with approved plans and applicable codes, reducing the risk of errors, rework, or future disputes.″ ″This bill establishes caps of $150 for heat pump water heaters and $200 for HVAC systems, regardless of the actual costs incurred by local agencies to conduct plan review, inspections, compliance verification, and enforcement.

Over time, particularly over a 20-to-30-year horizon, these static caps will increasingly fail to cover local costs, effectively forcing cities to subsidize state-mandated activities with scarce general fund resources.″
According to the Community Associations Institute′s California Legislative Action Committee, ″SB 222 creates a conflict with AB 1684 (Ward) passed by this committee earlier this session.

While AB 1684 only speaks to cooling systems that conflict needs to be addressed. We recommend SB 222 be amended to delete HVAC systems and only focus on heat pump water heaters. If that change is made, we then request language like AB 1684 to be added to SB 222 requiring, among other things, owners to use licensed contractors, obtain necessary permits and provide for responsibility of any damage that might occur to the common area or exclusive use common area during installation. Finally, successive owners need to be made aware of the installation and held responsible for ongoing maintenance that might be needed.″

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

Ongoing and one-time General Fund costs to impacted cities and counties are of an unknown amount, but likely significant and greater than $150,000 statewide with respect to offering asynchronous inspections, establishing automated permitting systems, updating and maintaining website information, establishing permitting fee structures, and accepting electronic applications and signatures. Some costs associated with these activities may not be state-reimbursable because cities and counties may adjust permitting fees to cover associated administrative costs.

Other costs, particularly information technology (IT), implementation, training, and maintenance costs to establish and maintain new automated structures and electronic capabilities, will be borne by the local jurisdiction and are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

Notably, the bill exempts from the online permitting, fee limitations, and electronic application provisions a city with a population of fewer than 5,000 persons or a county with a population of fewer than 150,000 persons, including each city within that county.

SB 222

VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 29-8-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Grove, Niello, Rubio, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares ABS, ABST OR NV: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, Ochoa Bogh
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 10-0-2
YES: Haney, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Ward, Ta, Wicks, Wilson ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson, Tangipa
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-2
YES: Carrillo, Ta, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Stefani, Ward, Wilson ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Pacheco
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-1-1
YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta
NO: Dixon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Tangipa

UPDATED
VERSION: August 17, 2026
CONSULTANT: Juan Reyes / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0003719 Senate Bill No. 922
Passed the Senate August 10, 2026
Secretary of the Senate
Passed the Assembly August 6, 2026
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
This bill was received by the Governor this day
of , 2026, at o’clock m.

Private Secretary of the Governor

CHAPTER
An act to amend Section 9400.8 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 922, Laird. Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.

Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for an extralegal load unless the local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1, 1989.

This bill would explicitly state that a fee, charge, surcharge, or component thereof imposed upon the provider of, or ratepayer for, public services by or for a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to provide those public services is not a tax, permit fee, or other charge that is prohibited by the provision described above. The bill would provide that nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting this fee, charge, or surcharge. The bill would delete obsolete references and make other technical changes. The bill would make various findings and declarations.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. (a)  The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(1)  Weight fees are collected on commercial vehicles by the State of California, deposited into the State Highway Account, and used for the purposes specified in Section 9400.4 of the Vehicle Code. Weight fees for vehicles operated under 10,001 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and for pickups are determined by the number of axles and unladen weight. Weight fees for vehicles operated over 10,001 pounds GVW are determined by the declared GVW or combined GVW.
(2)  In June 1990, the California electorate adopted Proposition 111, which increased weight fees on commercial vehicles by 40 95 SB 922 — 2 —
percent on August 1, 1990, and by an additional 10 percent on January 1, 1995. Section 9400.8 of the Vehicle Code, which is amended by this act, provides that if the voters approved Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, then no local agency may impose a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways other than a permit fee for extralegal loads. (3)  Local governments have broad authority to provide and operate public services, including refuse collection, water, power, heat, transportation, means of communication, and other services and works, and to impose and collect rates, fees, and other charges that defray the cost of providing those services and works, under existing laws, including, without limitation, Sections 7 and 9 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
(b)  (1)  It is the intent of the Legislature to respect the existing authority of local governments to impose rates, fees, and other charges for public services pursuant to the aforementioned laws, which includes recovery of street repair and other costs associated with the use of public roads to provide those services. (2)  It is the further intent of the Legislature to state clearly that a local government’s charge imposed upon the provider of, or ratepayer for, public services by, or for, a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair or other costs associated with the use of streets, roads, or highways to provide those public services is not a charge for the privilege of using its streets within the meaning of Section 9400.8 of the Vehicle Code and to reject the interpretation given to the law in Rogers v. City of Redlands (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 667.

SEC. 2. Section 9400.8 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
9400.8. (a)  Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency shall not impose a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for extralegal loads unless the local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1, 1989.
(b)  (1)  A fee, charge, surcharge, or a component thereof, imposed upon the provider of, or ratepayer for, public services by, or for, a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to provide public services is not a tax, permit fee, or 95 — 3 — SB 922
other charge for the privilege of using streets or highways that is prohibited under subdivision (a).
(2)  Nothing in this code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting a fee, charge, or surcharge described in paragraph (1).
95 SB 922 — 4 —
Approved , 2026
Governor

SB 959

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 959 (Grayson)
As Amended August 17, 2026
2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY
Authorizes, as an urgency measure, a local fire agency to determine the imminence of a major safety hazard for purposes of holding a local educational agency's (LEA's) average daily attendance (ADA) harmless for state funding purposes.

Major Provisions
1) Authorizes a local fire agency to determine the imminence of a major safety hazard for purposes of holding an LEA's ADA harmless for state funding purposes. 2) States that this is an urgency statute necessary due to the imminent danger of wildfires throughout the state and the need to address the safety of pupils on campuses in high wildfire danger areas.

COMMENTS
Allowing local fire agencies to determine the imminence of a major safety hazard. Current law allows schools to cancel classes without financial penalty when there is an "imminence of a major safety hazard" as determined by a local law enforcement agency. However, in situations involving wildfire risk, local fire agencies are often the entities best positioned to assess conditions on the ground and determine whether a campus faces imminent danger. School administrators, law enforcement officials, and fire authorities have indicated that the existing statute does not clearly authorize fire agencies to make this determination, which may create uncertainty for districts seeking to close schools proactively out of an abundance of caution.

Given the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires across California and the growing number of schools located in or near Fire Hazard Severity Zones, this bill seeks to align the statute with the practical realities of emergency response by allowing local fire agencies, who possess specialized expertise in wildfire behavior and risk assessment, to determine when an imminent safety hazard exists. Allowing these agencies to make such determinations may help ensure that schools can act quickly to protect students and staff without risking the loss of ADA funding.

According to the Author
"California has experienced an unprecedented rise in the frequency and severity of wildfires as the state faces the new reality of a year-round fire season. Recent tragedies like the Eaton and Palisades Fires in Southern California along with the Dixie and LNU Lightning Complex Fires in Northern California have led to action on several fronts to apply lessons learned from these tragic events.

In response to recent devastating wildfires, the Legislature has acted to both rebuild affected communities and bolster mitigation efforts to lower future fire risk. However, more must be done to ensure that communities have every tool available to them to respond to fire danger appropriately.

SB 959

One area where there remains a gap in current law is in the Education Code section that governs the type of emergency situations that a school may cancel classes and not lose out on ADA funding.

This update to the law will assure that school districts will not lose ADA funding if they err on the side of student and community safety in the face of an imminent wildfire. Including fire agencies in this vital decision-making process has the potential to save the lives of students, teachers, and school personnel by keeping them out of harm's way when their campuses are threatened by potential wildfires."
Arguments in Support
The California Teachers Association writes, "Local fire agencies are the most appropriate when fire danger leads to school closures as a safety measure. California has experienced immense and unprecedented devastation from wildfires, impacting families, communities, and schools.

This expansion of the law should lead to the most accurate determinations regarding the possible danger, in these situations, that impacts on the safety of students and prevents the loss of average daily attendance."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) No General Fund administrative costs to the California Department of Education (CDE).

According to the CDE, statute already empowers the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to consider threat of a major safety hazard as determined by a local fire agency when the SPI reviews a Form J-13A waiver request.
2) Minor and absorbable Proposition 98 General Fund costs to the extent more local educational agencies (LEAs) apply for a Form J-13A waiver as a result of making explicit in statute that the SPI may consider a major safety hazard determined by a local fire agency when reviewing such a waiver request. However, as noted above, existing law already authorizes the SPI to consider such an event when reviewing a waiver request.

VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1
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, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello
ASM EDUCATION: 8-0-1
YES: Patel, Hoover, Ahrens, Bonta, Castillo, Garcia, Lowenthal, Pellerin ABS, ABST OR NV: Zbur
SB 959

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4
YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Solache, Ta
ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Tangipa

UPDATED
VERSION: August 17, 2026
CONSULTANT: Marguerite Ries / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003657

SB 1164

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1164 (Cervantes)
As Amended August 13, 2026
Majority vote

SUMMARY
Broadens the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA), which prohibits at-large election methods that impair voting rights, to permit challenges to be brought against election methods or systems that result in voter suppression or vote dilution. Requires local government agencies that violate specified laws related to voting rights to receive preapproval from the Attorney General (AG) before implementing certain changes to election practices for a 10-year period.

Major Provisions
1) Provides for the purpose of this bill that the term "protected class" means any group of eligible voters who are members of any race, color, or language-minority group, including two or more such groups, as specified.
2) Prohibits a political subdivision or state agency from implementing an election policy or practice that results in, or is likely to result in, voter suppression. Provides, generally, that a violation is established where the policy or practice disproportionately makes it harder for protected classes to vote or participate politically, unless the government can show the policy is necessary and that a less discriminatory alternative isn't reasonably available. 3) Prohibits a political subdivision from employing a method of election that has the effect, or will likely have the effect, of diluting the vote of members of a protected class of voters.

Provides, generally, that a violation is established when there is a constitutionally permissible alternative election system that could reduce the problem, and protected classes have less ability to elect or nominate candidates of their choice due to racially polarized voting or when considering all circumstances.
4) Establishes guidelines and rules for evaluating voter suppression and vote dilution claims. a) Provides that specified factors may be relevant in evaluating a claim, including any history of discrimination against members of, and historical disparities in political and voting participation and electoral success by, members of the protected class. b) Provides that ongoing civil litigation filed before this bill becomes effective is governed by the legal standards in the existing CVRA for the purpose of establishing liability. 5) Requires laws and policies related to voting to be construed by state courts liberally in favor of the right to vote.
6) Permits an action to cure a violation of this bill related to voter suppression or vote dilution to be brought by an affected voter in the jurisdiction or by the AG, as specified. Requires a party other than the AG, before bringing an action against a political subdivision, to send a notice to the subdivision explaining how the policy or procedure, or method of election, may violate this bill and proposing a remedy that would address the violation, except as specified.

Gives the political subdivision an opportunity to address the violation in response to such a letter before an action may be filed, except as specified.

SB 1164

7) Provides that actions brought under this bill are subject to expedited proceedings in court and have priority over all other civil matters. Permits a court to order appropriate relief tailored to remedy a violation of this bill, including remedies not otherwise allowed under existing state law.
8) Allows a successful plaintiff to recover reasonable costs and fees, including attorney's fees, from a defendant. Prohibits a successful defendant from recovering fees or costs except where the court finds the action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. 9) Requires a political subdivision to receive preapproval from the AG before changing its method of election, annexing or de-annexing territory affecting the jurisdiction's population, or reducing language assistance, if the subdivision was found liable in the previous 10 years for violating this bill or a law or constitutional provision related to the right to vote for protected class members.
a) Permits the AG to grant approval for a covered change only if it will not diminish the ability of protected class members to participate in the political process or elect candidates of its choice.
b) Requires the AG to create a process and a timeline for political subdivisions subject to the preapproval requirement to submit requests for preapproval. Specifies that any denial of preapproval may be appealed only by the political subdivision within 30 days. Permits an affected voter in the jurisdiction to challenge the AG's preapproval in court. 10) Prohibits a political subdivision that changes its method of election under this bill or the existing CVRA from reverting to the method of election it previously used without first obtaining a court order, as specified.
11) Requires a body engaged in local redistricting to comply with the requirements of this bill when adopting new district boundaries. Prohibits a body that is adopting district boundaries for nonpartisan offices from using party affiliation data when redistricting or from relying on partisan advantage or political ideology to defend district boundaries in a legal challenge.

COMMENTS
SB 976 (Polanco), Chapter 129, Statutes of 2002, enacted the CVRA to address racially polarized voting in at-large local elections. In areas where racial block voting occurs, at-large election systems can dilute minority voting strength if the majority typically supports candidates that differ from those preferred by minority communities. In such situations, dividing a jurisdiction into districts can allow minority communities to elect candidates of their choice or influence election outcomes.

Since the CVRA's enactment, hundreds of local jurisdictions have transitioned to district-based elections, often in response to litigation, threats of litigation, or concerns about the costs of defending a CVRA lawsuit.

The 15th Amendment to the United States (US) Constitution provides, in part, that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The amendment also SB 1164

grants Congress the authority to enact legislation to enforce its provisions. The 15th Amendment was ratified in February 1870.

Nearly a century later, Congress concluded that many states and local governments were failing to comply with the amendment's guarantees. Congressional hearings found that litigation had been ineffective in eliminating discriminatory voting practices because jurisdictions replaced invalidated practices with new discriminatory measures. In response, Congress enacted the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As subsequently amended, the VRA contains numerous provisions designed to protect voting rights. Notably, Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 4 established a coverage formula to identify jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination, while Section 5 required those jurisdictions to obtain approval from either the US Department of Justice or the US District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing changes affecting voting. This approval process—commonly known as "preclearance"—was intended to ensure that proposed changes did not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color.

Recent US Supreme Court decisions have limited federal protections against discriminatory voting practices. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) 570 U.S. 529, invalidated the VRA's Section 4 coverage formula, effectively ending Section 5 preclearance. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court upheld Section 2 of the VRA in Louisiana v. Callais, but the majority opinion also established additional criteria for evaluating claims under Section 2, including a requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate that a challenged district map was the result of intentional racial discrimination. A dissenting opinion in the case concluded that those changes "render[] Section 2 all but a dead letter." In light of these decisions, supporters of this bill argue that California law should be updated to fill gaps in federal protections by providing broader safeguards against both vote dilution and voter suppression.

The existing CVRA addresses vote dilution only in at-large elections. This bill would expand the law to allow challenges to district-based election systems that impair protected groups' ability to elect candidates of choice or influence election outcomes. It would also create a new cause of action allowing affected voters to challenge election policies or practices that result in voter suppression, including practices unrelated to district boundaries, such as the placement of voting locations or the timing of elections.

These changes would significantly expand the scope of the CVRA. Under existing law, a local jurisdiction's adoption of district-based elections generally serves as a defense to a CVRA claim.

Moreover, although courts have authority to impose remedies other than district-based elections in appropriate cases, the adoption of district elections has been by far the most common response to CVRA challenges. In practice, relatively few CVRA claims have proceeded to trial; most jurisdictions that have modified their election systems in response to the CVRA have done so before litigation was filed, often in response to a demand letter or threat of legal action.

By contrast, this bill would authorize challenges to virtually any election method, policy, or practice used by political subdivisions and would grant courts broad authority to fashion remedies tailored to address identified violations. Those remedies could include measures that are not currently authorized by state law. For example, although California law does not presently provide a framework for conducting elections using proportional representation systems, this bill expressly contemplates the possibility that a court could order the use of a SB 1164

"share-based" election method, such as proportional representation. Similarly, the bill contemplates that a court could order changes to the size of a local governing body, including, in some circumstances, requiring a governing body to exceed the size otherwise permitted by state law. (Any increase in the size of a governing body would need to be "reasonable," and this bill restricts the ability of a court to order a change in the size of a county's board of supervisors.) This flexibility could allow courts to develop more effective remedies for vote dilution and voter suppression, but also makes the bill's potential effects on election administration and local governance difficult to predict. Allowing courts to order election methods or governance structures not currently authorized by state law could also limit the Legislature's opportunity to evaluate the associated policy considerations before implementation.

The bill also strengthens the CVRA by establishing a preapproval requirement for certain jurisdictions that violated specified voting-rights laws. A local government agency that committed such violations would need to obtain approval from the AG for certain electionrelated changes for a period of ten years. This process is modeled on the preclearance system that previously applied to some jurisdictions under Section 5 of the VRA, as discussed above.

Please see the policy committee analyses for a full discussion of this bill According to the Author
"Under the stewardship of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually chipped away at the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the last two decades, culminating with its recent horrific decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Because the California Voting Rights Act of 2021 only prohibits discriminatory at-large election systems, California law is now inadequate to provide the voting rights safeguards that have protected Californian voters for generations. The California Voting Rights Act of 2026 will enshrine many of the provisions prohibiting vote dilution, voter suppression, and other forms of voter discrimination that once existed in the federal VRA into state law. This bill will also ensure that California continues to lead on voting rights by providing the California Attorney General and individual California voters with improved means to enforce state elections laws." Arguments in Support
The sponsor of this bill—the California Democracy Partnership, a coalition of labor, civil rights, and community-based organizations, writes, "Voting rights are under active attack at the federal level: in court; in Congress; by Executive Orders; and through the weaponization of the U.S.

Department of Justice, which has historically been a bulwark against discrimination but is now a direct threat to voters of color. Indeed, over the past 15 years the U.S. Supreme Court has eviscerated the federal VRA's core protections. This past April, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court delivered perhaps the most devastating blow to the federal VRA yet, undercutting voters' ability to successfully challenge discriminatory election systems and district maps under that landmark law. The challenges California faces are not limited to federal attacks. Despite its progressive reputation, other conditions that foster voting discrimination persist in California: unfair district maps that weaken the voting power of communities of color, higher numbers of mail ballot rejections for voters of color, and lack of access to voting materials in county jails… Ongoing federal and local threats to voting rights highlight why California must act now to protect all voters, especially voters of color. SB 1164 is a direct response that will prevent voting discrimination, promote fair participation, and expand opportunities for communities of color to have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of choice." SB 1164

Arguments in Opposition
In opposition to a prior version of this bill, the City of Carson wrote, "[a]s the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais (2026), 608 U.S.__, 146 S.Ct. 1131, the Fifteenth Amendment precludes any state from districting based on racial criteria. This holding applies to all states because it is grounded in the U.S. Constitution, not merely an interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The only exception is if a state (or subdivision thereof) can prove that a race-based remedy is necessary upon evidence of intentional racial discrimination. SB 1164, as drafted and currently amended, imposes no such constitutionally mandated limitation applicable to City elections (such as a City council election) challenged as violating California's Voting Rights Act of 2026. This means that any City can challenge SB 1164 — should it become law — for a facial failure to comply with the U.S. Constitution.

Carson therefore opposes SB 1164 unless it is amended to clarify that liability under that Act can only be imposed based upon evidence of intentional racial discrimination."

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Costs of approximately $1.3 million in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27, $2.3 million in FY 2027-28, and $2.2 million annually thereafter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for increased workload to develop and defend regulations, provide and defend pre-approval to certain political subdivisions, and conduct related engagement, reviews, investigations, and enforcement (General Fund (GF)). DOJ anticipates needing at least nine new positions and an external consultant for specialized workload on issues pertinent to voting rights, elections, district maps, and demographics.
2) Costs of approximately $859,000 in the first year and $574,000 annually thereafter to the SOS to promulgate regulations and examine, test, certify, or conditionally approve voting systems, software, procedures, and voting technologies adopted to remedy a CVRA 2026 violation (GF). The SOS anticipates needing three additional positions for the increased workload while maintaining separation of duties between certification and monitoring functions and operational continuity during peak election periods. 3) By requiring a political subdivision to follow CVRA 2026 procedures and modifying the duties of local elections officials, this bill likely creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, a local agency could claim reimbursement from the state (GF). The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but definitely significant.
4) Ongoing cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to the courts in additional workload by allowing the AG or certain voters to bring a prioritized action to enforce voting rights, allowing certain aggrieved voters to bring an action to challenge a preapproval determination granted by the AG, and requiring a court to review proposed remedies (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). It is unclear how many actions may occur statewide and how much court time may be needed to resolve each case, but 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 staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF. The state budget provides annual GF SB 1164

backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in fiscal year 2025-26.

VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 29-9-2
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares ABS, ABST OR NV: Becker, Grove
ASM JUDICIARY: 9-3-0
YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur NO: Macedo, Dixon, Sanchez
ASM ELECTIONS: 6-2-0
YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Berman, Elhawary, Solache, Stefani NO: Johnson, Ellis
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache
NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED
VERSION: August 13, 2026
CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0003647 SB 1167

SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1167 (Blakespear)
As Amended July 1, 2026
Majority vote

SUMMARY
Revises the definitions of electric bicycles (e-bikes), motor-driven cycles, and mopeds, updates the labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and sellers of these devices, and expands prohibitions on false advertising and unfair competition related to e-bikes. This bill additionally establishes new operational and safety requirements and imposes additional reporting requirements on law enforcement, among other things.

Major Provisions
1) Clarifies the list of devices and vehicles that are not e-bikes and may not be advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as e-bikes.
2) Adds to the definition of a "motor-driven cycle" vehicles that are propelled by an electric motor of less than 3,750 watts that produces 5 brake horsepower or less, are designed for highway use, and comply with all applicable federal motor safety standards and requires motor-driven cycles and mopeds to have a 17-digit vehicle identification number and a specified safety certification.
3) Deletes the term "motorized bicycle" from the Vehicle Code and replaces it with "moped" and makes numerous technical changes to the definition of a moped, including:
a) Specifies that a moped must have an electric motor of less than 3,000 watts or an internal combustion engine that produces less than 4 gross brake horsepower; b) Clarifies that a moped must be designed for highway use and comply with all applicable federal motor safety standards;
c) Clarifies that a moped does not include an e-bike, motor-driven cycle, motorized scooter, pocket bike, or off-highway electric motorcycle, and advertising a moped as an e-bike shall constitute a misleading statement;
d) Authorizes a moped to be equipped with operable pedals for propulsion by human power; and,
e) Clarifies that only mopeds powered by a liquid fuel must be equipped with an adequate muffler.
4) Requires motor-driven cycles and mopeds propelled by an electric motor and manufactured after January 1, 2027, to be equipped with a lamp-type turn signal system and requires every motor-driven cycle and moped operating during darkness to be equipped with at least one and not more than two lighted headlamps.
5) Prohibits the operation of a two-wheeled or three-wheeled device powered by an electric motor that is capable of propelling the device at a speed greater than 20 mph on level ground on a highway or public right-of-way when powered solely by the motor unless the device SB 1167

meets a definition of a class of motor vehicle device that is explicitly defined in the Vehicle Code, complies with all applicable requirements for that motor vehicle, and is explicitly authorized for use on a highway or public right-of-way. The bill also extends this prohibition to any device that has multiple speed modes or settings, even if one or more of the settings limit the maximum speed of the device to 20 mph, and devices that are designed or designated by the manufacturer for off-road use or for use on private land. 6) Authorizes a peace officer to remove a prohibited device described above if a person is operating the unauthorized device on a highway or public-right-of-way. 7) Requires manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles, mopeds, and motor-driven cycles to securely affix an informational label to the frame or fork that is readily visible without inverting the electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle, and that cannot be removed without the marking or labeling being defaced or destroyed. The information shall be printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type.
8) Prohibits the sale or installation of an electric bicycle classification label unless the classification label is sold and installed in a physical retailer or bicycle repair shop. 9) Requires a retailer and bicycle repair shop of electric bicycles to verify that the classification label matches the legal electric bicycle class before installing the classification label on an electric bicycle.
10) Requires any incident report filed by a peace officer for an injury or crash involving an electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle to include all of the information provided on the device’s label, including brand name, manufacturer, top speed, top wattage, and classification. If the electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle does not have the marking or label, the incident report must indicate that a marking or label was not available. 11) Requires every manufacturer, importer, or seller of a motor-driven cycle, a moped, or an offhighway electric motorcycle that is powered by an electric motor to provide a disclosure to all potential buyers in any advertising (including any online advertising). 12) Extends the definition of "off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification" to include mopeds and off-highway electric motorcycles.

COMMENTS
Electric bicycle safety. As electric bicycle popularity has gone up, so have injuries. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 381 (Min), Chapter 869, which directed the MTI at San Jose State University to study electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians. MTI released the report Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Policy Options for California in December of 2025.

According to the report, "In 2023, a total of 461,062 patients were treated at California hospitals with transportation-related injuries. Only 4,757 patients were identified as electric bicycle riders.

Thus, electric bicycle riders comprised just 1% of all patients with transportation-related injury.

Comparatively, 44,039 patients were identified as conventional bicycle riders, or 10% of all transportation-related patients. Overall, there were more than 9 times more injured conventional bicycle riders than injured electric bicycle riders. By far the most patients were injured in motor SB 1167

vehicle incidents: 62%." The report found that electric bicycle-related injuries may result in slightly more hospitalizations than conventional bicycle incidents, specifically “In the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%).

In addition, most of the people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults. NEISS reported that one in five electric bicycle patients (20%) were minors, almost identical to their share of the U.S. population. In comparison, 43% of conventional bicycle patients were minors. Slightly over half of the electric bicycle patients (54%) were adults aged 18 to 49 years. Electric bicycle patients had the oldest median age (34 years), a full decade higher than conventional bicycles (24 years). Mopeds/power-assisted cycles have the second highest median age, 30 years.

Illegal e-bikes are likely the problem. Illegal e-bikes are electric bicycles that exceed 750 watts of motor power, have a top speed greater than 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2) or 28 mph (for Class 3), or lack fully operable pedals. These vehicles are generally legally classified as electric motorcycles or mopeds, requiring registration, insurance, and proper licensing.

As part of the Mineta Institute report, surveys were conducted at Marin and San Mateo County middle and high schools to see what types of devices children were riding. Those surveys found that 88% of the devices at Marin County schools and 87% of the devices at San Mateo County schools were bicycles with electric motors that did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, suggesting a significant proliferation of illegal devices into the marketplace, particularly for devices marketed towards children.

This bill attempts to clarify that any motorcycle, mopeds, motorized scooters, off-highway electric motorized bicycles pocket bikes or recreational off-highway vehicles are not e-bikes and cannot be sold as such. This bill also defines what is not considered an e-bike, including devices capable of providing assistance exceeding 28 mph or vehicles intended by the manufacturer to be modified to be capable of providing assistance exceeding 28 mph. This bill updates outdated language defining motor driven cycles using language that only applies to gasoline cars. Under this bill, a motor driven cycle may also have 3,750 watts that produce 5 brake horsepower, not just a 150cc engine. This bill also requires motor-driven cycles and mopeds to have a 17-digit VIN number (many newer vehicles on the market only have serial numbers and are not necessarily complying with federal motor vehicle safety standards). To clear up confusion between “motorized bicycles” and e-bikes, this bill deletes the term "motorized bicycle" from the Vehicle Code and instead exclusively refers to the devices as mopeds.

There is no direct criminal statute for law enforcement to charge you with when a device is not a moped, motorized bicycle, motor driven cycle, or motorcycle. Law enforcement can charge a person for driving a vehicle while lacking the proper license, or driving an unregistered vehicle, amongst other criminal charges. AB 875 authorized law enforcement to remove such unclassified vehicles from the road last year. This bill goes a step further and explicitly creates a violation for riding a two-wheeled or three-wheeled device powered by an electric motor that is capable of propelling the device at a speed greater than 20 mph unless the device meets the definitions of a class of motor vehicle explicitly defined in the Vehicle Code and complied with all applicable requirements for that motor vehicle.

This bill and recommendation from the Mineta report: This bill makes several revisions to the law consistent with the Mineta report’s recommendations. This bill requires better labeling of e- SB 1167

bikes, including a label that has the name of the brand, the manufacturer of the electric bicycle, the classification number of the electric bicycle, the top assisted speed and the motor wattage of the electric bicycle. It also prohibits the sale of stickers by outside groups with this information.

It requires moped and motor-driven cycles to have similar labels. It also makes it illegal to sell an electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle in violation of the labeling disclosure equirements detailed above.

One of the key problems the Mineta Report highlights is the lack of accurate data about injuries and fatalities from collisions reported by peace officers. This bill requires police officers to file incident reports for an injury or crash involving an electric bicycle, moped, or motor-driven cycle to include all of the information provided on the device’s label, or indicate if a label was missing.

According to the Author
"The three class system for e-bikes can be confusing for consumers, media, healthcare providers, and law enforcement. Unscrupulous businesses have taken advantage of this confusion by selling powerful motor vehicles as 'e-bikes.' SB 1167 will improve community safety by better regulating motor vehicles that look like e-bikes so purchasers are aware of the safety risks, manufactures are held responsible for misleading advertisements, and law enforcement can collect better data."
Arguments in Support
Peopleforbikes and Streets for All, writing as the sponsors of this bill, argue "SB 1167 clarifies the legal definition of electric bicycles and ensures that higher-powered two-wheeled vehicles are not marketed or sold as e-bikes. The bill ensures these devices are properly classified and disclosed as motor-driven cycles or mopeds rather than electric bicycles. "In recent years, the rapid rise of electric bikes and other electric personal mobility devices has created confusion for consumers who may not be familiar with the legal distinctions between an e-bike, a moped, or a motor-driven cycle. Some companies have taken advantage of this confusion by marketing devices as e-bikes even when they are closer in power to motorcycles, creating risks for riders and other road users.
"SB 1167 addresses this problem by clarifying vehicle definitions and prohibiting the advertising or sale of motor-driven cycles and mopeds as electric bicycles. It also requires manufacturers, importers, and sellers of certain electric motor vehicles to disclose when a product is not an ebike and may require registration or licensing." Arguments in Opposition
None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS
According to Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown, but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings resulting from violations of the requirements and prohibitions in 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 SB 1167

demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.
2) The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) anticipates minor costs associated with forms and publication updates, including revisions to the Motorcycle Handbook. 3) The California Highway Patrol (CHP) anticipates minor, absorbable costs for policy and training updates and to collect additional crash data.
4) Costs to local law enforcement to collect additional crash data. The committee does not know the magnitude of these local costs but notes the CHP expects such costs to be minor and absorbable, as described above. Nonetheless, these local costs may be significant in the aggregate, statewide. The state would need to reimburse these local costs, likely from the General Fund, if locals file a claim with the Commission on State Mandates and the commission determines the costs to be a reimbursable state mandate.

VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 37-0-3
YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener ABS, ABST OR NV: Dahle, Gonzalez, Niello
ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1
YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Macedo, Papan, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp-Collins, Ward
ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0
YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED
VERSION: July 1, 2026
CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003527

Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON August 5, 2026
The Honorable Blanca Pacheco
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5350
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1821 (Pacheco) – California Public Records Act: Agency Response Time Tri Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support (As Amended 6/25/26) Dear Assembly Member Pacheco:

On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, representing the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon and the Town of Danville, we write to express our support for AB 1821 (Pacheco), which would clarify that the response periods established under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) are measured in business days rather than calendar days.

The Coalition’s member agencies remain firmly committed to transparency, accountability, and providing the public with timely access to government records. At the same time, the current calendar-day standard does not account for weekends, state and federal holidays, or days when public offices are closed and staff are unavailable to review and respond to requests.

AB 1821 makes a narrow and reasonable change by specifying that agencies have 10 business days to make an initial determination regarding a records request. When one of the unusual circumstances already recognized under existing law applies, the bill similarly clarifies that the permitted extension is 14 business days. The bill does not change the types of records subject to disclosure, create new exemptions, or diminish an agency’s obligation to respond promptly.

Public records requests have also become increasingly complex and voluminous as government records and communications have expanded across digital platforms. Responding appropriately often requires coordination among multiple departments, legal review, and the careful identification and redaction of confidential or legally protected information. Aligning the statutory response period with the days public agencies are actually open will provide staff with a more workable timeframe while preserving the public’s fundamental right of access.

AB 1821 strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and the practical realities facing local agencies. For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition respectfully supports AB 1821 and requests your continued support as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON 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 Newell Arnerich Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON August 5, 2026
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Chair, Assembly Committee on Appropriations
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1164 (Cervantes) Elections
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Opposition, Unless Amended Dear Chair Wicks:

On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, representing the Town of Danville and the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we write to respectfully oppose SB 1164 (Cervantes) unless amended. We support the bill’s goal of protecting every Californian’s right to participate fully and equally in the electoral process. However, as currently drafted, SB 1164 would create substantial new legal and fiscal exposure for cities. This includes jurisdictions that have already acted in good faith to comply with the California Voting Rights Act. As written the bill does not provide sufficiently clear standards or a workable compliance process.

SB 1164 would repeal and replace the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 and significantly expand the types of local election policies and practices subject to challenge. Among other changes, the bill would allow district maps and mixed district-plus-citywide election systems to be challenged; create new votersuppression and vote-dilution causes of action; establish broad organizational standing and one-way attorney-fee recovery; increase demand-letter reimbursement exposure; and authorize courts to impose remedies without deference to a local agency’s proposed solution.

Our coalition is particularly concerned that the bill removes the practical certainty cities have relied upon after transitioning from at-large to district-based elections. Cities that incurred significant public expense and conducted extensive community engagement to comply with existing law could immediately face a new round of litigation over their district maps, staggered election cycles, or governance structures. The bill also combines compressed statutory response periods with expanded hearing, publication, translation, and outreach duties, while allowing overlapping claims during a city’s good-faith compliance process.

To address these concerns, the Coalition respectfully requests the following amendments:
• Preserve a safe harbor for cities that have already converted to district-based elections. A method of election adopted before the bill’s effective date in response to a notice letter, legal action, or voluntary conversion under the existing CVRA should not be subject to a new vote-dilution claim unless the plaintiff demonstrates that demographic conditions or voting patterns have materially changed since adoption.
• Protect district-based systems that include a citywide elected mayor. Clarify that a district-based system with an elective mayor and that the existence of a citywide elected office may not, standing alone, establish or support a vote-dilution claim.
• Prevent overlapping demand-letter litigation. Make the statutory 45-day and 90-day protected periods applicable to all prospective plaintiffs while a local agency is proceeding with reasonable diligence under an adopted resolution of intent. Public posting of a demand letter should promote transparency, not invite duplicative claims while a city is actively pursuing compliance.

ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON • Toll the response periods during required public proceedings. Pause the statutory response periods while a local agency diligently completes the hearings, map-publication cycles, multilingual outreach, and other procedures required by Elections Code Section 10010. A city should not be exposed to suit because the bill’s procedural requirements cannot realistically be completed within the bill’s own deadlines.
• Define “material disparity.” Establish an objective standard requiring a statistically significant and meaningful difference supported by competent evidence and not attributable to chance. Because a showing of material disparity shifts the burden to the local agency and triggers a heightened evidentiary standard, cities must be able to determine in advance whether their policies comply with the law.

These amendments would preserve meaningful remedies for voters who experience genuine discrimination or dilution while providing local agencies with clear, workable rules and recognizing the substantial efforts cities have already undertaken to comply with California law. They would also reduce avoidable litigation and ensure that public resources remain focused on inclusive elections and essential local services rather than duplicative legal proceedings.

For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition respectfully opposes SB 1164 unless amended to address the issues outlined above. We welcome the opportunity to work with the author, sponsors, and Committee to develop language that advances the bill’s voting-rights objectives while providing cities with fair notice, clear standards, and a feasible path to compliance.

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 Newell Arnerich Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON August 17, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Robert Rivas
Speaker of the Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Monique Limón
President pro Tempore of the Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8518
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Wildfire Liability Reform – OPPOSE Provisions Limiting Local Government Recovery
Tri Valley Cities Coalition
Dear Governor Newsom, Speaker Rivas, and President pro Tempore Limón:

On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, comprised of the communities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we write to oppose any wildfire liability reform proposal that limits the ability of local governments to fully recover emergency response costs, damage to public infrastructure and property, lost public revenues, and other costs resulting from a utilitycaused wildfire.

The Tri-Valley is acutely aware of the growing threat posed by catastrophic wildfires. Our communities include extensive wildland-urban interface areas, critical evacuation routes, major transportation corridors, essential water and utility infrastructure, and neighborhoods located near high and very high fire hazard severity zones. Our cities devote significant local resources to emergency preparedness, vegetation management, evacuation planning, mutual aid, public safety, and community resilience.

We recognize the importance of maintaining a stable Wildfire Fund, ensuring that wildfire survivors receive timely compensation, protecting ratepayers, and strengthening California’s wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts. These objectives, however, should not be achieved by shifting costs away from utilities and their shareholders and onto local governments, taxpayers, wildfire survivors, and affected communities.

Cities are on the front lines when catastrophic wildfires occur. Local agencies do not wait for litigation or reimbursement decisions before responding. Cities deploy police, fire, public works, emergency management, and other personnel; coordinate evacuations; clear and reopen roads; restore water and sewer systems; repair damaged public facilities; maintain essential services; and support residents throughout the recovery and rebuilding process.

Damage to local infrastructure can extend well beyond what is visible immediately after a fire.

Water and sewer systems, roads, communications equipment, public buildings, parks, and other essential facilities may all require significant repair or replacement. A community cannot meaningfully rebuild if the public infrastructure needed to support homes, businesses, and essential services remains damaged.

ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON If local governments are prevented from recovering these costs from the utility responsible for the fire, the costs do not disappear. They are instead transferred to local taxpayers and already constrained municipal budgets, potentially forcing reductions to public safety, infrastructure maintenance, emergency preparedness, and other essential services.

Federal disaster assistance is not an adequate substitute for utility accountability. Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursement can take years, may cover only a portion of eligible costs, and is not available following every emergency. Local governments should not be required to pursue, exhaust, or wait for federal or state disaster assistance before seeking recovery from a responsible utility.

We are also concerned about any proposal that would limit the recovery of property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, or other public revenues lost following a catastrophic wildfire. These revenues fund the very public safety personnel, infrastructure, emergency operations, and community services most needed during recovery. Restricting their recovery would further destabilize affected communities at the time they are least able to absorb additional financial losses.

Accordingly, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition respectfully requests that any wildfire liability legislation:
• Preserve inverse condemnation and other existing legal remedies for utility-caused wildfires.
• Preserve the ability of cities and counties to fully recover emergency response, debris removal, infrastructure repair, public property, rebuilding, and long-term recovery costs. • Preserve recovery for lost tax and other public revenues needed to maintain essential services.
• Avoid imposing caps, exclusions, reimbursement hierarchies, or heightened liability standards that disadvantage affected local governments. • Avoid requiring local agencies to seek or exhaust FEMA or other disaster assistance before recovering costs from a responsible utility.
• Ensure that compliance with an approved wildfire mitigation plan does not provide a complete defense to negligence or otherwise eliminate accountability for unsafe utility operations.
• Strengthen utility oversight, system hardening, vegetation management, infrastructure maintenance, and enforcement for repeated safety violations. • Ensure that wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts are coordinated with local governments and reflect local evacuation, infrastructure, land-use, and emergencyresponse conditions.

The Coalition supports a comprehensive and transparent discussion about wildfire prevention, utility accountability, insurance availability, ratepayer affordability, and community resilience. Any reforms of this magnitude must be publicly vetted and developed with meaningful participation from cities, counties, wildfire survivors, and other affected stakeholders.

California should focus on preventing catastrophic wildfires, strengthening utility safety, and helping communities become more resilient. It should not require local taxpayers to absorb the costs when utility equipment causes a wildfire.

Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition respectfully opposes any wildfire liability reform proposal that limits local-government recovery or shifts utility-caused wildfire costs onto affected communities.

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 Newell Arnerich Mayor Sherry Hu Mayor John Marchand