City of Gonzales
CITY ATTORNEY
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor Rios and City Council
DATE: January 12, 2026
FROM: Michael Rodriquez, City Attorney
THROUGH: Carmen Gil, City Manager
SUBJECT: Changes to the Brown Act Under SB 707
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council accept the report and provide legal counsel and staff with direction.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
SB 707, approved by the Governor on October 3, 2025, codifies significant changes to the Ralph M.
Brown Act (“Brown Act”), California’s open meetings law that ensures the public’s business is conducted openly and transparently and protects the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. SB 707 aims to broaden and diversify public engagement in local government and modernize the Brown Act in the face of technological advances, with a particular emphasis on improving access for disabled, underrepresented, and non-English speaking communities. To achieve these goals, SB 707 amends numerous provisions, establishes new duties and expectations for legislative bodies, and reorganizes various provisions of the Brown Act to improve clarity and readability. Additionally, SB 707 expands and clarifies teleconferencing rules, ensuring that remote meetings maintain transparency, provide public access and public comment opportunities, and accommodate public participation from members within the agency’s jurisdiction. Most updates under SB 707 are effective as of January 1, 2026.
The most significant (and costly) changes to the Brown Act only apply to “eligible legislative bodies.” With respect to city councils, an eligible legislative body is a city council in a city with a population of at least 30,000 or a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more. Since the City of Gonzales does not fall within this definition, it does not have to satisfy many of the new SB 707 requirements.
AGENDA
ITEM
7 However, the Gonzales City Council and all other similar legislative bodies in the State will have to comply with a number of general amendments to the Brown Act as follows:
1. Alternative Teleconferencing Rules: SB 707 leaves intact the traditional teleconference rules set forth in Government Code Section 54953, which require the Council to take votes by rollcall, post agendas at all teleconference meetings, identify each teleconference location on the agenda, make each teleconference location accessible to the public, and ensure that a quorum of members of the legislative body participate from locations within the City. However, it also provides new rules and regulations that allow teleconferencing in seven specific circumstances so long as the Council follows both a general set of rules governed by Section 54953.8 as well as specific rules governing each set of circumstances. Circumstances applicable to Gonzales include meeting during a proclaimed state or local state of emergency or when a board member establishes a need to participate remotely with just cause. The basic requirements for all seven exceptions include:
• Must allow the public to remotely hear and observe the meeting and provide comment by way of a two-way audio-visual platform or two-way telephonic service and live webcasting.
• If disruptions occur that prevent observation or call-in service or public comment, the council is prohibited from taking action on agenda items until service is restored. • The identity of the teleconferencing member(s) and the specific provision of the law that allows teleconferencing must be included in meeting minutes. • The teleconferencing member must disclose whether any individual 18 years or older is in the remote location from which the member is participating and the relationship between such individuals.
The just cause exception has been modified to include additional causes for remote participation and has eliminated the need for the Council to vote to accept the stated “just cause.” (A welcome addition since the prior voting requirement was always somewhat awkward.) The just cause exception continues to be subject to limited use, in Gonzales’ case, five times within a year per councilmember for an entity that meets twice a month. 1
SB 707 has also added provisions that allow a legislative board member with a disability to participate in meetings remotely, subject to certain rules, as a reasonable accommodation to applicable laws, like the Americans With Disabilities Act.2 This addition comports with a July 2024 California Attorney General’s opinion.
2. Subsidiary Body Teleconference Rules. SB 707 allows an “eligible subsidiary body,” including certain standing committees, to meet remotely, provided that the standing committee meets the legal definition of an “eligible subsidiary body” and meets other certain requirements.3 The rules regarding this new right are fairly technical and staff will need to do a case-by-case analysis to determine when they are applicable to the City’s standing committees. The most important of the rules is the requirement that the subsidiary body be exclusively advisory, with no authority to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements, grants or allocations of funds.
1 Gov. Code § 54953.8.3(a)(3)(A)-(B); (b); (c)(1)-(7)
2 Gov. Code § 54953(c)(1)
3 Gov. Code § 54953.8.6.
3. Multijurisdictional Body Teleconferencing Rules. SB 707 now allows an “eligible multijurisdictional body” to conduct a teleconference meeting. It will be the responsibility of the multijurisdictional body to determine if and when it wants to allow teleconferencing in accordance with established rules, including but not limited to the following:
• The body must adopt a resolution authorizing teleconferencing; • At least a quorum of a body’s members must participate from one or more physical locations open to the public and within the body’s jurisdiction; • A member of the body shall not participate remotely unless the location from which the member participates remotely is more than 20 miles each way from any physical location where a quorum of body’s members participates; • A member is limited to how often they may participate remotely based on the number of times the body meets per year.4
4. The Council will have to comply with the following miscellaneous provisions added by SB 707 to the Brown Act:
• Committee Exception to Public Comment Requirements. The Council must allow public comment on an item that appeared before a committee if:
o the item was substantially changed since the committee’s review; o a quorum of the committee members did not participate from a singular physical location, clearly identified on the agenda, open to the public, and situated within the City’s jurisdiction; or
o the committee focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals.5
As a practical matter this new provision will not impact the Council as we have never denied public comment on committee recommendations or matters appearing before a committee. • Provide Copy of Brown Act. The City must provide a copy of the Brown Act to every newly elected or appointed member of the Council.6 Again, this will have no impact on the City since it has been long-standing City practice to provide new members of the Council or subsidiary legislative bodies with a copy of the Brown Act.
• Special Meeting Agenda Posting. The City must post its agenda on its website if a special meeting is called.7
• Disruptive Teleconferencing Conduct. The City may remove or limit participation by members of the public who participate remotely at city council meetings.8 While rules authorizing 4 Gov. Code § 54953.8.7(a).
5 SB 707, amending Gov. Code § 54954.3(a).
6 SB 707, amending Gov. Code § 54952.7.
7 SB 707, amending Gov. Code § 54956.
legislative bodies to remove individuals engaged in disruptive conduct at meetings exist, previously there was no such authority or guidance for removing disruptive remote comment and/or participants. This new law is meant to address the “zoom bombing” phenomena. • Social Media Use. SB 707 eliminates the sunset clause governing how members of a legislative body may use social media platforms, making these provisions permanent. Council members may continue to communicate with constituents on social media but must refrain from engaging with fellow councilmembers about council business on such platforms.9 In light of the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Council direct staff to initiate the following actions:
1. The City should prepare and adopt a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with a disability to participate in a teleconferenced meeting.
2. The Council should adopt a resolution requiring that a copy of the Brown Act be provided to every newly elected or appointed member of the City Council and subsidiary bodies.
3. The Council should adopt a resolution or policy requiring that its agenda be posted on its website every time a special meeting is called at least 24 hours before the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
N/A.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
N/A.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the report and provide legal counsel and staff with direction.
Attachments:
1. SB 707
8 SB 707, adding Gov. Code § 54957.96.
9 SB 707, deleting Gov. Code § 54952.2(d).