Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, May 4, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

2 concern. When commissioners are asked to weigh the merits of ordinances they are philosophically predisposed to oppose, the integrity of the ʺfair hearingʺ is called into question.

III. Formal Demand
To preserve the integrity of the City’s legislative process and shield the City from future litigation, we demand the following:

1. Immediate Recusal: That Commissioner Patel be recused from the April 14, 2026, Planning Commission hearing and all subsequent proceedings on this matter.

2. Written Assurance: Written confirmation of this recusal by 4:00 PM on April 14, 2026.

3. Neutral Record: That the administrative record reflect these concerns to ensure the resulting ordinance is not tainted by the appearance of bias.

The San Mateo Heritage Alliance supports a balanced approach to housing and history. However, a fair balance cannot be achieved when the leadership of the adjudicating body has already publicly declared opposition to the subject matter.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: San Mateo City Council; City Manager
792 of 976
From: Tracy Volponi
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE - Historic Districts
I am OPPOSED to residential historic “Districts” in general. Labeling a “House” historic within a district makes sense if there is some worthwhile significance to it. (I.e. Steve Jobs house in Los Altos.) It is quite a stretch to assume 400 houses in any neighborhood would meet that “historic” criteria.

If an entire residential neighborhood is to be assessed for historical designation, it should require uniform significance and the CONSENT of at least 61% of the homeowners.
793 of 976
From: weller323
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 10:00 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I am dismayed that the proposed amendments/revisions to San Mateo's Preservation Ordinance do not advance its stated goals of preserving and encouraging our city's heritage and sense of community. Here are just a few of my concerns:
>The 2026 Historic Resources Inventory no longer includes most of properties identified in 1989. The 2026 list is very limited and doesn't even include many known resources such as the Yamanouchi House, the Glazenwood Historic District, etc. >It will be much more onerous to list an individual property or historic district. Lengthy application process involving many steps, many city hoops to be jumped, more time and expense for both the city and the applicants. Rather than encouraging historic preservation, the new ordinances will discourage it. Instead of "less red tape" there will be more!
>There is no clear definition of and authority for the Historic Resource Commission which will be apparently be important for future historic preservation decisions. Exactly what purpose will it serve? Who will serve on the commission? What decisions will it have the authority to rule on?
I hope any future Historic Preservation ordinance will address these issues.

Sincerely,
Nancy Weller
794 of 976
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:43 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Seema Patel <[email protected]>; Adam Klafter <[email protected]>; Margaret Williams <[email protected]>; Caiti Busch <[email protected]>; Maxwell Schaumkel <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: SM Heritage Alliance Presentation
Dear Planning Commissioners:

The City Clerk said we are too late to be able to have our presentation projected so I am providing it to you here.

Please refer to it during the oral presentation.

Thank you,
--
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
795 of 976
796 of 976
797 of 976
798 of 976
799 of 976
800 of 976
801 of 976
802 of 976
803 of 976
804 of 976
805 of 976
From: Michal Lim
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 8:39 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Danielle CwirkoGodycki <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: Save San Mateo's Historical Buildings
Dear Commission,
Do not throw out the "oldster" with the bath water. Sometimes your commission is so "young thinking" that you miss the value of heritage and history. There are buildings and other features around San Mateo that need to be conserved and designated as part of our history but the process for doing so seems to be too onerous for this to happen. How about following state and national guidelines? The Masonic Lodge and Seven Oaks are just a couple of examples. There are undoubtedly more.

Being progressive is fine but this tendency needs to be tempered with honoring our past so that we know who we are and from where we have come. It's time to reform and rethink the designation process before we lose our "ancestor" monuments.

Very sincerely and worriedly yours,
Michal Lim
806 of 976
From: Shirley Melnicoe
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:37 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Strengthening San Mateo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) Subject: Strengthening San Mateo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) Dear Planning Commission Members,
I strongly believe the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance should be strengthened to more effectively preserve San Mateo’s architectural, cultural, and community heritage. It should also be fully consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.

Why Strengthening the Ordinance Matters
Historic preservation advances multiple City priorities identified in planning documents and public discussions:
• Sustainability: Reusing existing buildings reduces demolition waste and embodied carbon.
• Neighborhood Character: Preservation helps maintain the distinct identity of San Mateo’s historic districts and older neighborhoods.
• Economic Vitality: Historic areas attract visitors, support small businesses, and stabilize property values.
• Cultural Continuity: Protecting sites tied to community history ensures that San Mateo’s diverse stories remain visible and accessible.

Key Opportunities for Improvement

1. Expand the Scope Beyond Downtown
The current ordinance focuses heavily on the Downtown Historic District. Many significant resources—mid-century neighborhoods, cultural landmarks, and community gathering places— fall outside this area. A citywide framework would ensure equitable and consistent protection.

Additionally, the more than 200 historic resources identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey should be incorporated into the Historic Resources Inventory so the City can make informed, consistent decisions.

2. Do Not Limit Historic Designation to Property Owner Initiation 807 of 976
Restricting historic designation to property owners alone would significantly weaken the City’s ability to protect important resources. Properties may be owned by corporations, investment groups, or individuals who do not live in San Mateo and may have little interest in local history or community character.

The City should retain the authority to initiate designation when warranted. This is a standard practice in many California cities and ensures that preservation decisions reflect community values—not just ownership status.

3. Provide Meaningful Incentives for Preservation
Preservation succeeds when incentives support responsible stewardship. The City can strengthen its program by offering:
• Mills Act contracts for property tax reductions
• Permit fee reductions for rehabilitation
• Small grants for façade improvements or seismic upgrades • Technical assistance for homeowners and small property owners These tools are widely used across California and have proven effective in encouraging preservation.

Conclusion
San Mateo’s history is one of its greatest assets. Strengthening Chapter 27.66 will help the City protect its architectural and cultural heritage, support sustainability goals, and ensure that future generations can experience the places that define San Mateo’s identity. The current update process is an important opportunity to adopt a modern, equitable, and effective preservation framework.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
808 of 976
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Ordinance update
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As residents of Central San Mateo who appreciate the history behind our city and beautiful varied architecture that it brings to our environment, we ask that you consider the work that has been done in the past, specifically the 1989 survey of San Mateo's historic resources. These are verified sites of historic significance and we should not be ignoring this previous work, and lose our history "by accident". Please include this survey data in the official inventory.

Please do your part as Planning Commissioners and vote to protect our heritage while ensuring future development is within standards to complement our environment.

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza
809 of 976
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Ordinance update
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As residents of Central San Mateo who appreciate the history behind our city and beautiful varied architecture that it brings to our environment, we ask that you consider the work that has been done in the past, specifically the 1989 survey of San Mateo's historic resources. These are verified sites of historic significance and we should not be ignoring this previous work, and lose our history "by accident". Please include this survey data in the official inventory.

Please do your part as Planning Commissioners and vote to protect our heritage while ensuring future development is within standards to complement our environment.

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza
810 of 976
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 2:07 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Chapter 27.66 — Historic Preservation Ordinance — Glazenwood Residential District Re: Chapter 27.66 — Historic Preservation Ordinance — Glazenwood Residential District
I am a San Mateo resident writing to offer comment on the draft of Chapter

27.66 and to request that it be strengthened before adoption.

My concern is documented: the ordinance does not yet provide a framework to address a neighborhood the City has formally identified as historically significant on two occasions over more than 35 years.

The City's Own Record
• 1989: The City commissioned a Historic Building Survey, identifying the Glazenwood Residential District by name and recommending it for nomination as a National Register Historic District. These findings remain part of the public record.
• 2026: The City’s Draft Historic Context Statement—prepared pursuant to General Plan 2040 Action CD 5.9—reaffirmed that earlier work, again identifying Glazenwood as a neighborhood previously found to meet criteria for National Register consideration.

Neither document has been superseded or formally set aside.

The Procedural Gap
Despite this record, Glazenwood does not appear in the City’s current Historic Resources Inventory.

Ignoring this 35-year paper trail is like trying to solve a problem with an open book in front of you, but choosing to look away from the page.

As drafted, Chapter 27.66 does not establish a requirement to consider historic eligibility identified in prior City-commissioned surveys before a demolition permit is issued.

Without closing this gap, the City is about to trip over its own shoelaces.

To pass an ordinance that suppresses this data creates a roadmap for "categorical exemptions" that are legally indefensible and invites unnecessary litigation. Your current draft is like pouring concrete over historic resources—burying them instead of preserving them as mandated by our General Plan.

What I Am Asking
Before this draft is finalized, I respectfully ask the Commission to:
811 of 976

1. Update the Inventory to reflect properties and districts identified in prior City-commissioned surveys, including Glazenwood.

2. Provide a Review Mechanism to consider potential historic eligibility identified in such surveys prior to the issuance of demolition permits.

3. Initiate Further Study of the Glazenwood District, consistent with General Plan 2040 Action CD 5.9.

Aligning the ordinance with the City's own consistent record ensures that identified resources are appropriately considered as part of the City’s review processes.

Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna
San Mateo, California
812 of 976
1 Alby Calles
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:30 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk; Lisa Vande Voorde
Subject: SMHA Comments on
Attachments: SMHA Comments on Ord4.30.26.pdf
Dear City Council:

Please see the attached letter with the San Mateo Heritage Alliance comments on the revised draft ordinance.

I hope you will direct staff to make the recommended improvements.

Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
www.smheritage.org
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented automat c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net 813 of 976
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
April 30, 2026
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94402
SUBJECT: Comments on the April 27, 2026 Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

Thank you for directing the preparation of the Historic Context Statement and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. From a historic preservation perspective, the draft ordinance is significantly weaker than the prior ordinance (1993/1995 versions), which applied review processes to all individually listed or eligible properties citywide. It narrows strong regulatory tools (Certificate of Appropriateness / COA, full enforcement, demolition review) almost exclusively to the narrowly defined San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Eligible resources receive only a minimal “Review Required” planning application trigger (§27.66.090(a)).

From a legal/compliance perspective, the draft is generally within the City’s enabling authority (Gov.

Code §§ 65850, 25373, 37361) and incorporates key elements like the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (§27.66.100). However, it deviates from California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) best practices and model ordinances in several material ways, particularly around scope of applicability, owner consent, and use of existing surveys. Recent state housing laws (AB 130, SB 79) already limit CEQA review of “eligible” (but not listed) resources; this ordinance does not compensate by strengthening local protections—instead, it further reduces them.

Adoption of this ordinance is itself a “project” under CEQA. The reduction in protections for the ~200 resources identified in the 1989 survey (and other eligible properties) likely constitutes a significant environmental effect on cultural resources, requiring proper CEQA analysis.

Recommendations for Council
We request the Council direct staff to:

1. Formally adopt the resources identified as listed, eligible, and potentially eligible in the 1989 survey (or an updated version) into the HRI via resolution,

2. Apply COA/review to all eligible resources identified via HRE (not just those included in the HRI),

3. Relax consent requirements for basic review while retaining them for voluntary designation incentives,

4. Allow the City Council to designate landmark properties,

5. Complete proper CEQA review of the ordinance update if the owner consent and limited applicability of the COI remain, and

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions. 814 of 976
2 7. Please ask staff: What part of this ordinance is active preservation? Key Issues

1. Key Deviations from State and National Guidance
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 (Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances) and model ordinances emphasize broad, proactive protection of identified resources. Here are the major deviations:
 Narrow Scope of the HRI and Applicability (§27.66.030 and §27.66.090)  HRI is limited to:
(a) newly designated landmarks/districts via the new voluntary process, (b) existing locally designated items by resolution as of the effective date.  Deviation: OHP guidance and most California ordinances (e.g., San Francisco Article 10, Seaside, many CLG cities) apply full review/COA requirements to eligible resources identified in surveys or during permit/CEQA review, not just formally designated HRI items. The 1989 survey is referenced only with permissive “may also include” language in the historic resource definition (§27.66.020(j)(4)) and is not automatically part of the HRI. This contradicts OHP recommendations to formally adopt surveys as the baseline inventory.
 Previous San Mateo ordinance updates applied broader review to “all individually listed properties… throughout the city” and eligible resources.  Strict Owner Consent Requirements (§27.66.060 & §27.66.070)  Landmarks: Requires owner consent (majority/controlling interest).  Districts: Two-step process with 20% preliminary owner support + 60% formal consent via certified mail survey, and 75% contributors.
 Deviation: OHP Bulletin #14 explicitly states that “the vast majority of preservation ordinances nationwide wisely avoid any type of owner consent provisions” for basic protections or eligibility review (consent is sometimes used only for designation itself, and even then it is often not required for all resources). Many California cities designate based on surveys/commission initiative without owner veto. The high thresholds here make new designations extremely difficult and effectively voluntary. (Note: California Register allows owner objection to listing but still designates as “eligible.”)  The 75% contributor threshold is arbitrary and not based on guidance, regulations, or best practices.
 Limited Review and Enforcement for Eligible (Non-HRI) Resources (§27.66.090(a), §27.66.110) 815 of 976
3  Eligible resources get only a planning application trigger for exterior modifications—no mandatory COA, no automatic design review by the Historic Resources Commission for major alterations.
 Deviation: OHP and CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5) treat eligible resources the same as designated ones for protection purposes. Model ordinances and CLG requirements expect local ordinances to provide a clear regulatory process (including design review) for any identified eligible resource, especially those in longstanding surveys like the 1989 document.
 Incentives and Penalties (§27.66.130 & §27.66.150)
 Incentives are discretionary and limited (State Historic Building Code, optional Mills Act).

Penalties rely on notice + 30-day cure + general code enforcement.  Deviation: Best practices encourage stronger incentives (e.g., fee waivers, density bonuses, tax relief) and meaningful penalties to encourage compliance. The draft carries forward weak existing language without enhancement.
 Integration with CEQA and Recent Housing Laws
 The draft attempts to maintain status quo via §27.66.090 for eligible resources, but in light of AB 130/SB 79 (which eliminate CEQA study requirements for many “eligible” but unlisted resources), this is insufficient. OHP guidance urges localities to strengthen ordinances to fill gaps created by state housing streamlining.

The ordinance does correctly incorporate the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for COA review (good) and uses standard designation criteria (§27.66.040), but these benefits are available to almost no properties under the current HRI structure.

2. The Consent Requirement and Reduced Applicability Substantially Reduces Historic Preservation and Constitutes a Significant Effect
 Reduction in Protection: The prior ordinance provided citywide review for individually eligible/listed properties. The new draft confines robust COA, demolition review, and enforcement primarily to the existing tiny HRI (downtown district + Glazenwood + a handful of others). The ~200 resources in the 1989 survey (plus others identified via HREs) lose automatic strong protections. Contributors in potential districts and individually eligible properties outside the HRI receive far weaker oversight. This is a clear net loss of preservation regulatory authority.
 Consent as a Barrier: By making strong protections dependent on owner-driven designation with high consent thresholds, the ordinance effectively gives property owners veto power over preservation of their own resources. This is the opposite of proactive preservation policy recommended by OHP.
816 of 976
4  CEQA Significant Effect:

Under CEQA (PRC §21084.1; Guidelines §15064.5), historical resources include those eligible for the California Register or local registers. A local ordinance that materially reduces regulatory protections for a large number of such resources creates a substantial adverse change in their significance and integrity. Adoption of the ordinance itself is a CEQA project; the changes would likely require an EIR or mitigated negative declaration with findings of overriding considerations if impacts cannot be avoided. Courts have scrutinized similar rollbacks (e.g., delisting or weakening review processes) as having significant cultural impacts.  The ordinance and the subsequent reduction in protection is not a common sense exemption and does not qualify for an environmental benefit exemption.

3. The Ordinance is Inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan The ordinance claims to implement General Plan 2040 (as stated in staff presentations), but it narrows rather than aligns with the GP’s policies. By excluding the 1989 survey resources from the regulatory HRI, limiting strong review processes, and making protections largely voluntary, the ordinance undermines Goal CD-5, Policies CD 5.2 and CD 5.3, and Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.10.

Summary
The draft ordinance prioritizes owner consent and development flexibility over comprehensive preservation. It deviates from OHP best practices, weakens protections compared to the prior ordinance, and creates a significant CEQA impact on the City’s historic resources. This weakened protection of historic resources is inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan.

These changes would bring the ordinance into better alignment with the General Plan and state guidance while still respecting owner rights.

Please don’t make your legacy reducing historic protections in San Mateo. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: City Clerk
817 of 976
1 Memorandum
TO: Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council
CC: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
FROM: Zachary Dahl, Community Development Department Director DATE: May 4, 2026
RE: Council Agenda Item – Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Context Statement, Historic Resources Commission Ordinance and Updated Mills Act Program In recent days we have received letters from the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA) and Less Red Tape (LRT) questioning various aspects of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and the proposed CEQA exemptions. This memo is intended to represent a response to those letters.

First, the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (Draft Ordinance) does not change how CEQA is applied to a listed or eligible resource under our local procedures. The existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, codified at San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 27.66, applies to “all individually eligible buildings in the City, all individually eligible and contributor buildings within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District,” as adopted by Council resolution. 1 Section 27.66.30 further
states:

No building permit for an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible building shall be issued until a planning application for Site Plan and Architectural Review has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter

27.08 [Rules of Procedure] and Section 27.06.010 [Approval Bodies] of the Zoning Code.

Similarly, Draft Ordinance Section 27.66.090 states that:
(a) Historic Resource. No building permit that includes an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible historic resource shall be issued until a planning application has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter

27.08 of this Title.
1 SMMC §27.66.020(a).

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
818 of 976
2 (b) Landmark or Contributor. No building permit for a Major or Minor Alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 27.66.100 of this Chapter.
(c) Exemptions. Review pursuant to (a) and (b) of this section shall not be required when preempted by State Law.

Therefore, the Draft Ordinance does not materially reduce or expand applicability or review requirements. Notably, it explicitly references the 1989 Survey in the definition of a Historic Resource.

It also covers all Historic Resources in the “Reviewed Required” section and maintains the section addressing demolition, both consistent with the City’s current Chapter 27.66. 2 Again, there is no material reduction or expansion in the level of review required at the local level for alterations or demolitions related to eligible historic resources. Instead, there is a more defined and enhanced level of review for locally listed landmarks and districts, and it is fully consistent with General Plan 2040.

With regard to CEQA review, the Draft Ordinance relies on two CEQA exemptions: CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15308 (Class 8 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). The Draft Ordinance updates and clarifies the City’s policies and processes surrounding historic preservation, but will not change or expand their applicability, as noted above. Additionally, the Draft Ordinance regulates how properties can be modified, thereby protecting historic resources through maintaining the existing built environment.

In response to this, SMHA claims that the Draft Ordinance weakens existing protections by allegedly making demolition and incompatible alterations easier aside from inventory resources, resulting in substantial adverse impacts, and that it is incompatible with the General Plan. This is not accurate.

SMHA’s letter fundamentally mischaracterizes the Draft Ordinance, which as noted above maintains existing review procedures and protections for historical resources. Equally importantly, the Draft Ordinance formally establishes the City’s first Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), a stated General Plan policy objective since 1990, and creates a new, clearer framework for the addition of historical resources to the local HRI in order to help preserve San Mateo’s history, which is thoroughly documented in the proposed Citywide Historic Context Statement. Notably, SMHA’s letter fails to mention any of these points.

As for the LRT letter, it states that the Draft Ordinance changes the development application and historic review process, review authority, what properties may be considered historic, and what may be built on a particular property. It then claims that this undermines the use of CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). This is also incorrect. Again, the Draft Ordinance does not materially reduce or expand applicability or review requirements. While it does create a process for Certificates of Appropriateness that for resources listed on the HRI that are reviewed and approved by the proposed Historic Preservation Commission or the Zoning Administrator, based on specified criteria, this is not fundamentally different on a substantive level from what would occur today. Under current 2 See Draft Ordinance section 27.66.020(j) (definition of Historic Resource), which includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, sign, district, or landscape feature, which is historically, culturally, architecturally and/or archaeologically significant” and which may also include resources eligible or listed in the National Register, California Register, San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, and those identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report. 819 of 976
3 procedures, if a property owner wished to alter a historic resource, that would be reviewed by either the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission or City Council (on appeal). The fact that new review bodies and a clarified review process would be created does not remove the Draft Ordinance from the Common Sense Exemption under Section 15061(b)(3).

The LRT letter then goes on to argue that CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 does not apply because the proposed action is to approve the Draft Ordinance and therefore is not an action taken pursuant to an existing ordinance and that it expands local authority over housing and the built environment. While the proposed actions do include approval of the Draft Ordinance, caselaw supports the application of Section 15308 to projects wherein a legislative body is approving an ordinance that enacts procedures for the protection of the environment.3 Application of the exemption must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here, the staff report, Historic Context Statement and presentation clearly cites the need to preserve historical resources in the City. Moreover, the City is authorized under its police powers to protect historic resources, and the Draft Ordinance directly implements policies of the General Plan as stated in the staff report. Furthermore, the Draft Ordinance does not expand or lessen protections for historical resources or regulation of the built environment as explained above. Instead, it updates and refines existing procedures to protect historical resources while simplifying the review process for alterations that are minor, including those consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.4 3 California Construction & Industrial Materials Assn. v. County of Ventura (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th (County ordinance creating wildlife mitigation corridor overlay zones exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 [maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of natural resources] and 15308). See also Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 209 (upholding categorical exemption as applied to county's plastic bag ban ordinance); in this decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that the County’s constitutional authority to “make or enforce within its limits all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws” allowed the County to rely on CEQA’s exemptions under Section 15308 and other guidelines. 218 Cal.App.4th at 226-227. 4 LRT’s letter also appears to misunderstand the application of CEQA Guideline 15306 (Information Collection). That CEQA exemption is intended to apply to the Historic Context Statement, not the Draft Ordinance. This is clearly stated in the staff report.
820 of 976
City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT
821 of 976
1 From: Kenneth E Abreu
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 5:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Fwd: Comment of historic districts proposed approval level of 60% See email below
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kenneth E Abreu >
Date: May 2, 2026 at 9:39:22 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment of historic districts proposed approval level of 60% Hi
The 60% is too low a number. it should be 100%, unless an owner can self select to be a non contributor and not be subject to the constraints of a historic district. The reason for this is that a family‘s home is too important an asset to allow neighbors to constrain it. A family home reflects the family identity and is the major source of generational wealth. It reflects culture and is the safely net for extended family and future generations. A house may need to be modified or added onto support an important family member or need for care. Or to help build stronger family relations. These vital needs should not be constrained by 60% of the neighbors.

Also, this will lead to pitting neighbors against each other. This is damaging to our community.

Thank you,
Ken Abreu
Sent from my iPad
822 of 976
310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
April 30, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights City Council Hearing Date: May 4, 2026
Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council :

On behalf of Less Red Tape, we write to object to the Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance dated April 27, 2026. The latest revisions do not cure the core problem identified by LRT from the outset, and they again depart from the City Council’s express direction that any historic preservation ordinance be grounded in owner consent.

1. The Revised Draft Ordinance is a Bait and Switch and the City Council Hearing Should be Continued
LRT strongly objects to these last-minute revisions. They are not minor edits. They materially expand the ordinance beyond a consent-based framework and do so with minimal time for public review.

The hearing should be continued, and the public needs to be provided notice and a reasonable period of time to review and comment on these significant revisions.

Meanwhile, even a cursory review shows significant issues in this latest draft. Notably, the revised draft now defines an “Eligible Historic Resource” as any resource found eligible “based on substantial evidence in a Historic Resources Evaluation,” even if it is “not formally designated.” SMMC §

27.66.020(h). An HRE, in turn, is simply a report prepared by a “qualified professional.” SMMC §

27.66.020(k). In other words, a formal City designation, a State or National determination, or any other public body is no longer required. A consultant report will do, irrespective of who requests or pays for the report. That is not a consent-based ordinance. It is a new mechanism for imposing historic review on homeowners who never consented to designation in the first place.

The revised draft then uses that definition to impose new controls on non-designated property.

Section 27.66.090(a) bars issuance of a building permit for exterior façade modification, exterior alteration, or an addition involving an “individually eligible historic resource” unless a planning application is first approved under Chapter 27.08. Section 27.66.110(a) likewise subjects demolition of any “eligible historic resource” to planning application review and requires an HRE and/or engineer report. Thus, any owner whose property is tagged as “eligible” in an HRE can be forced into extra 823 of 976
April 30, 2026

Page 2 ends

51349166.1
process, delay, and cost, without any clear public vetting or formal designation decision. That is exactly the “CEQA backdoor” the last version of the Ordinance was intended to close.

2. The City’s Proposed CEQA Exemptions Do Not Fit This Ordinance LRT also objects to the proposed CEQA finding. The City states the ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15061, 15306, and 15308. None fits.

The common-sense exemption applies only where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3). That cannot be said here. This ordinance changes how development applications will be processed, where review will occur, what properties will be considered historic, when additional historic process will be triggered, and what may actually be constructed on a particular property. It will significantly affect the built environment. The City cannot credibly say there is no possibility of environmental effect.

Section 15306 does not fit either. That exemption covers information collection and research activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance, including studies that may lead to a later action not yet approved or adopted. CEQA Guidelines § 15306. But the City is not merely gathering information. It is adopting a binding ordinance that itself imposes new review requirements and demolition controls that will have a direct impact on the built environment, just like any housing element or zoning amendment.

Nor does Section 15308 apply. That exemption concerns actions taken by regulatory agencies, pursuant to an existing ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15308. Here, the City is adopting the actual ordinance itself. And in any event, this ordinance is not merely protective of existing resources. It is expanding local review authority over housing and the built environment. None of the cited exemptions permit the City to escape its obligations to analyze this Ordinance’s impact and conduct the required CEQA review.

3. The Revised Draft Still Raises Serious Housing Crisis Act Problems The revised draft also continues to raise serious concerns under the Housing Crisis Act. Gov. Code § 66300 bars affected cities from imposing new standards that reduce housing development capacity or impose non-objective design standards. Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A), (C), (b)(2). That concern remains here.

By allowing non-designated properties to be pulled into ordinance review based on an HRE, the revised draft invites subjective determinations, added process, higher costs, and delay. It will hamper housing production, especially additions, remodels, and redevelopment of older housing stock. It also threatens the City’s ability to meet its housing obligations by layering new uncertainty onto projects that otherwise should move through ordinary channels. At minimum, the City must confront that problem directly rather than pretend these revisions are narrow or ministerial. 824 of 976
825 of 976
1 From: Frank Elliott
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Laurie Hietter
Subject: Fwd: LRT Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights
Attachments: Ltr to San Mateo CC re Revised Ordinance 4-30-26(51349166.1).pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Freedman, Daniel F.

Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 12:01 PM
Subject: LRT Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>, Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>, Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>, Rob Newsom <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>, Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>, Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>, Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> On behalf of Less Red Tape, please see the attached letter concerning the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance and comments for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Daniel F. Freedman
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 2029 Century Park East, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 826 of 976
2 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. 827 of 976
1 From: Frank Elliott < >
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:06 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Laurie Hietter
Subject: Fwd: Correcting the Record Regarding Rincon’s January 26, 2026 Presentation on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachments: Ltr to San Mateo City Council re Rincon Presentation 3-25-26.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Freedman, Daniel F.

Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Correcting the Record Regarding Rincon’s January 26, 2026 Presentation on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Dear City of San Mateo City Council and Staff: On behalf of Less Red Tape, please find attached correspondence addressing several inaccurate and misleading statements made during the January 26, 2026 presentation on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. We submit this letter to help clarify the record and to urge the City to seek clarification on these issues before moving forward with the proposed ordinance.

I would be happy to meet, if helpful, to discuss these issues as well as the concerns raised in our prior February 11 letter, to which we still have not yet received a response.

Thank you for your consideration.

Daniel F. Freedman
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067
828 of 976
2 WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 2029 Century Park East, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. 829 of 976
1 From: Douglas Handerson < >
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: City Mgr; Clerk; [email protected]; Jon Mays; Planning; Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger; Uusm Board; office administrator of UUSM; Laura Thompson Subject: Please substitute this email for the prior version RE: City Council May 4, 2026 Hearing on Draft Historic Ordinance's Graphic
Attachments: 2026 but not yet identified correctly draft Hist Res Ord 4-14-2026.jpg; 1905 1st Methodist Church.jpg
May 3, 2026 11:40 p.m. Update
City Council, City Manager, Director of Community Development, City Clerk, (This updated email supersedes the prior one, which was found to have a typographical error.)
A correction is needed in the 2025/2026 current photo graphic of the Unitarian Universalist of San Mateo's Sanctuary building at the southwest corner of N. Ellsworth and East Santa Inez (street address 300 East Santa Inez Avenue, San Mateo, 94401).

Our building is the oldest continuing place of worship in the City of San Mateo.

Please ensure that the Final version of the City's new Historic Ordinance has the correct identification of Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo as the current occupants of the former 1st Methodist Church, c. 1905.

The Draft Historic Ordinance identifies the current use of this historic building as still being the 1st Methodist (please see attached images from the Draft document).

Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo have been the owners of the building for several decades.

At the Planning Commission Hearing on the Draft Historic Ordinance, the staff AND consultant assured the Commissioners, and the public, that certain corrections will be made, in a timely manner, before this document goes to final print.

Attached is a copy of the graphic that needs to be updated, as well as the correct graphic of the original occupants, the 1st Methodist Church.

Our building is the oldest continuing place of worship in the City of San Mateo. 830 of 976
2 Please confirm receipt of this request, as well as confirmation that this important graphic is being corrected.

Thank you for including us,
Douglas V. Handerson
Congregational member of UU San Mateo,
on behalf of the UUSM Board of Trustees
Reverend Laura Thompson, Minister
ps. After 30+ years of representing the City of Santa Clara Planning Department, Historical Landmarks Commission and Planning Commission, the city name of "Santa Clara" is etched in my brain. My apologies to all. d.
831 of 976
832 of 976
833 of 976
1 From: Tom Lease
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Zachary Dahl Subject: Incomplete and Incompetent Historic Update
Jon Mays damning and devastating take down of the proposed historic “update” should be entered into the permanent record.

I hope his article and your conscience and integrity will inspire you to reject this incomplete and disgraceful “update”
I have not read the entire ordinance yet, but I have read what the General Plan says about how we identify, catalog, protect, and preserve our precious history and heritage.

I believe Jon Mays and reports from a meeting with CDC and SMHA that this ordinance is an abject failure must be tossed out and redone in accordance with the General Plan.

Ricon recently updated reach codes for heat pumps, electric heaters, eliminating gas stoves and water heaters. Great update.

But if Rincon used the same method applied to reach codes as they are doing to Historic Updates then the would be requiring coal burning fire places, burn pits for trash, knob and tube wiring.

That’s how backwards and insane this historic update is.

Please follow the General Plan and you will be on the right side of history and will sleep better knowing you did the right thing to protect our past to honor our future.

See you on Monday!
Have a great weekend!
Tom Leade
834 of 976
1 From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:40 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 12: Historic Policy Update Good afternoon City of San Mateo,
HLC appreciates the city's work on crafting a thoughtful historic preservation ordinance. Throughout the process, we have aspired to balance the needs of historic preservation and housing affordability, which can be compatible.

Our guiding principle has been that historic preservation should seek to maximize public benefit. The best versions of historic preservation provide public access, education, and interactivity. Thus, designation should be leveraged thoughtfully in narrow circumstances, not to preserve old buildings simply for the sake of preserving old buildings or lock expensive neighborhoods in amber, but for providing meaningful public value to the community.

The current ordinance as drafted creates a realistic pathway for historic preservation while safeguarding the future of San Mateo from abuse of the process to prevent meeting the city's future needs. As suggested by SMDJ editor Jon Mays, we would support impact fee waivers and other incentives for historic properties that pursue renovations or add additional homes.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org
835 of 976
1 From: Andrew Ryan <
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: "No Consent, No Historic" isn't just a slogan: it's about to be the law. Let's treat it as such
Council, on Monday night, I’m asking you to please:
 Vote “not now” on the Historic Ordinance update until section 090 is removed. As you’ve seen from our attorney, because of the re-inclusion of Section 090, the ordinance does not implement true consent and has numerous legal problems that open it up for lawsuits. "No Consent, No Historic" isn't just a slogan. Less Red Tape is continuing to reserve all its legal options at this point, but it would be easier to remove this section right now before any litigation.  Do not include any additional homes in the historic registry without owner consent and an updated survey. First of all, where is the owner consent in all of this? At least in Glazenwood, you had a public meeting and notified the owners, who were supportive. Using a 37 year-old survey violates established case law: see the case "Citizens For Responsible Development In West Hollywood vs. City of West Hollywood”. On the other hand, correctly surveying each property and documenting its condition – which was NEVER done in 1989 – will likely cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to do in a legally valid way.

The 1989 survey is, I am sorry to say, mostly garbage from a documentation standpoint. For the most part, all we have are addresses, nothing about the conditions of most of these homes or even why they were identified as “eligible” or “potentially eligible”. What does “potentially eligible” even mean in this context? We simply don’t know. For example consider this excerpt from page 75:
836 of 976
2 If you haven’t looked at the
survey, I’d recommend taking a look yourself so you can see how problematic this survey actually is:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47850/Historic-Building-Survey-1989 San Mateo is under a very severe budget deficit as you know. There is no reason to be spending more public money when there's no owner support.

Where's the notification of the 124 property owners?
Where's the public meeting?
Where's the documented consent by property owners?
Andrew Ryan
837 of 976
1 From: Francie Souza < >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:07 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Historic Policy Update
Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members,
As residents of Central San Mateo who appreciate the history behind our city and beautiful varied architecture that it brings to our environment, we ask that you consider the work that has been done in the past, specifically the 1989 survey of San Mateo's historic resources. These are verified sites of historic significance and we should not be ignoring this previous work, and lose our history "by accident".

Please include this survey data in the official inventory.

People move to San Mateo in part because of the way it looks and feels, and often this includes the varied architecture of historic homes, old trees and greenery that has survived the years and should be given the respect and protection it deserves. Please consider using Conservation areas to protect and preserve our older neighborhoods like North Central, Central and Historic Downtown, as they are in jeopardy of increased height limits due to SB79.

Please do your part as City Council members and vote to protect our heritage while ensuring future development is within standards to complement our environment.

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza
838 of 976
1 From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 6:06 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: May 4, 2026 Agenda Item 12: Historic Policy Update Honorable City Council Members,
If you attended the Planning Commission where San Mateo’s Historic Ordinance was being reviewed before coming to Council, you would have heard a leader of Less Red Tape, Frank Elliott, and a very vocal leader of the YIMBY movement, Jordan Grimes, say they like this ordinance as is and no further revisions are needed.

Why? BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE DOESN’T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT SAN MATEO’S HISTORIC BUILDINGS!

And sadly, you would have also heard staff talk in long, word salad platitudes about how any concern over the ordinance is truly covered so there is no need to worry. Why? BECAUSE STAFF CLEARLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PRESERVING SAN MATEO’S HISTORIC BUILDINGS!

Jon Mays said it best in his editorial: “…action that must be taken to avoid a catastrophic decision that will haunt not only the City Council but the rest of the city…”

So please, on Monday evening, clearly give staff the following instruction and demand it come back to you for a vote no later than September 2026:

1. Formally adopt the resources identified as listed, eligible, and potentially eligible in the 1989 survey (or an updated version) into the HRI via resolution. Only Downtown, Glazenwood and DeSabla, Coxhead & Vollers properties are protected as it stands right now.

2. Allow the City Council and HRC to designate landmark properties. Local jurisdictions must identify and preserve resources for the public good.

3. Relax consent just to districts. Delete Owner Consent (27.66.060) that says nominations of a property to landmark status can be done only by application of the property owner.

5. Apply COA/review to Eligible Historic Resources (Review Required). Ensures that properties identified in the 1989 survey are subject to the same process as landmarks.

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions. The ordinance fails to fully identify and protect historic resources. And by making protection contingent on owner opt-in, it fails to preserve neighborhood context and identity.

Thank you,
Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident
839 of 976
May 4, 2026
Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members,
In reviewing the San Mateo Historic Context Statement, there are areas still missing or could be strengthened.

1. The OHP (Office of Historic Preservation) recommends adding a section at the end prioritizing next steps or recommendations. For example, targeted updates are needed to include the buildings not in the 1989 Building Survey.

2. SB 79 targets higher densities and heights within the 1/2 mile radius from the Downtown Transit Center. Older neighborhoods like North Central and Central, and the Historic Downtown are within this targeted area. Conservation areas are used in other cities to provide more protections for the preservation of neighborhood character and history. * We would like Council to direct Staff to investigate creating conservation overlays. We have attached a link to conservation areas in the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation. The City of San Jose has also created Conservation Areas / Districts throughout the City.

This link may be helpful:
- https://hffi.org/preserving-neighborhood-character/

3. More Explicit Integrity Thresholds by Property Types The tables and guidance section discuss general integrity, but the OHP prefers specific examples in styles or properties.

For example, property types from early 20th Century bungalows including Craftsmen & Spanish Revival, Ranch Style, and Mid-Century contributors require more details.

To preserve neighborhood character, we need more specifics about compatible window styles, front doors, garage doors, and roof types. This information could be strengthened in the Architectural Styles or guidance sections.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Laura Watanuki
840 of 976
310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
March 25, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Correcting the Record Regarding Rincon’s January 26, 2026 Presentation on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council:

On behalf of Less Red Tape, we write regarding the January 26, 2026 study session on the proposed historic preservation ordinance. As the Council is aware, one of the central issues raised throughout this process has been whether any ordinance would be grounded in property-owner consent, rather than used as a vehicle to impose historic review on unwilling homeowners. The Council made clear that owner consent was necessary, and the revised draft was presented as reflecting that direction. It does not.

Unfortunately, several of the statements made during Rincon Consultants’ presentation were incorrect or materially misleading, and those inaccuracies go directly to the heart of whether the ordinance in fact honors the Council’s mandate. Rincon presented the ordinance as narrow and limited, when in reality the ordinance as proposed is far broader and more intrusive than the Council directed. Whether those misstatements resulted from a failure to understand the ordinance’s actual effect or from an effort to minimize it, either explanation is troubling, because the Council should not be asked to deliberate on legislation based on an inaccurate description of what it would do. We therefore write to identify several of the most significant misstatements, explain why they matter, and request that the Council require staff and Rincon to correct the record before this ordinance moves forward.

1. CEQA Does Not Require Blanket Review of Structures Over 45 Years Old The proposed Section 27.66.090 authorizes the Community Development Director to require a Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) for development proposals involving the demolition or modification of character-defining features of buildings or structures over 45 years old that are not designated and have not been identified in a prior City Council-adopted survey. Rincon characterized this as a clarification of existing CEQA law. That is incorrect.

First, CEQA does not impose a categorical, age-based requirement as Rincon suggests. It requires evaluation where there is substantial evidence that a resource may be historically 841 of 976
Hon. Members of the
San Mateo City Council
March 25, 2026

Page 2 ends

significant, and it applies to discretionary projects—not ministerial approvals. Age thresholds may sometimes be used as screening tools, but they are not legal triggers. In fact, the Office of Historic Preservation specifically cautions that resources must be evaluated based on substantial evidence, regardless of the age of the structure.
1 Second, Section 27.66.090 does not restate existing law. It creates a new discretionary screening mechanism under which the Director “may” decide whether to require an HRE for older, undesignated properties, and “may” then use that HRE to inform the City’s CEQA determination.

That is a serious CEQA problem. If this provision has no effect on ministerial projects, then the City should explain why it is needed at all. But if it is intended to affect how those projects are reviewed, then it creates a new discretionary pathway for CEQA and historic-resource review that does not exist under current law. Either way, Section 27.66.090 is not a mere clarification of existing law. It gives the City a new and broad source of discretion to subject older, undesignated properties to additional review in a manner not required by state law.

2. The Ordinance Does Not “Only Apply to Locally Designated Resources” Rincon repeatedly told the Council that the ordinance “only applies to locally listed historic resources.” In one sense, that is true: the Certificate of Appropriateness provisions in Section

27.66.100 apply to Listed Resources and Contributors within listed Historic Districts in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. But that is not the full picture. Section 27.66.090 separately authorizes the Community Development Director to require a Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) for any development proposal involving demolition or modification of character-defining features of buildings or structures over 45 years old that are not designated or have not been identified in a prior City Council-adopted survey. That is a separate discretionary review mechanism aimed directly at older, undesignated properties.

As a result, the ordinance does not “only” affect locally designated resources in the way the presentation suggested. While the formal Certificate of Appropriateness regime may be limited to locally listed properties, Section 27.66.090 would still allow the City to require HREs for older properties that have never been designated and have never been included in an adopted survey. In practice, that extends historic review beyond locally designated resources and creates a broad, discretionary screening tool for the City’s older housing stock.

3. Section 27.66.090 Undermines the Council’s Consent Requirement The Council has directed that designation be subject to owner consent. However, if nondesignated properties can still be pulled into discretionary historic-resource screening and CEQA review through Section 27.66.090, then that consent protection is materially undermined in practice.

Section 27.66.090 effectively allows the City to bypass the consent requirement by regulating properties through project-level review rather than formal designation. This issue has been raised repeatedly by stakeholders and should be resolved before the ordinance advances. 1To the extent there is a general and commonly used age threshold, it is 50 years, not 45. See https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1071/files/CEQA-Understanding-50year-Threshold-VI.pdf 842 of 976
Hon. Members of the
San Mateo City Council
March 25, 2026

Page 3 ends

4. The Misleading “1% Impact”
Rincon’s presentation suggested that the practical burden of this ordinance would be minimal, citing data from the past three years showing that of more than 500 single-family applications with exterior alterations, additions, and/or new construction, 28 were identified as potentially eligible resources requiring an HRE, and only six—approximately 1%—were ultimately identified as eligible.

But that statistic, without more, does not support the conclusion Rincon invited the Council to draw.

The presentation did not disclose the underlying methodology or key context needed to evaluate those figures. Among other things, it did not explain whether all 500 projects were discretionary or ministerial; who decided which projects required an HRE and under what authority; whether the City has been screening for potential historic resources consistently citywide or only in certain areas; what criteria were used to identify a property as “potentially eligible” or “eligible”; or whether there is any established City policy governing that process. Nor did the presentation account for projects that were never filed, were delayed, or were scaled back because homeowners were told their properties could be treated as historic. Without that information, the City cannot reasonably extrapolate from past ad hoc practice to predict how broadly Section 27.66.090 would operate once codified as an express source of discretionary authority.

If the Council wishes to understand the real burden of this ordinance, staff should be directed not only to disclose the methodology behind the “500/28/6 (1%)” figures, but also to report how the projects pulled into historic review were actually affected—including how long they took, what redesigns were required, and what additional costs or delays were imposed. Without that information, the “1%” figure is not a reliable basis for policymaking.

Conclusion and Requested Direction
The Council has been clear that any historic preservation ordinance must be grounded in owner consent. As currently drafted and presented, this ordinance does not accomplish that.

Instead, Section 27.66.090 creates a broad discretionary review mechanism that extends well beyond locally designated resources and risks subjecting a large portion of the City’s older housing stock to costly and uncertain historic review. That is not what the Council directed. To ensure the ordinance reflects the Council’s intent and that future deliberations are based on accurate and unbiased information, we request that the Council direct staff and Rincon to:
(a) correct the misstatement that Section 27.66.090 is simply a restatement of existing CEQA law;
(b) revise or delete Section 27.66.090 so that any HRE requirement is limited to locally designated resources and projects that are already discretionary; and (c) disclose the data and methodology underlying the “500/28/6 (1%)” figures, including the CEQA review applied to those projects, and report how those projects were actually affected, including added time, redesign requirements, and financial burdens.

These steps are necessary to prevent the creation of a back-door historic review regime that would circumvent owner consent, expand discretionary review, and undermine state housing law. 843 of 976
844 of 976
310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
May 4, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Supplemental Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance City Council Hearing Date: May 4, 2026
Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council :

This letter supplements Less Red Tape’s April 30, 2026 objection letter. It addresses an additional issue that independently warrants revision of the proposed ordinance - the City’s attempt to give present regulatory effect to the “1989 Historic Building Survey” without first updating, revalidating, or properly disclosing the basis for that survey. LRT objects for the following additional reasons:
• The 1989 survey is too old to be used as a current regulatory baseline without an update. Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g)(4) requires that if a survey is five or more years old, it must be updated to account for changed circumstances, altered or demolished resources, and further documentation. Here, the City is relying on a survey that is more than 37 years old.
• The City’s own materials confirm the survey is stale. The staff report acknowledges that the current ordinance is strongly tied to the 1989 survey, that the survey is now over 37 years old, that the City has changed considerably, and that preservation practice has evolved significantly since 1989. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City prioritize a new survey of the 1989 properties.
• The survey itself was not a final, fixed determination. The report explains that the forms and evaluations would be submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation for review and that the evaluations could change based on that review. It also reflects a selective survey process, not a complete parcel-by-parcel inventory of all affected properties. • The City has not provided the underlying parcel-level documentation. Although the survey states that DPR 523 forms were prepared and filed elsewhere, the City has not posted or provided the actual DPR 523 forms for the affected properties as part of this legislative record. Nor has the City identified who prepared the parcel-level evaluations or what qualifications those individuals had. The Council and the public are therefore being asked to give present legal effect to a decades-old survey without the underlying property records. 845 of 976
846 of 976
310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
April 30, 2026

The hearing should be continued, and the public needs to be provided notice and a reasonable period of time to review and comment on these significant revisions.

27.66.020(h). An HRE, in turn, is simply a report prepared by a “qualified professional.” SMMC §

The revised draft then uses that definition to impose new controls on non-designated property.

Page 2 ends

51349166.1
process, delay, and cost, without any clear public vetting or formal designation decision. That is exactly the “CEQA backdoor” the last version of the Ordinance was intended to close.

By allowing non-designated properties to be pulled into ordinance review based on an HRE, the revised draft invites subjective determinations, added process, higher costs, and delay. It will hamper housing production, especially additions, remodels, and redevelopment of older housing stock. It also threatens the City’s ability to meet its housing obligations by layering new uncertainty onto projects that otherwise should move through ordinary channels. At minimum, the City must confront that problem directly rather than pretend these revisions are narrow or ministerial. 848 of 976
849 of 976
1 From: Barbara Alexander
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟfied and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

And your consƟtuents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes. - Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone
850 of 976
1 From: David Comer
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:48 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes. - Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

David and Angela Comer
851 of 976
1 From: Mary DeLong
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Mary Judson DeLong
Please excuse any grammatical errors, sent from my mobile device. 852 of 976
From: Bob Fitzgerald
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:11 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Robert Fitzgerald
853 of 976
1 From: Larry Garnick
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:02 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Plea to Reject the HPO & HCA Tonight
Members of the City Council:

I urge you to REJECT the current proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement tonight.

Both of these documents are grossly insufficient and do nothing to protect San Mateo’s beautiful historic homes that define San Mateo’s character.

At a minimum, the documents need to
adopt all of the historic properties identified in the 1989 survey by resolution, allow you to designate landmark properties, adjust consent rules to match state rules, apply COA review to eligible properties, and specify the details for the establishment of the Historic Resources Commission.

These are basic elements included in state guidance for such ordinances and they appear to have been excluded by the authors on purpose. This shortsighted bias puts San Mateo at immediate and permanent risk of losing the most beautiful elements of its important and proud history.

Larry Garnick
(New Mobile Number!)
854 of 976
1 From: Nikki Lindgren
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟfied and thus restricted.

Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes. - Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Nikki
855 of 976
1 From: P Mayers
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:39 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Pamela Mayers
Baywood Resident
P.S. I truly don’t understand why you are trying to destroy our community. 856 of 976
1 From: Elisa Radice
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

I object to this new language and proposal, and ask that you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Elisa Radice
857 of 976
1 From: Sue Schoenstein
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone
858 of 976
1 From: Gerald Stokes
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:44 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.
859 of 976
1 From: Matthew Tiffany
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:27 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Matt Tiffany
860 of 976
1 From: Michelle Travis
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Michelle Travis
Sent from my iPhone
861 of 976
1 From: Deborah Villanueva
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:40 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention and understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets a limited few lord over home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes. - Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thank you for your consideration,
Deborah Villanueva
862 of 976
1 From: Yuanxuan Wang
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Zellux Wang
863 of 976
1 From: Anya Wes
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:35 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy; Matthew Wes; Anya Wes
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI-generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

Your constituents will be angry if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions.

This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

Protect your constituents. Reduce bureaucracy. DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,
Anya Wes
Baywood Homeowner
864 of 976
1 From: Kevin Cullinane
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that there have been some last-minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These so-called "historic" shenanigans, combined with death by bureaucracy, seem to hinder your goals of increasing housing to help address the rising cost of living in San Mateo. I have lived and worked in San Mateo for over 30 years and have seen the community development department become one of the most restrictive and difficult to work with on the peninsula. To move forward with this proposed change will only make things worse.

The majority of the residents (or which I am one) in the Baywood community will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets administrative staff lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and creates the potential for litigation with the city by the actions of a staff member and/or committee that may not be genuinely qualified to do so. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget, and invest in their homes.
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Kevin Cullinane
865 of 976
1 From: Richard Delaney
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now"
I have read the latest revisions to the proposed historic preservaƟon ordinance. It bypasses the consent provision and gives the city discreƟonary control. None of us should find their home declared historic without their informed consent.

To allow the latest wording to be wriƩen into law only opens up the issue to endless arguments about “taking” and legal disputes. No discreƟonary power should be given to any city authority. UnƟl this problem is fixed the ordinance should not be approved.

Richard Delaney.
866 of 976
1 From: Casey Dougan
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:04 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Casey Dougan

867 of 976
1 From: Mike Etheridge
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Feedback on latest revised historic ordinance resolution Hello Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council -
I would like to respectfully share a few thoughts I have on the latest historic ordinance draft. 2 items of note -
- I appreciate the thoughtful incorporation by the council of minimum 60% required owner consent for potential historic district designation,
- WRT the 124 properties proposed to be incorporated as part of a 1989 survey. I believe this survey is much too-dated to serve as an automatic inclusion and these subject properties should be part of the normal new process of designation - if the current property owners would like to be considered - and initiate as such. I see this grouping as much different then glazenwood, which organized and advocated for inclusion, effectively demonstrating consent.

Thank you for your great service to the city
--
---------------
Mike Etheridge
868 of 976
1 From: Ligia Flory
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone
869 of 976
1 From:

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: No to this "Historic Ordinance"
you are not asking me to join, you are telling me to
I attended Bawood elementary, i sent my own children to Baywood elementary now some one want to give take my property rights for their personal benefit, and i have to fight, just to be left alone.

If they want to give away their homes fine
I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS - LEAVE ME ALONE - And Leave MY PROPERTY ALONE Thees last minute changes are just more theft - I GET NOTHING - They gain by stealing my property rights
I DON'T WANT WHATEVER IT IS THEY ARE SELLING _ THIS IS OUGHT RIGHT THEFT Do Not Approve Vague blanket language winch only further buries my rights and grants their THEFT
I worked hare for what i have, to live and grow old in Baywood, only to find out some one can just give it away with out even asking.

NO I WAS NOT ASKED TO JOIN - THEY STOL IT AND NOW I HAVE TO FIGHT YOU - TO GET IT BACK
please stop this land grab, stop thees selfish rich elites from stealing what little i have left, what will i retire on? If you allow this, you will destroy my retirement.

I am 60 years old, I spent my life in Baywood, I helped build Baywood and now you take my home because some one wants it - Forcing me ion to an HOA i want nothing to do with and never agreed to
Dan Forster
- being crushed by selfish elites and bureaucrats who never asked, they Just TOOK who do you care about? the bullies, the thieves, - or the community the people who built baywood
870 of 976
1 From: Jim Gullo
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:36 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Jim gullo
Sent from my iPhone
871 of 976
1 From: crystal hayling
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:14 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
I am dismayed to learn that there have been some last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟfied and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans allow for discriminatory and individual assignments that go against all rules of equal and fair treatment that I know everyone in our community values. In addiƟon, this language contradicts your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

This type of back-room, last-minute rule changing is terrible governance and makes me quesƟon the integrity of the Council’s commitment to the will of the majority. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.
- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Crystal Hayling
Baywood resident
872 of 976
1 From: Brad Goodwin
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic” shenanigans go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo. They also circumvent the “only with owner consent” stipulation that most council members made when reluctantly approving the historic preservation review.

This is terrible governance. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

Please:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Brad Goodwin
873 of 976
1 From: Dan Ikeda
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:46 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Daniel & Jackie Ikeda
Sent from my iPhone
874 of 976
1 Erin Fellers
From: Lauren Lum
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Joe Musich; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Hello,
WHY is this topic still up for discussion? Baywood residents voted by an OVERWHELMING majority that we weren't in favor of making Baywood a historic district. Then, there was somewhat of a ceasefire because "owner consent" was required for the home to be considered historic. And now because Lisa Nash and Laurie Hietter/SMHA lost on owner consent on districts, they are targeting control over owners via Section 090 of the City Municipal Code. What an under-handed, borderline corrupt and indecent thing to do without being openly and broadly transparent to the constituents of District 1? A district that Lisa Nash is supposed to be serving?!?!? Why is this an ongoing waste of taxpayer time and money??
These last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These changes go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

Please do not approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over our home decisions. Rules should be TRANSPARENT, clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

We ask of you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joe and Lauren Musich
875 of 976
1 From: Christine McGinty
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Mary ChrisƟne McGinty

San Mateo
Sent from my iPad
876 of 976
1 From: Anna McLean
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:14 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that place discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted with the Planning Director. These changes go directly against the City’s goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo. As a constituent and San Mateo homeowner, I do not believe City Government should be permitted to wrest control from homeowners over reasonable home decisions. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their houses. Please DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090. Thanks for your consideration.

Anna McLean
877 of 976
1 From: Lauren Lum
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:16 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Joe Musich; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: SOLAR PANELS ON NASH HOUSE: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
Also, note that as these changes are being made, Lisa Nash is installing solar panels on the roof of her home here in Baywood. Somehow, I do not think solar panels fall under "historic" for a 1920s Spanish home. They remodeled and made changes to their home (over a 4.5 year period) that deem it "non-historic" by traditional standards... so why are there now rules being drafted that will keep another homeowner from making the necessary changes they'd like to make to their own home? Hypocrisy at its best. Please make it stop.

On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 02:09:20 PM PDT, Lauren Lum wrote:

Hello,
WHY is this topic still up for discussion? Baywood residents voted by an OVERWHELMING majority that we weren't in favor of making Baywood a historic district. Then, there was somewhat of a ceasefire because "owner consent" was required for the home to be considered historic. And now because Lisa Nash and Laurie Hietter/SMHA lost on owner consent on districts, they are targeting control over owners via Section 090 of the City Municipal Code. What an under-handed, borderline corrupt and indecent thing to do without being openly and broadly transparent to the constituents of District 1? A district that Lisa Nash is supposed to be serving?!?!? Why is this an ongoing waste of taxpayer time and money??
These last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These changes go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

We ask of you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joe and Lauren Musich
878 of 976
1 From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.
879 of 976
1 From: Steve Revesz
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:24 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone
880 of 976
1 From: Nancy Schneider
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Alex Khojikian; [email protected]; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Agenda Item 12: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
Dear Mayor Loraine and Council Members Newsom, Fernandez and Cwirko-Godychi:

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

It has come to my attention that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be justifiably upset and feel betrayed if you approve language that goes against the agreed on consensus that owner consent should be a core principle in the Historic Ordinance. This is terrible governance and poor policy making, to undermine a long process of public input. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Nancy Schneider and Rick Wysong
--
Nancy Schneider
881 of 976
1 From: John Segall
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; CC:; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration
Sincerely,
John & Reva Segall
882 of 976
1 From: Henry Sheng
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:34 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: San Mateo Historic Ordinance
Dear City Council,
I have heard there are last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟfied and thus restricted.

This does not sound transparent, and this rushed change does not allow for well-reasoned and measured policy. It seems that there conƟnues to be a determined push within the council for enacƟng historic districƟng even if the majority of affected residents do not support it.

Please DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thank you,
Henry Sheng
Sent from my iPhone
883 of 976
1 From: Peter Stone
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:25 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

For the past eighteen months I have observed this nonsense by the City Council, and especially Lisa Diaz. I am sick and tired of the City Council wasting time, money, and other resources on things that the people DO NOT want! What is wrong with you? This is another clear example as to why California is screwed up. I would never, ever vote for Lisa Diaz – another useless politician.

Thanks for your consideration.

Peter R. Stone
884 of 976
1 From: Robin Wall
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Robin Wall
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any type-os
885 of 976
1 From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear City Council,
It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jean Garcia
886 of 976
887 of 976
888 of 976
1 From: Jeane Makar
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Jeane Makar
Sent from my iPhone
889 of 976
1 From: Bobbi Maniscalco
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:28 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Rob Newsom Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] rg, [email protected], [email protected] cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], historic [email protected]
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration
Barbara Maniscalco
890 of 976
1 From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:32 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Council: Save yourself a LOT of time and $$ and look at Palo Alto's example. It didn't end well.

Council, tonight you are considering adding 124 properties -- without consent -- to the historic registry of San Mateo. Doing so would be a mistake, unless your desire is to spend a LOT more money -- money which the city does NOT have! -- on this and a LOT more of the City Council's time on historic preservation. And you might not end up with many new historic properties even after this.

And really, I have to ask, why??? Who is asking for this? This isn't Glazenwood, where you have people demanding to be declared historic. City Council should be spending their time on figuring out how we get through this $17 million dollar budget deficit and keeping this city running.

Palo Alto tried something like this a few years ago and it went really badly. Homeowners revolted, just as they are doing in San Mateo. It cost the city a large amount of money, bad feelings, and did not result in any meaningful changes: ultimately, only 21 of the proposed 165 homes opted in to historic.

Here's some links:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/01/12/board-no-historical-listings-without-homeownerconsent/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/10/30/palo-alto-homeowners-push-back-againstproposed-historical-designations/ https://verdemagazine.com/historic-hurdles-palo-altos-register-of-buildings-invites-mixed-reactions 891 of 976
1 From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Agenda Item - Historic Policy Update-Ordinance Introduction Attachments: EditorialonOrdinance4.28.26.pdf
THIS HISTORIC ORDINANCE IS A SHAM. AND IT'S A
SHAME.

SAN MATEO CAN AND MUST DO BETTER.

NOW IS THE TIME.

Jon Mays’ April 28, 2026 editorial was a scathing and well-deserved rebuke of the draft ordinance before you tonight.

Despite the revisions made since his editorial was written, it still contains several major deficiencies and presents a dangerous roadmap for San Mateo.

Per Jon Mays, Council originally directed staff not to include properties in the survey, and to require owner consent for local listing. This was based on another dispute in a specific neighborhood, but inadvertently and most unfortunately, Council applied their solution to the ENTIRE City. This has created an ordinance that, if it goes forward as it is now, would be one of the biggest mistakes any council has ever made in the entire history of this City.

You can turn this around by simply directing staff to do the following:

1. Formally adopt the resources identified as listed, eligible, and potentially eligible in the 1989 survey (or an updated version) into the HRI via resolution.
 Only Downtown, Glazenwood and DeSabla, Coxhead & Vollers properties are protected as it stands now.

2. Allow the City Council and HRC to designate landmark properties.  Local jurisdictions must identify and preserve resources for the public good. It is one of the functions of government.

3. Relax consent so that it only applies to districts. Delete Owner Consent (27.66.060) that says nominations of a property to landmark status can be done only by application of the property owner.

4. Apply COA/review to all properties over 100 years old so that ordinance functions as a living document. Avoids having to update ordinance every 5-10 years, reducing costs and staff time. Should there be push back by individual owners, the opt-out provisions (27.66.080) are very strong. Not all will qualify due to alterations, architecture, overall property condition, contribution to neighborhood character; HRC can determine qualification on an individual basis. A building's age alone does NOT make it historic.

5. Apply COA/review to Eligible Historic Resources (Review Required). Ensures that properties identified in the 1989 survey are subject to the same process as landmarks.

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions. Ordinance fails to fully identify and protect historic resources.

For the record, and for your attention and consideration, I submit attached the April 28, 2026 editorial by Jon Mays, as well my own Letter to the Editor (photo below) that was published today. I look forward to seeing City Council tonight 892 of 976
2 provide new direction to staff to make this a meaningful and robust Historic Ordinance that will serve, and preserve, our San Mateo for the future.

Sincerely yours,
Lisa Vande Voorde, San Mateo resident
M
m
Lisa Vande Voorde
Certified Group Fitness Instructor, American Council on Exercise "Keeping you strong, for life!"
893 of 976
894 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 13 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 10-4661 File ID: 26-11071 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 04, 2026
SUBJECT:

U.S. 101/SR 92 Direct Connector Status — Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a status update and informational presentation about the US-101/SR-92 Direct Connector project.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council will receive updates on the progress of the environmental phase for the US 101/SR 92 Direct Connector Project (“Direct Connector”). The project is co-sponsored by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). If approved, the project would add a new connection between the US 101 Express Lanes and State Route 92 to reduce congestion and to relieve cut-through traffic on local streets in San Mateo and Foster City.

The Direct Connector is currently in the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase. The project team is working with Caltrans to finalize the environmental document, and multiple alternatives are being evaluated, including a “No Build” option. The environmental document will help inform future discussions on the appropriate next steps for the project, including whether to fund future project phases.

SMCTA previously updated the City Council in April 2025, describing the PA/ED process and proposed public participation approach. City Council issued a letter of concern to SMCTA and C/CAG on May 6, 2025 (Attachment 1). SMCTA provided a response letter on May 29, 2025 (Attachment 2). Updates on progress with SMCTA’s responses are summarized below, and additional information will be provided via a PowerPoint presentation.

Environmental Analysis Updates
The current Right-of-Way (R/W) analysis confirms that the project will not require the displacement of any houses or parks. While the No Build and Build Alternative 3 options require no additional land, Alternatives 1 and 2 would primarily use existing utility easements and approximately 320 square feet along the edges of two residential yards near the Kehoe interchange. The project team is currently refining the design to optimize utility reconfiguration and exploring a partnership with the City’s Public Works Department to align with drainage upgrades identified in the City’s draft Storm Drain Master Plan. Additionally, the potential for modifications to the freeway soundwalls is currently being evaluated and remains subject to the results of a pending noise impact analysis. Final R/W requirements remain subject to Caltrans’ approval of design features, including acceptance of design exceptions that minimize ROW needs. That approval is contingent on safety analysis demonstrating that the proposed nonstandard features would not degrade safety.

Preliminary safety assessments indicate that the proposed nonstandard features are not expected to increase crash risk.

Concurrently, the 101 Express Lanes Initial Performance Evaluation Study was recently completed, to support future deliberations on express lane projects such as the Direct Connector and whether the lanes are achieving their intended 895 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
goals of reducing congestion, improving travel time reliability, and increasing person throughput. The Study reports improved trip reliability and travel-time savings for both express- and general-purpose-lane users despite post-pandemic traffic increases in peak periods. The Study is available online at:
https://101expresslanes.org/media/546/download?inline.

The project team continues with ongoing public participation efforts, focusing on transparency and direct community access. The team conducted Neighborhood Meet and Greets in Summer 2025 and continue hosting monthly office hours at Apple Fritter. Project updates are shared via a quarterly project e-Newsletter, which currently reaches over 500 subscribers, as well as social media updates. In February, an episode of the Wheel Talk podcast was broadcast to untangle the Direct Connector, Area Improvements, and the 19th Avenue/Fashion Island Boulevard projects, which are currently active in the interchange. Project staff have also conducted briefings with the San Mateo City Council members and Public Works staff to ensure that local elected officials and leaders remain informed about the project status.

In response to community feedback regarding congestion at the U.S. 101/Hillsdale Interchange, design modifications are proposed for further evaluation as part of the Direct Connector. These modifications would eliminate merging conflicts by reconfiguring the northbound 101 on-ramps. This improvement requires no R/W acquisition and will be evaluated for its effects on local traffic circulation, 101 traffic flow, and multimodal safety. Robust community engagement remains a priority, with targeted outreach for the proposed Hillsdale interchange modifications anticipated for late 2026.

Once the technical and environmental studies are complete, the findings and any potential impacts of each alternative will be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Document, which will be circulated for public review and comment around Spring 2027.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budget impact associated with this informational update.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This informational item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – May 6, 2025, Letter of Concern to SMCTA and C/CAG Att 2 – SMCTA Response Letter

STAFF CONTACT
Jay Yu, Engineering Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7323
896 of 976

May 6, 2025
Executive Director Sean Charpentier
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear U.S.,101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project Sponsors:

We are writing to you today on behalf of the residents of the City of San Mateo to express concern with the current U.S. 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project, as currently proposed. While we know that reducing traffic congestion and improving the US 101 / SR 92 interchange is important to the long-term economic success of the City of San Mateo, San Mateo County and the wider Bay Area region, residents (250+) came out in force at our April 7 council meeting to request a modified approach.

As always, we greatly appreciate your efforts to improve transportation infrastructure across San Mateo County, and we look forward to partnering with you to balance local community concerns with ongoing regional needs. To help us find an effective and community-friendly path forward, we would like to share more information about the specific concerns raised by residents:
• The potential use of eminent domain.

The San Mateo City Council cannot support a project plan that includes eminent domain. Any project should be developed within the current footprint of the existing highways and should not lead the removal of a local park and up to 31 residential homes. • The inclusion of toll lanes in the project with surge pricing.

While we recognize these lanes generate much-needed revenue for transportation authorities, the efficacy of these lanes to reduce congestion in high-traffic corridors is unclear. We also are concerned these lanes could exacerbate income inequality. • Potential impacts to bike and pedestrian lanes.

We are unsure how this project could impact the City’s current plans for East to West protected bike lanes & pedestrian ways in the 19th Ave corridor under SR 92. • A lack of clear and consistent communication with residents.

When councilmembers initially engaged with residents of the 31 properties that could be impacted by eminent domain, not a single resident was aware of this project and how it could materially affect them. Communication and community engagement is key, and in this case, a gap in these areas explains much of the negative reaction to the project.
• Cost and environmental impact.

We understand the use of Regional, State and Federal funds is not always flexible and may be earmarked toward specific project types. However, it is unclear whether spending $200 million or

CITY OF SAN MATEO

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1338
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7040
897 of 976
more to expand highways is the best use of taxpayer funds, especially as there may be more environmentally friendly ways to address congestion in this corridor. For example, we could explore strategic highway widening within the existing highway footprint that benefits those who live in the cities of San Mateo and Foster City, rather than building toll lanes for East Bay Commuters, or implementing robust mass transit across the Bay on the SR 92 corridor.

For these reasons, the San Mateo City Council, in support of our community, is respectfully asking relevant transit and government authorities to seriously reconsider the US 101 / SR 92 Interchange Direct Connector Project as currently proposed.

We believe there are pathways for existing transportation funds to remain dedicated toward a project to ease congestion in this corridor, and we remain open to alternative proposals. As noted, we stand ready to work collaboratively toward solutions that benefit our residents.

Sincerely,
Robert Newsom Jr., Mayor on behalf of the City of San Mateo City Council City of San Mateo
898 of 976
899 of 976
900 of 976
901 of 976
902 of 976
903 of 976
City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT
904 of 976
1 From: Stacey A >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:26 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Highway 101 Connector Project **OPPOSE**
HelloAs a lifelong resident of San Mateo, I am still very concerned that this project is still under consideration. Over 250 residents voiced concerns over a year ago about this project and it is still being considered. Something needs to be done. This is the residents' city!!! We should have rights over what is being done to change it. The top questions & concerns:
- What will be the impact on the quality of life in neighborhoods adjacent to the project? - How long will construction last and what closures will occur? - With more people driving, what will be the neighborhood impact on:
- Air pollution and childhood asthma
- Congestion on local streets, especially when highway crashes divert commuters to local streets via GPS
- Pedestrian safety: We have seen multiple pedestrian deaths in recent years near the 101 and 92 onramps
- What is the cost of the project and is this the best use of taxpayer dollars? - Shouldn't we improve public transit finances (which may require new taxes) instead of encouraging more people to drive?
- Shouldn't we fix existing roads before building new ones? Potholes are everywhere. - Shouldn't we invest in safe streets infrastructure to make it safe for kids to walk and bike to school? We are frequently told there isn't enough money for this. - Will this really reduce congestion?
- Won't this simply encourage more people to drive, eliminating any congestion benefit? - It seems like congestion is worse today despite widening the 101 three years ago and despite more people working from home.
- Who will benefit from this project? Is it equitable?
- Won't the project largely benefit East Bay commuters (100,000 cross the bridge every day)? Won't the Express Lanes most benefit the wealthiest who can afford the high prices? - What does the project do for those who don't drive and/or rely on public transit? There are no plans to restart transbay bus service because it was undersubscribed. - Will this project really increase carpooling? It seems like many drivers in the Express Lanes are falsely selecting HOV-3.

Thank you,
Stacey Alioto
905 of 976
1 From: Sherry Chen
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 12:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Concerned resident on highway expansion
Hi, I am a resident of 19th Ave park and my kids also go to school in Fiesta Gardens so most of our life revolves around the space by the expansion.

I am very concerned about this expansion and am generally opposed to it. I have a lot of questions about traffic expansion and air/noise pollution in region, esp so close to a school with many young children (my preschooler is also here).

Having lived in 19th Ave for over a decade I am already woken up at night by noise and speeding cars on the highway- esp loud motorcycles that like to race at night.

Please do not let this expansion proceed.

Thank you,
Sherry
906 of 976
1 From: Fran Klos >
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: 101/92 Direct Connector
I am very concerned that this project is still being considered despite opposition from residence and our city Council. The following issues are still a great concern to me. -Won’t this project destroy homes in order to be built? These homes will not be purchased at market value which means the people who own them will not be able to buy comparable house in this area.

What is the cost of the project and is this the best use of taxpayer dollars? - Shouldn't we improve public transit finances (which may require new taxes) instead of encouraging more people to drive? Improving public transportation will remove people from the highways, reducing congestion.
- Will this really reduce congestion?
- Won't this simply encourage more people to drive, eliminating any congestion benefit? - It seems like congestion is worse today despite widening the 101 three years ago and despite more people
Who will benefit from this project? Is it equitable?
- Won't the project largely benefit East Bay commuters (100,000 cross the bridge every day)? Won't the Express Lanes most benefit the wealthiest who can afford the high prices? - What does the project do for those who don't drive and/or rely on public transit? There are no plans to restart transbay bus service because it was undersubscribed.

I am writing to urge you to continue your opposition to this project. I see no benefit to our community from going forward with this.

Fran Klos
San Mateo, CA
"Write it on your heart that every day is the best day in the year." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
907 of 976
1 From: Nicholas Nelson
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:58 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: 101/92 Direct Connector
Good morning,
I read the most recent email that went out regarding the 101/92 connector project. I see that there were a series of popular questions that the community has risen. However the one biggest question that I do not see attached is: What does this project do to both neighborhoods that are backed up to the 101/92!? Our family is one of the houses/properties that is on the list to be totally or partially taken to make room for this project. I understand that if this project must go through due to whatever elite class dreamed it up but the communities need to know that NO HOMES OR PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED by this project by imminent domain of any sort, not 1 square inch. The community needs this assurance! A couple alternative ideas that no one probably considered Why doesn't the state explore carrying all that traffic through 880 and across the Dumbarton bridge and through Palo Alto since that's where the East Bay commuters are going? Nothing about this project makes any sense other that the state wants more revenue through pay lanes. Which is a whole other issue.

Or
Stop the project because it makes zero sense. Pay whatever fees that it's taken thus far, return the money to the taxpayers. Doesn't seem like very many people are in favor of this project that was supposedly on the ballot in 2018... doesn't sound like too many people voted "yes" for it by the voice of the community.

Just some food for thought on the alternatives. The community will not be better off by this project going forward.

Thank you,
Nick Nelson
Current resident in Fiesta Gardens at:

San Mateo
908 of 976
1 From: Daniel Schonberg
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 10:03 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: 101/92 project
I am a San Mateo resident and regular user of the 101/92 interchange. I oppose the project work going on.

I advocate for you also opposing the project on my behalf.

Thank you
Sincerely,
Daniel Schonberg
909 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 14 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 26-11074 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: May 04, 2026
SUBJECT:

Peninsula Clean Energy Name Change to Westlight Energy — Ordinance Introduction RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Uncodified Ordinance No. 2016-1 Authorizing the Implementation of Community Choice Aggregation Program to address the name change; and adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement with Peninsula Clean Energy to reflect the name change of Peninsula Clean Energy Authority to WestLight Energy.

BACKGROUND:

On January 4, 2016, the San Mateo City Council adopted a Resolution to join the Joint Powers Authority, approve the Joint Powers Agreement to establish Peninsula Clean Energy Authority in San Mateo County, and introduced an Ordinance to authorize implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation program as required pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. A community Choice Aggregation (CCA), which is also commonly referred to as Community Choice Energy (CCE), is a program that allows local municipalities to pool, or aggregate, their energy demand to purchase electricity separate from their investor-owned utility. Under this model, the County of San Mateo and participating cities entered into a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that procured electricity on behalf of residents while PG&E continued to provide transmission and billing services. In 2015, the San Mateo County’s CCA was branded as “Peninsula Clean Energy.” On October 23, 2025, the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors voted to adopt “WestLight Energy” as its new legal name following extensive research and a lengthy stakeholder engagement process. The name was selected in part to address several challenges that limit the effectiveness of the name Peninsula Clean Energy with deeper decarbonization goals across Peninsula Clean Energy’s service territory, including ongoing confusion with PG&E. The acronym “PCE” is often mistaken for PG&E, causing persistent confusion. Further, Peninsula Clean Energy reflects a geographic limitation given that the word “Peninsula” no longer reflects the totality of PCE’s service territory. The Peninsula Clean Energy Board of Directors’ October 23, 2025, action included direction to amend the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to formally reflect the new name.

The action before the City Council is not a reconsideration of the name itself. The Peninsula Clean Energy Board of Directors has already approved the name change. Member agencies are now required to approve an amendment to Paragraph 2.2 of the JPA to formally update the agency’s legal name in that paragraph and throughout the JPA document.

Approval of the Resolution ensures the City of San Mateo remains aligned with the governing documents of the Joint Powers Authority and allows Peninsula Clean Energy the opportunity to implement the name transition in coordination with its 10-year anniversary and broader brand rollout. Introduction of the Ordinance amending San Mateo Ordinance 2016-1 amends sections referencing “Peninsula Clean Energy” and updates the Ordinance to remove references to the name of the CCA program in the event a name change occurs again in the future. 910 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact. Costs associated with the rebranding effort are borne by the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority and were included in its adopted budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This name change is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Ordinance
Att 2 – Proposed Resolution

STAFF CONTACT
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7007
911 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE
Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 2016-1 Authorizing the Implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation Program to Remove Reference to Peninsula Clean Energy Due to the Name Change to Westlight Energy
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2016, the City entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the County of San Mateo and other cities establishing the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (PCE); and WHEREAS, under the JPA, agency members may participate in PCE’s Community Choice Aggregation Program (CCA) ; and
WHERAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2016-1 to authorize the implementation of CCA pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2016-1 specifically refers to the CCA program of PCE; and WHEREAS, PCE has undergone a legal name change to Westlight Energy; and WHEREAS, this proposed Ordinance amends Ordinance No. 2016-1 to specify the City’s continued participation in a CCA program but without specifically referring to the program name.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The above recitations are true and correct and material to this Ordinance.

Section 2. Ordinance No. 2016-1 is amended as follows:

Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2016-1 is hereby amended to state:

Authorization To Implement a Community Choice Aggregation Program. Based upon the forgoing, and in order to provide business and residents within the City of San Mateo with a choice of power providers and with the benefits described above, the City Council of the City of San Mateo ordains that it shall implement a community choice aggregation program within its jurisdiction by participating as a group with the County of San Mateo and other cities and towns as described above in the Community Choice Aggregation program administered by the Joint Powers Authority, as generally described in the Joint Powers Agreement.

Section 3. Environmental Determination. This Ordinance amendment is not a project subject to CEQA, because the amendment of Ordinance No. 2016-1 to update the Peninsula Clean Energy’s legal name change is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
Section 4. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or 912 of 976
portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance irrespective of any such portion declared to be invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be in full force effective 30 days after its adoption, and shall be published and posted as required by law.

Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This Ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective thirty days after its adoption. 913 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2026)
APPROVING AN ADMINSTRATIVE AMENDMENT TO PARAGRAPH 2.2 OF THE PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY JOINT

POWERS AGREEMENT REEFLECTING THE NAME CHANGE OF PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY TO WESTLIGHT ENERGY
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2016, the San Mateo City Council adopted a Resolution to join the Joint Powers Authority and approve the Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (Peninsula Clean Energy) in San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, Peninsula Clean Energy was formed as a community choice aggregation agency (“CCA”) on February 29, 2016, under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, California Government Code sections 6500 et seq., among the County of San Mateo and its cities and towns, and later expanded to include the City of Los Banos in Merced County; and
WHEREAS, Peninsula Clean Energy has grown to serve a diverse customer base across San Mateo County and the City of Los Banos; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2025, the Board of Directors of the Peninsula Clean Energy adopted Resolution No. 2025-36 approving the selection of WestLight Energy as its new name and authorizing the amendment of its Joint Powers Agreement to reflect the same; and WHEREAS, Paragraph 2.2 of the Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Agreement sets forth the name of the Authority;
WHEREAS, amendment of Paragraph 2.2 of said Agreement requires approval of each Joint Powers Authority member including the City of San Mateo; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Mateo finds that approving the amendment to Paragraph

2.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement reflecting Peninsula Clean Energy Authority’s new name of WestLight Energy is in the best interest of the City and its residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. This Council action in amending the Joint Powers Agreement to reflect the Joint Powers Authority’s new name is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

2. Amendment to Paragraph 2.2 of the Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Agreement to reflect the PCE Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2025-36 approving the selection of its new name of WestLight Energy is approved.
914 of 976

3. The first sentence of Section 2.2 “Formation,” of the Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Agreement is amended to read: “There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named Westlight Energy.”

4. The City Manager is authorized to execute any documents and take any actions necessary to effectuate the amendment of paragraph 2.2 of the Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Agreement consistent with this Resolution.
915 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 15 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 26-11122 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2026
SUBJECT:

Senate Bill 707 (Brown Act Amendments): Technology Disruption Policy and Public Outreach and Interpretation Policy — Adoption
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve the City’s Technology Disruption Policy; adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Public Outreach and Public Interpretation Assistance Practices; and receive a presentation on Senate Bill 707 (SB 707), which made extensive amendments to the Brown Act, and its impacts on the City’s legislative bodies.

BACKGROUND:

On October 3, 2025, the Governor signed SB 707 into law. This legislation updates the Ralph M. Brown Act with the goal of improving public access, participation, and transparency in local government meetings. The revised Brown Act is included as Attachment 3.

SB 707 establishes new requirements for cities, counties, and special districts. Certain provisions apply specifically to “eligible legislative bodies,” including city councils in jurisdictions with populations over 30,000. The City of San Mateo meets this threshold and is subject to these requirements.

The law includes two primary effective dates:
• January 1, 2026
• July 1, 2026
The City Clerk’s Office, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, has reviewed SB 707 and identified necessary actions to ensure compliance. This report provides a high-level summary of key provisions and recommended implementation steps.

DISCUSSION:

Provisions Effective January 1, 2026

1. Distribution of Brown Act Materials and Available Meeting Locations The City is required to provide all legislative body members, including boards and commissions, with a copy of the Brown Act and a list of available meeting locations. This requirement has been completed.

2. Executive Compensation Reporting
For items involving executive compensation, which now includes department heads, staff must provide a verbal 916 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
summary to the City Council prior to final action. This summary must occur outside of the Consent Calendar.

3. ADA Accommodations for Legislative Body Members
Members of the legislative body may participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. When doing so, participation must be conducted via both audio and video, unless a medical condition necessitates audioonly participation. Any adults present in the room with the member must be disclosed at the start of the meeting.

For purposes of quorum and attendance, a member participating under this provision is considered present in person, and the location from which they are participating is not required to be open to the public.

4. Social Media Use
SB 707 eliminates the prior sunset date for Government Code Section 54952.2(b)(3), making permanent the rules governing how members of legislative bodies may use social media in relation to agency business. Under this provision, members may use their personal or official social media accounts to share information or solicit input from the public. However, members are prohibited from engaging with one another on social media regarding agency business. This includes commenting on, replying to, or reacting (e.g., “liking”) each other’s posts or related comments if the subject pertains to matters within the body’s jurisdiction.

For example, a City Council Member may post on social media to seek community feedback on an upcoming project. Other City Council Members may view the post, but no other Council Member may respond to it or interact with any comments on that post, as doing so could constitute an impermissible serial meeting under the Brown Act.

5. Just Cause Expansion
SB 707 updates the rules governing remote participation by City Council Members by building on and expanding the framework established under AB 2449. The legislation consolidates the prior “just cause” and “emergency circumstances” categories into a single standard, broadens the range of allowable reasons for remote participation, and removes the requirement for City Council approval of a member’s remote attendance (Government Code Section 54953.8.3).

Under the revised law, a Council Member may participate remotely for “just cause,” which includes, but is not limited to:
• Childcare or caregiving responsibilities for a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner;
• A contagious illness that prevents in-person attendance; • A need related to a physical or mental condition not otherwise covered under Government Code Section 54953(c);
• Travel while conducting official business on behalf of the legislative body or another state or local agency; • The need to care for an immunocompromised family member; • A personal or family medical emergency; or
• Military service obligations requiring the member to be at least 50 miles outside the jurisdiction, including active duty, training, or other official orders.

A Council Member may use the “just cause” provision for up to five meetings per calendar year. When participating remotely under this provision, the member’s location does not need to be disclosed on the agenda or made accessible to the public.

To utilize remote participation under Government Code Sections 54953.8 and 54953.8.3, the following conditions must be met:
• A quorum of the legislative body must be physically present at a single meeting location; • The remote Council Member must participate via both audio and video; • Meeting minutes must identify the participating member and cite the applicable legal authority for the remote 917 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
participation (without requiring disclosure of personal or medical details); and • The public must be provided the ability to participate remotely via a two-way audiovisual or telephonic platform, along with a live webcast of the meeting.

If remote participation is used and the platform providing public access is disrupted, the City Council may not take further action until remote public access has been restored.

6. Teleconferencing – Eligible Subsidiary Legislative Bodies Government Code Section 54953.8.6 allows (but does not require) certain subsidiary bodies to conduct meetings via teleconferencing, provided specific eligibility criteria and requirements are met.

Definition of Eligible Subsidiary Body
An eligible subsidiary body is one that:
• Serves in an advisory capacity only and does not have final decision-making authority over legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, entitlements, grants, or the allocation of funds; and • Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction over budgets, elections, police oversight, privacy, public library material access, taxes, or related spending proposals.

City Council Authorization
To permit remote meetings, the City Council must take formal action to make required findings both initially and every six months thereafter. These findings must:
• Determine that remote participation will enhance public access; • Consider the specific circumstances of the subsidiary body; and • Address the format of remote participation, methods of public notice, and potential impacts on member diversity and retention.

Meeting Requirements
Eligible subsidiary bodies conducting remote meetings must comply with the following:
• Approve the use of teleconferencing by majority vote after Council authorization; • A physical meeting location within the jurisdiction must be designated for public attendance; • At least one staff member must be physically present at that location; • The meeting agenda must be posted at the physical location (posting at remote locations is not required); • Members must appear on camera during the meeting. If video is disabled due to technical issues, the reason must be stated; and
• Any elected official serving on the body must comply with Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), including publicly noticing their remote location and making it accessible to the public.

Interaction with the Legislative Body
The statute also establishes a process for consideration of subsidiary body recommendations:
• A subsidiary body may formally request to present its recommendations to the legislative body; • The legislative body must schedule a discussion within 60 days at a regular meeting; • The item may not be placed on the consent calendar; and • Final action on the recommendations may not occur until a subsequent regular meeting. 918 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Provisions Effective July 1, 2026
Under SB 707, several key provisions take effect beginning July 1, 2026. These provisions apply if the City Council qualifies as an “eligible legislative body.” Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(e)(2), eligible legislative bodies include:
• City Councils of cities with populations of 30,000 or more; • County boards of supervisors of counties with populations of 30,000 or more; and • City Councils located within counties with populations of 600,000 or more.

The City of San Mateo City Council meets both criteria, as the City has a population exceeding 30,000 and is located within San Mateo County, which has a population greater than 600,000 based on the 2020 Census. Accordingly, the provisions of Government Code Section 54953.4 apply to the City Council.

1. Mandatory Remote Public Attendance Option
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A)(i)(I)(ia), all open and public meetings of eligible legislative bodies must provide an opportunity for the public to attend remotely through either a two-way telephonic or twoway audiovisual platform.

The City of San Mateo has continued to offer remote participation options since resuming in-person meetings following the COVID-19 pandemic and is already in compliance with this requirement. This provision will also apply to off-site City Council meetings, such as goal-setting sessions, State of the City events, and other workshops, and will require that remote participation options be made available for those meetings.

2. Policy on Disruption of Telephonic or Internet
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A)(i)(I)(ib), the City Council is required to adopt a policy establishing procedures for addressing disruptions to telephonic or internet service during meetings. The policy must outline procedures for recessing and reconvening meetings, as well as the efforts the Council will undertake to restore service. This policy may not be adopted on the consent calendar.

SB 707 establishes specific requirements for the content of this policy. If a technological disruption prevents public access to a meeting, the City Council must recess the open session for at least one hour, or until service is restored, while making good faith efforts to reestablish telephonic or internet access. Closed session items may be conducted during this recess. The City Council cannot reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier.

If service has not been restored after one hour, the City Council must reconvene and either: (1) adjourn the meeting; or (2) adopt a finding, by roll call vote, that good faith efforts were made in accordance with the adopted policy and that continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in maintaining remote access.

A proposed Technology Disruption Policy and corresponding resolution are included as Attachment 1 for the City Council’s consideration. If adopted, the policy will take effect on July 1, 2026.

3. Equal Opportunity for Remote Public Comment
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(B), all eligible legislative bodies must provide an opportunity for remote public comment. Individuals participating remotely must be afforded the same amount of speaking time as those providing comment in person.

This requirement represents no change to the City’s current practices, as both in-person and virtual speakers are currently allotted the same amount of speaking time.
919 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

4. Translation of Meeting Agendas into “Applicable Languages” Government Code Section 54953.4(c)–(e) requires eligible legislative bodies to translate and post meeting agendas in all “applicable languages.” Each translated agenda must include instructions in that language for accessing the meeting remotely. Translated agendas must be posted within the standard timelines established under the Brown Act.

Under SB 707, “applicable languages” are defined as those identified through the most recent American Community Survey as being spoken by at least 20% of the applicable population, provided that at least 20% of individuals speaking that language report speaking English less than “very well” (Government Code Section 54953.4(e)(1)(A)).

Staff has reviewed the City of San Mateo’s most recent American Community Survey data for languages spoken by residents age five and older (Attachment 4). Based on this analysis, Spanish meets both threshold requirements to trigger mandatory agenda translation under the statute. Accordingly, the City Clerk’s Office will begin translating and posting meeting agendas in Spanish effective July 1, 2026.

Language Estimated Number of
Speakers
Percentage
Of Applicable Population
English 51,770 53.4%
Spanish 19,909 20.5%
Chinese 9,121 9.4%
Tagalog 2,786 2.9%
Russian 1,454 1.5%
French 965 1.0%
Korean 718 0.7%
Source: American Community Survey 2024 5-Year Estimates

5. Public Meetings Information Webpage
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(B), eligible legislative bodies are required to establish and maintain an accessible, centralized webpage dedicated to public meetings. This webpage must include, or clearly link to, the following information:
• A general overview of the public meeting process
• Instructions for providing public comment, both in person and remotely • A calendar of all public meetings, including date, time, and location • Direct access to posted meeting agendas
• A translation of the foregoing into applicable languages (explained below), accessible through a prominent direct link on the City’s home page.

In addition, Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(A) requires legislative bodies to implement a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling requests for meeting agendas and related documents, either via email or through an integrated agenda management platform. This information must also be accessible through a prominent, direct link on the City’s homepage, as required by Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(B)(ii).

The City currently complies with this requirement through its agenda management system. Additionally, the City maintains a notification alert system that allows members of the public to receive alerts when agendas are published. The City also publishes the list of all scheduled meetings for the year on the public meeting portal and a PDF list of regularly scheduled meetings.
920 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO

6. Outreach to Underrepresented Groups and Non-English-Speaking Communities Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(C), the City is required to make reasonable efforts—at a level determined by the City Council—to encourage participation in public meetings by individuals and groups that have not traditionally been engaged. This may include outreach to media outlets serving non-English-speaking communities, local community-based organizations, and neighborhood groups.

To support this requirement, the City Clerk’s Office is developing and will maintain a comprehensive outreach distribution list that includes media contacts, community organizations, and other local stakeholders serving the San Mateo community. These groups will receive City Council meeting agendas via email, enabling them to share information directly with their respective communities.

The City Clerk’s Office will coordinate with department heads, City Council Members, and staff to ensure the distribution list remains current and continues to expand its reach. In addition, the City’s website will include information on how organizations can subscribe to this list to receive meeting materials.

A resolution outlining the City’s proposed approach to meeting this requirement is included as Attachment 2 for City Council consideration and adoption.

7. Public Location for Agenda Translations by the Community Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(c)(3)–(4), legislative bodies are required to provide a physical location, adjacent to where meeting agendas are posted, that is freely accessible to the public. This location must allow members of the public to post translations of the agenda in languages other than English. The City is not responsible for the content, accuracy, or posting of these translations.

To comply with this requirement, the City Clerk’s Office is coordinating with Public Works to install a designated bulletin board next to the existing agenda posting board outside of City Hall. This bulletin board will be reserved for translated versions of City Council agendas and will include clear signage indicating its intended use. The signage will also note that the City does not review or assume responsibility for any materials posted.

The City Clerk’s Office will maintain this bulletin board to ensure ongoing compliance with Government Code Section 54953.4(c)(3)–(4).

8. Public Interpretation Assistance
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(2)(A)–(C), legislative bodies are required to provide reasonable assistance to members of the public who wish to use interpretation services during a meeting, provided such assistance does not disrupt the proceedings. This may include allowing additional time for interpretation, accommodating the use of personal or third-party interpretation services, or providing space for interpreters.

The City has an established process to support these requests. All City Council agendas include language inviting members of the public to request ADA or language assistance in advance of a meeting. When a request is received, the City Clerk’s Office works directly with the individual to identify and provide appropriate accommodations.

These may include additional time for public comment to allow for interpretation, assistive equipment such as a wireless microphone, or other necessary support.

In addition, the City’s virtual meeting platform offers automated language translation features to further expand access. The resolution included with this item formalizes the City’s commitment to continuing these practices and clearly communicating how members of the public may request assistance.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Implementation of SB 707 may result in minor administrative and operational costs related to technology, translation services, and outreach efforts. These costs are expected to be absorbed within existing departmental budgets at this time. 921 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This policy approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution - Technology Disruption Policy for City Council Meetings Att 2 – Proposed Resolution - Public Outreach and Interpretation Assistance Practices Att 3 – The Brown Act
Att 4 – SB 707 Applicable Languages Determination Guide and Worksheet

STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042
922 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. (2026)

ADOPTING A TECHNOLOGY DISRUPTION POLICY FOR
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT (SB 707) WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is committed to preserving and ensuring public access and participation in meetings of the City Council and its legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2025, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 707 (SB 707); and WHEREAS, SB 707 amended the Ralph M. Brown Act to require legislative bodies to adopt policies addressing procedures in the event of a disruption to telephonic or internet-based access to public meetings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A), legislative bodies must approve a Technology Disruption Policy prior to July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, such policy must establish procedures for recessing and reconvening meetings and outline the good faith efforts the City will undertake to restore disrupted service; and WHEREAS, the proposed Technology Disruption Policy (“Policy”) ensures compliance with SB 707 and maintains the City’s commitment to transparency and public participation; and WHEREAS, the Policy is proposed to take effect on July 1, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. This policy adoption is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

2. The Technology Disruption Policy attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution is approved and the City Manager is authorized to make non-substantive changes.
923 of 976
Resolution No. (2026) Page 2 of 5
Technology Disruption Policy for City Council Meetings
Exhibit A
S t a f f P o l i c i e s M a n u a l
Title: Technology Disruption Policy
Policy #: 119
Sponsored by: City Clerk’s Office
Approved by: City Council
Date: Issued: __/__/____ Amended: __/__/____
Purpose and Effective Date
Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely.

This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions. This policy shall go into effect on July 1, 2026.

Policy
This policy applies to all open and public meetings in which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act pursuant to Government Code section 54953.4, as may be amended periodically. The policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions of the telephonic or internet services facilitating remote participation.

Scope
This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council and advisory bodies at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.

Definitions

1. Clerk: the City Clerk or designated Board/Commission Clerk responsible for administering legislative meeting proceedings.

2. Disruption: Any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via these remote services.

3. Presiding Officer: the Mayor or in their absence, the Deputy Mayor or designated Council Member; Board/Commission Chair, or in their absence, the Vice Chair or designated Board Member/Commissioner/Trustee.

4. Remote access services: The two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and observation of meetings. 924 of 976
Resolution No. (2026) Page 3 of 5
Technology Disruption Policy for City Council Meetings
Responsibility

1. Clerk
A. Restoration of Services

1. Communicate technology disruption event to the Presiding Officer.

2. Coordinate supportive staff and technology partners to address the disruption.

B. Recordkeeping

1. Record efforts to restore services in the meeting minutes.

2. Presiding Officer
A. Calling and declaring official actions of the legislative body, as necessary.

Procedures

1. Response to Service Disruption
A. If a disruption occurs that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting through the agency’s remote access services:

1. Once aware of the disruption, the Presiding Officer or Clerk shall immediately announce the disruption to the public.

2. The Presiding Officer may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.

3. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.

4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.

2. Efforts to Restore Service
A. The City shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include, but are not limited to:

1. Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software

2. Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment

3. Attempting alternative connection methods

4. Contacting necessary support staff or service providers 925 of 976
Resolution No. (2026) Page 4 of 5
Technology Disruption Policy for City Council Meetings

5. Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available B. The Clerk shall document the restoration efforts undertaken.

3. Reconvening the Open Session
A. Timing

1. The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.

B. If Service Is Restored

1. If remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.

C. If Service Is Not Restored

1. If service has not been restored when the legislative body is ready to reconvene the legislative body may:
a. Adjourn the meeting
b. Continue the open session by adopting, by rollcall vote, the following finding or a substantially similar one:
“The City has made good faith efforts to restore (telephonic/ internet service) in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access because _________ [identify the factual basis for making this finding].”
Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session despite the disruption.

4. Recordkeeping
A. The Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes including the following:

1. The nature and time of the disruption

2. The restoration efforts undertaken

3. The time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable)

4. Any finding adopted pursuant to Section 3 regarding reconvening the meeting without restoring remote access service.

5. Review and Updates
A. This policy may be amended by the legislative body at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar.
926 of 976
Resolution No. (2026) Page 5 of 5
Technology Disruption Policy for City Council Meetings
Related Policies
Note any related policies that should be cross-referenced using the following format:

1. Policy 108 – Public Meeting Security Policy

2. Policy 115 – Public Meeting Reasonable Accommodation Policy

3. Policy 504 – Technology Security Policy
Contact for this Policy
City Clerk
Approval
This policy was issued on ________ and approved by the City Council.

Resolution No. ___
927 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. (2026)

APPROVING PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PUBLIC INTERPRETATION ASSISTANCE PRACTICES WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is committed to fostering an inclusive, accessible, and engaged community and ensuring meaningful public participation in meetings of the City Council and its Boards and Commissions; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2025, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 707 (SB 707); and WHEREAS, SB 707 amended the Ralph M. Brown Act to require legislative bodies to implement practices to expand public outreach and provide interpretation assistance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(C), beginning July 1, 2026, the City must make reasonable efforts to invite participation from groups that do not traditionally engage in public meetings; and
WHEREAS, to support these efforts, the City Clerk’s Office will maintain and periodically update a list of media organizations, faith-based organizations, community groups, and neighborhood associations and provide notice of City meetings to those groups; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to provide information on its website inviting organizations and members of the public to register to receive meeting notifications and will review and update outreach contact lists at least annually; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54953.4(b)(2)(A)–(C), beginning July 1, 2026, the City must reasonably assist members of the public who wish to translate meetings or receive interpretation services, provided such assistance does not disrupt the meeting, and must publicize instructions on how to request such assistance; and
WHEREAS, City Council, Board, and Commission agendas include standardized language informing the public how to request language assistance, disability-related accommodations, and alternative formats in advance of meetings; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(2), the City will continue to provide accessibility services for public meetings, including closed captioning.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. This action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)). 928 of 976

2. The City Clerk’s Office shall maintain and update a list of media organizations, faith-based groups, community organizations, and neighborhood associations for the purpose of providing notice of City meetings. The City Council finds that these efforts constitute reasonable measures pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(C).

3. Agendas for the City Council, Boards, and Commissions shall continue to include information on how to request language assistance and disability-related accommodations. The City Clerk is authorized to continue providing accessibility services, including those described in this Resolution. The City Manager and City Clerk are authorized to take such actions as necessary to implement and administer the practices described in this resolution.
929 of 976
Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
54950.
54950.5.
54951.
54952.

Up^ Add To My Favorites

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 5. LOCAL AGENCIES [50001 - 57607] ( Title 5 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 81. ) DIVISION 2. CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES [53000 - 55821] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 81. ) PART 1. POWERS AND DUTIES COMMON TO CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES [53000 - 54999.7] ( Part 1 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 81. )
CHAPTER 9. Meetings [54950 - 54963] ( Chapter 9 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588. ) In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
(Added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588.)
This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.
(Added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 115.)
As used in this chapter, “local agency” means a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency.
(Amended by Stats. 1959, Ch. 1417.)
As used in this chapter, “legislative body” means:
(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute. (b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decisionmaking or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body.

However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter. (c) (1) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity. (B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.
(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), no board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that receives funds from a local agency and, as of February 9, 1996, has a member of the legislative body of the local agency as a full voting Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 1/41 930 of 976
54952.1.
54952.2.
member of the governing body of that private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity shall be relieved from the public meeting requirements of this chapter by virtue of a change in status of the full voting member to a nonvoting member.
(d) The lessee of any hospital the whole or part of which is first leased pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code after January 1, 1994, where the lessee exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority. (Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 1073, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2003.) Any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body who has not yet assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of this chapter and shall be treated for purposes of enforcement of this chapter as if he or she has already assumed office. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 32, Sec. 2. Effective March 30, 1994. Operative April 1, 1994, by Sec. 23 of Ch. 32.) (a) As used in this chapter, “meeting” means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
(b) (1) A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing an employee or official of a local agency, from engaging in separate conversations or communications outside of a meeting authorized by this chapter with members of a legislative body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency, if that person does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the legislative body. (3) (A) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing a member of the legislative body from engaging in separate conversations or communications on an internet-based social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body provided that a majority of the members of the legislative body do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, all of the following definitions shall apply:
(i) “Discuss among themselves” means communications made, posted, or shared on an internet-based social media platform between members of a legislative body, including comments or use of digital icons that express reactions to communications made by other members of the legislative body. (ii) “Internet-based social media platform” means an online service that is open and accessible to the public.
(iii) “Open and accessible to the public” means that members of the general public have the ability to access and participate, free of charge, in the social media platform without the approval by the social media platform or a person or entity other than the social media platform, including any forum and chatroom, and cannot be blocked from doing so, except when the internet-based social media platform determines that an individual violated its protocols or rules.
(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following:
(1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person that do not violate subdivision (b).
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 2/41 931 of 976
54952.3.
54952.6.
54952.7.
54953.
(2) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at a conference or similar gathering open to the public that involves a discussion of issues of general interest to the public or to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specified nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to allow members of the public free admission to a conference or similar gathering at which the organizers have required other participants or registrants to pay fees or charges as a condition of attendance. (3) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and publicized meeting organized to address a topic of local community concern by a person or organization other than the local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.
(4) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and noticed meeting of another body of the local agency, or at an open and noticed meeting of a legislative body of another local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled meeting, business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.
(5) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at a purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. (6) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of that body, provided that the members of the legislative body who are not members of the standing committee attend only as observers.
(Amended (as amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 89, Sec. 1) by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 1. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) A legislative body that has convened a meeting and whose membership constitutes a quorum of any other legislative body may convene a meeting of that other legislative body, simultaneously or in serial order, only if a clerk or a member of the convened legislative body verbally announces, prior to convening any simultaneous or serial order meeting of that subsequent legislative body, the amount of compensation or stipend, if any, that each member will be entitled to receive as a result of convening the simultaneous or serial meeting of the subsequent legislative body and identifies that the compensation or stipend shall be provided as a result of convening a meeting for which each member is entitled to collect compensation or a stipend. However, the clerk or member of the legislative body shall not be required to announce the amount of compensation if the amount of compensation is prescribed in statute and no additional compensation has been authorized by a local agency. (b) For purposes of this section, compensation and stipend shall not include amounts reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member in the performance of the member’s official duties, including, but not limited to, reimbursement of expenses relating to travel, meals, and lodging. (Added by Stats. 2011, Ch. 91, Sec. 1. (AB 23) Effective January 1, 2012.) As used in this chapter, “action taken” means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance. (Added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1671.)
A local agency shall provide a copy of this chapter to any person elected or appointed to serve as a member of a legislative body of the local agency.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 3. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 3/41 932 of 976
authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2) Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, the legislative body of a local agency shall comply with all of the following:
(A) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. (B) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (C) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(D) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. (3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as expressly provided in this chapter. (4) The teleconferencing requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to remote participation described in subdivision (c).
(c) (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a member of a legislative body with a disability from participating in any meeting of the legislative body by remote participation as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to any applicable law.
(2) A member of a legislative body participating in a meeting by remote participation pursuant to this subdivision shall do both of the following:
(A) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology, except that any member with a disability, as defined in Section 12102 of Title 42 of the United States Code, may participate only through audio technology if a physical condition related to their disability results in a need to participate off camera. (B) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any of those individuals. (3) Remote participation under this subdivision shall be treated as in-person attendance at the physical meeting location for all purposes, including any requirement that a quorum of the legislative body participate from any particular location. The provisions of subdivision (b) and Sections 54953.8 to 54953.8.7, inclusive, shall not apply to remote participation under this subdivision.
(d) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. (2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3) (A) Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of either of the following during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken:
(i) A local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1. (ii) A department head or other similar administrative officer of the local agency. (B) This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(e) For purposes of this section, both of the following definitions apply:
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 4/41 933 of 976
54953.1.
54953.2.
54953.3.
54953.4.
(1) “Disability” means a physical disability or a mental disability as those terms are defined in Section 12926 and used in Section 12926.1, or a disability as defined in Section 12102 of Title 42 of the United States Code. (2) (A) “Teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), “teleconference” does not include one or more members watching or listening to a meeting via webcasting or any other similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively speak, discuss, or deliberate on matters. (3) “Remote participation” means participation in a meeting by teleconference at a location other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 534, Sec. 2) by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 4. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to prohibit the members of the legislative body of a local agency from giving testimony in private before a grand jury, either as individuals or as a body. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 950.)
All meetings of a legislative body of a local agency that are open and public shall meet the protections and prohibitions contained in Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. (Added by Stats. 2002, Ch. 300, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2003.) A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.

If an attendance list, register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance to the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present during the meeting, it shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary, and that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the document. (Amended by Stats. 1981, Ch. 968, Sec. 28.)
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that public access, including through translation of agendas as required by this section, is necessary for an informed populace. The Legislature encourages local agencies to adopt public access requirements that exceed the requirements of this chapter by translating additional languages, employing human translators, and conducting additional outreach. (b) (1) In addition to any other applicable requirements of this chapter, a meeting held by a eligible legislative body pursuant to this chapter shall comply with both of the following requirements:
(A) (i) (I) (ia) All open and public meetings shall include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform, except if adequate telephonic or internet service is not operational at the meeting location. If adequate telephonic or internet service is operational at the meeting location during only a portion of the meeting, the legislative body shall include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform during that portion of the meeting.
(ib) (Ia) On or before July 1, 2026, an eligible legislative body shall approve at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar, a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet service occurring during meetings subject to this sub-subclause. The policy shall address the procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of disruption and the efforts that the eligible legislative body shall make to attempt to restore the service. (Ib) If a disruption of telephonic or internet service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform occurs during the meeting, the eligible legislative body shall recess the open session of the meeting for at least one hour and make a good faith attempt to restore the service. The eligible legislative body may meet in closed session during this period. The eligible legislative body 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 5/41 934 of 976
shall not reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier. (Ic) Upon reconvening the open session, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored, the eligible legislative body shall adopt a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with the policy adopted pursuant to sub-sub-subclause (Ia) and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.
(II) Subclause (I) does not apply to a meeting that is held to do any of the following:
(ia) Attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party. (ib) Inspect real or personal property provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the real or personal property.
(ic) Meet with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction.
(id) Meet in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility.
(ie) Meet in an emergency situation pursuant to Section 54956.5. (ii) If an eligible legislative body elects to provide a two-way audiovisual platform, the eligible legislative body shall publicly post and provide a call-in option, and activate any automatic captioning function during the meeting if an automatic captioning function is included with the two-way audiovisual platform. If an eligible legislative body does not elect to provide a two-way audiovisual platform, the eligible legislative body shall provide a two-way telephonic service for the public to participate in the meeting, pursuant to subclause (I).
(B) (i) All open and public meetings for which attendance via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform is provided in accordance with paragraph (1) shall provide the public with an opportunity to provide public comment in accordance with Section 54954.3 via the two-way telephonic or two-way audiovisual platform, and ensure the opportunity for the members of the public participating via a two-way telephonic or two-way audiovisual platform to provide public comment with the same time allotment as a person attending a meeting in person.
(2) (A) An eligible legislative body shall reasonably assist members of the public who wish to translate a public meeting into any language or wish to receive interpretation provided by another member of the public, so long as the interpretation is not disrupting to the meeting, as defined in Section 54957.95. The eligible legislative body shall publicize instructions on how to request assistance under this subdivision. Assistance may include any of the following, as determined by the eligible legislative body:
(i) Arranging space for one or more interpreters at the meeting location. (ii) Allowing extra time during the meeting for interpretation to occur. (iii) Ensuring participants may utilize their personal equipment or reasonably access facilities for participants to access commercially available interpretation services. (B) This section does not require an eligible legislative body to provide interpretation of any public meeting, however, an eligible legislative body may elect to provide interpretation of any public meeting. (C) The eligible legislative body is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any interpretation facilitated, assisted with, or provided under this subdivision. An action shall not be commenced or maintained against the eligible legislative body arising from the content or accuracy of any interpretation facilitated, assisted with, or provided under this subdivision.
(3) An eligible legislative body shall take the following actions to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and non-English-speaking communities, to participate in public meetings:
(A) Have in place a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling requests for meeting agendas and documents pursuant to Section 54954.1 through email or through an integrated agenda management 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 6/41 935 of 976
platform. Information about how to make a request using this system shall be accessible through a prominent direct link posted on the primary internet website home page of the eligible legislative body. (B) (i) Create and maintain an accessible internet webpage dedicated to public meetings that includes, or provides a link to, all of the following information:
(I) A general explanation of the public meeting process for the eligible legislative body. (II) An explanation of the procedures for a member of the public to provide in-person or remote oral public comment during a public meeting or to submit written public comment. (III) A calendar of all public meeting dates with calendar listings that include the date, time, and location of each public meeting.
(IV) The agenda posted online pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 54954.2. (ii) The eligible legislative body shall include a link to the webpage required by subparagraph (A) on the home page of the eligible legislative body’s internet website. (C) (i) Make reasonable efforts, as determined by the legislative body, to invite groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings, which may include, but are not limited to, all the following:
(I) Media organizations that provide news coverage in the jurisdiction of the eligible legislative body, including media organizations that serve non-English-speaking communities. (II) Good government, civil rights, civic engagement, neighborhood, and community group organizations, or similar organizations that are active in the jurisdiction of the eligible legislative body, including organizations active in non-English-speaking communities. (ii) Legislative bodies shall have broad discretion in the choice of reasonable efforts they make under this subparagraph. No action shall be commenced or maintained against an eligible legislative body arising from failing to provide public meeting information to any specific group pursuant to this subparagraph. (c) (1) (A) The agenda for each meeting of an eligible legislative body shall be translated into all applicable languages, and each translation shall be posted in accordance with Section 54954.2. Each translation shall include instructions in the applicable language describing how to join the meeting by the telephonic or internet-based service option, including any requirements for registration for public comment. (B) The accessible internet webpage provided under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) shall be translated into all applicable languages, and each translation shall be accessible through a prominent direct link posted on the primary internet website home page of the eligible legislative body. (2) A translation made using a digital translation service shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1). (3) The eligible legislative body shall make available a physical location that is freely accessible to the public in reasonable proximity to the physical location in which the agenda and translations are posted as described in paragraph (1), and shall allow members of the public to post additional translations of the agenda in that location.
(4) The eligible legislative body is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any translation provided pursuant to this subdivision. No action shall be commenced or maintained against an eligible legislative body arising from the content, accuracy, posting, or removal of any translation provided by the eligible legislative body or posted by any person pursuant to this subdivision.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the agenda does not include the entire agenda packet. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect or supersede any other applicable civil rights, nondiscrimination, or public access laws.
(e) For purposes of this section, all of the following definitions apply:
(1) (A) “Applicable languages” means languages, according to data from the most recent American Community Survey, spoken jointly by 20 percent or more of the applicable population, provided that 20 percent or more of the population that speaks that language in that city or county speaks English less than “very well.” (B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable population shall be determined as follows:
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 7/41 936 of 976
54953.5.
(i) For an eligible legislative body that is a city council or county board of supervisors, the applicable population shall be the population of the city or county. (ii) For an eligible legislative body of a special district, the applicable population shall be either of the following, at the discretion of the board of directors of the special district:
(I) The population of the county with the greatest population within the boundaries of the special district.
(II) The population of the service area of the special district, if the special district has the data to determine what languages spoken by the population within its service area meet the requirements of paragraph (A).
(C) If more than three languages meet the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A), “applicable languages” shall mean the three languages described in subparagraph (A) that are spoken by the largest percentage of the population.
(D) An eligible legislative body may elect to determine the applicable languages based upon a source other than the most recent American Community Survey if it makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the other source provides equally or more reliable data for the territory over which the eligible legislative body exercises jurisdiction.
(2) “Eligible legislative body” means any of the following:
(A) A city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more. (B) A county board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a population of 30,000 or more. (C) A city council of a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more. (D) The board of directors of a special district that has an internet website and meets any of the following conditions:
(i) The boundaries of the special district include the entirety of a county with a population of 600,000 or more, and the special district has over 200 full-time equivalent employees. (ii) The special district has over 1,000 full-time equivalent employees. (iii) The special district has annual revenues, based on the most recent Financial Transaction Report data published by the California State Controller, that exceed four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000), adjusted annually for inflation commencing January 1, 2027, as measured by the percentage change in the California Consumer Price Index from January 1 of the prior year to January 1 of the current year, and the special district employs over 200 full-time equivalent employees. (3) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference and a two-way telephonic service. (4) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require internet access and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and verbally participate. (f) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2026. (g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 5. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Operative July 1, 2026, by its own provisions.

Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.) (a) Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings in the absence of a reasonable finding by the legislative body of the local agency that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes, or would constitute, a persistent disruption of the proceedings. (b) Any recording of an open and public meeting made for whatever purpose by or at the direction of the local agency shall be subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), but, notwithstanding Section 34090, may be erased or destroyed 30 days after the recording. Any inspection of an audio or video recording shall be provided without charge on equipment made available by the local agency.
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 8/41 937 of 976
54953.6.
54953.7.
54953.8.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 6. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) No legislative body of a local agency shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 32, Sec. 6. Effective March 30, 1994. Operative April 1, 1994, by Sec. 23 of Ch. 32.) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, legislative bodies of local agencies may impose requirements upon themselves which allow greater access to their meetings than prescribed by the minimal standards set forth in this chapter. In addition thereto, an elected legislative body of a local agency may impose those requirements on appointed legislative bodies of the local agency.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 7. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) The legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing as authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54953 without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 54953 in any of the circumstances described in Sections 54953.8.1 to 54953.8.7, inclusive. (b) A legislative body that holds a teleconference meeting pursuant to this section shall, in addition to any other applicable requirements of this chapter, comply with all of the following:
(1) The legislative body shall provide at least one of the following as a means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body:
(A) A two-way audiovisual platform.
(B) A two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting. (2) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconference meeting held pursuant to this section is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option.
(3) In the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored.

Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(4) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. (5) Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate.
(6) (A) A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to paragraph (5), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed. (B) A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to paragraph (5), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (C) A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 9/41 938 of 976
54953.8.1.
paragraph (5), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (7) Any member of the legislative body who participates in a teleconference meeting from a remote location pursuant to this section and the specific provision of law that the member relied upon to permit their participation by teleconferencing shall be listed in the minutes of the meeting. (8) The legislative body shall have and implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolving any doubt in favor of accessibility. In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation. (9) The legislative body shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.
(c) A local agency shall identify and make available to legislative bodies a list of one or more meeting locations that may be available for use by the legislative bodies to conduct their meetings. (d) (1) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing the public with additional physical locations in which the public may observe and address the legislative body by electronic means. (e) A member of a legislative body who participates in a teleconference meeting from a remote location pursuant to this section shall publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with those individuals.
(f) The teleconferencing provisions described in Section 54953 and Sections 54953.8.1 to 54953.8.7, inclusive, are cumulative. A legislative body may elect to use any teleconferencing provisions that are applicable to a meeting, regardless of whether any other teleconferencing provisions would also be applicable to that meeting. (g) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Remote location” means a location from which a member of a legislative body participates in a meeting pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b), other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting. Remote locations need not be accessible to the public. (2) “Teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. (3) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference and a two-way telephonic service. A two-way audiovisual platform may be structured to disable the use of video for the public participants. (4) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require internet access and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and verbally participate. (5) “Webcasting” means a streaming video broadcast online or on television, using streaming media technology to distribute a single content source to many simultaneous listeners and viewers. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 8. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) A health authority may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section.
(b) Nothing in this section or Section 54953.8 shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. (c) For purposes of this section, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 10/41 939 of 976
54953.8.2.
54953.8.3.
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 9. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) A legislative body of a local agency may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8 during a proclaimed state of emergency or local emergency, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section and the teleconferencing is used in either of the following circumstances:
(1) For the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (2) After a determination described in paragraph (1) is made that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (b) If the state of emergency or local emergency remains active, in order to continue to teleconference pursuant to this section, the legislative body shall, no later than 45 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to this section, and every 45 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(1) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency or local emergency. (2) The state of emergency or local emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(c) This section shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 54953.8, a legislative body conducting a teleconference meeting pursuant to this section may elect to use a two-way telephonic service without a live webcasting of the meeting.
(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Local emergency” means a condition of extreme peril to persons or property proclaimed by the governing body of the local agency affected, in accordance with Section 8630 of the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2), as defined in Section 8680.9, or a local health emergency declared pursuant to Section 101080 of the Health and Safety Code. Local emergency, as used in this section, refers only to local emergencies in the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.
(2) “State of emergency” means state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2). (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 10. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) A legislative body of a local agency may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8 if, during the teleconference meeting, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda, which location shall be open to the public and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, provided that the legislative body complies with the requirements of Section 54953.8 and all of the following additional requirements:
(1) A member of the legislative body notifies the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for just cause, including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. (2) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology. (3) (A) The provisions of this subdivision shall not serve as a means for any member of a legislative body to participate in meetings of the legislative body solely by teleconference from a remote location for just cause for more than the following number of meetings, as applicable:
(i) Two meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets once per month or less. (ii) Five meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets twice per month. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 11/41 940 of 976
54953.8.4.
(iii) Seven meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets three or more times per month. (B) For the purpose of counting meetings attended by teleconference under this paragraph, a “meeting” shall be defined as any number of meetings of the legislative body of a local agency that begin on the same calendar day.
(b) The minutes for the meeting shall identify the specific provision in subdivision (c) that each member relied upon to participate remotely. This subdivision shall not be construed to require the member to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is otherwise exempt under existing law, including, but not limited to, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 56) of Part

2.6 of Division 1 of the Civil Code).
(c) For purposes of this section, “just cause” means any of the following:
(1) Childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. “Child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms do in Section 12945.2.
(2) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. (3) A need related to a physical or mental condition that is not subject to subdivision (c) of Section 54953. (4) Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. (5) An immunocompromised child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner of the member that requires the member to participate remotely. (6) A physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person. (7) Military service obligations that result in a member being unable to attend in person because they are serving under official written orders for active duty, drill, annual training, or any other duty required as a member of the California National Guard or a United States Military Reserve organization that requires the member to be at least 50 miles outside the boundaries of the local agency.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 11. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.)
(a) An eligible neighborhood council may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section and all of the following have occurred:
(1) (A) The city council for a city described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) considers whether to adopt a resolution to authorize eligible neighborhood councils to use teleconferencing as described in this section at an open and regular meeting.
(B) If the city council adopts a resolution described in subparagraph (A), an eligible neighborhood council may elect to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section if a majority of the eligible neighborhood council votes to do so. The eligible neighborhood council shall notify the city council if it elects to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section and its justification for doing so.
(C) Upon receiving notification from an eligible neighborhood council described in subparagraph (B), the city council may adopt a resolution to prohibit the eligible neighborhood council from using teleconferencing pursuant to this section.
(2) After completing the requirements of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), an eligible neighborhood council that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A) At least a quorum of the members of the eligible neighborhood council shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the city in which the eligible neighborhood council is established. (B) At least once per year, at least a quorum of the members of the eligible neighborhood council shall participate in person from a singular physical location that is open to the public and within the boundaries of the eligible neighborhood council.
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 12/41 941 of 976
54953.8.5.
(3) If the meeting is during regular business hours of the offices of the city council member that represents the area that includes the eligible neighborhood council, the eligible neighborhood council shall provide a publicly accessible physical location from which the public may attend or comment, which shall be the offices of the city council member who represents the area where the eligible neighborhood council is located, unless the eligible neighborhood council identifies an alternative location. (4) If the meeting is outside regular business hours, the eligible neighborhood council shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate any member of the public that requests an accommodation to participate in the meeting. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Accommodation” means providing a publicly accessible physical location for the member of the public to participate from, providing access to technology necessary to participate in the meeting, or identifying locations or resources available that could provide the member of the public with an opportunity to participate in the meeting.
(2) “Eligible neighborhood council” means a neighborhood council that is an advisory body with the purpose to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs that is established pursuant to the charter of a city with a population of more than 3,000,000 people that is subject to this chapter.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 12. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.)
(a) An eligible community college student organization may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section and all of the following additional requirements:
(1) An eligible community college student organization may only use teleconferencing as described in Section 54953.8 after all the following have occurred:
(A) The board of trustees for a community college district considers whether to adopt a resolution to authorize eligible community college student organizations to use teleconferencing as described in this section at an open and regular meeting.
(B) If the board of trustees for a community college district adopts a resolution described in subparagraph (A), an eligible community college student organization may elect to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section if a majority of the eligible community college student organization votes to do so. The eligible community college student organization shall notify the board of trustees if it elects to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section and its justification for doing so.
(C) Upon receiving notification from an eligible community college student organization as described in subparagraph (B), the board of trustees may adopt a resolution to prohibit the eligible community college student organization from using teleconferencing pursuant to this section. (D) (i) Except as specified in clause (ii), at least a quorum of the members of the eligible community college student organization shall participate from a singular physical location that is accessible to the public and is within the community college district in which the eligible community college student organization is established.
(ii) The requirements described in clause (i) shall not apply to the California Online Community College. (iii) Notwithstanding the requirements of clause (i), a person may count toward the establishment of a quorum pursuant to clause (i) regardless of whether the person is participating at the in-person location of the meeting or remotely if the person meets any of the following criteria:
(I) The person is under 18 years of age.
(II) The person is incarcerated.
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 13/41 942 of 976
54953.8.6.
(III) The person is unable to disclose the location that they are participating from because of either of the following circumstances:
(ia) The person has been issued a protective court order, including, but not limited to, a domestic violence restraining order.
(ib) The person is participating in a program that has to remain confidential, including, but not limited to, an independent living program.
(IV) The person provides childcare or caregiving to a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. For purposes of this subclause, “child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms are defined in Section 12945.2.
(2) An eligible community college student organization that holds a meeting by teleconference as described in Section 54953.8 shall do the following, as applicable:
(A) (i) Except as specified in subparagraph (B), if the meeting is during regular business hours of the offices of the board of trustees of the community college district, the eligible community college student organization shall provide a publicly accessible physical location from which the public may attend or comment, which shall be the offices of the board of trustees of the community college district, unless the eligible community college student organization identifies an alternative location. (ii) Except as specified in subparagraph (B), if the meeting is outside regular business hours, the eligible community college student organization shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate any member of the public that requests an accommodation to participate in the meeting. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “accommodation” means providing a publicly accessible physical location for the member of the public to participate from, providing access to technology necessary to participate in the meeting, or identifying locations or resources available that could provide the member of the public with an opportunity to participate in the meeting.
(B) The requirements described in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the California Online Community College.
(b) For purposes of this section, “eligible community college student organization” means a student body association organized pursuant to Section 76060 of the Education Code, or any other student-run community college organization that is required to comply with the meeting requirements of this chapter, that is in any community college recognized within the California Community Colleges system and includes the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 13. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.)
(a) An eligible subsidiary body may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section and all of the following additional requirements:
(1) The eligible subsidiary body shall designate one physical meeting location within the boundaries of the legislative body that created the eligible subsidiary body where members of the subsidiary body who are not participating remotely shall be present and members of the public may physically attend, observe, hear, and participate in the meeting. At least one staff member of the eligible subsidiary body or the legislative body that created the eligible subsidiary body shall be present at the physical meeting location during the meeting. The eligible subsidiary body shall post the agenda at the physical meeting location, but need not post the agenda at a remote location.
(2) (A) A member of the eligible subsidiary body shall visibly appear on camera during the open portion of a meeting that is publicly accessible via the internet or other online platform, except if the member has a physical or mental condition not subject to subdivision (c) of Section 54953 that results in a need to participate off camera.
(B) The visual appearance of a member of the eligible subsidiary body on camera may cease only when the appearance would be technologically infeasible, including, but not limited to, when the member experiences a lack of reliable broadband or internet connectivity that would be remedied by joining without video. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 14/41 943 of 976
(C) If a member of the eligible subsidiary body does not appear on camera due to challenges with internet connectivity, the member shall announce the reason for their nonappearance prior to turning off their camera. (3) An elected official serving as a member of an eligible subsidiary body in their official capacity shall not participate in a meeting of the eligible subsidiary body by teleconferencing pursuant to this section unless the use of teleconferencing complies with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 54953. (4) (A) In order to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section, the legislative body that established the eligible subsidiary body by charter, ordinance, resolution, or other formal action shall make the following findings by majority vote before the eligible subsidiary body uses teleconferencing pursuant to this section for the first time, and every six months thereafter:
(i) The legislative body has considered the circumstances of the eligible subsidiary body. (ii) Teleconference meetings of the eligible subsidiary body would enhance public access to meetings of the eligible subsidiary body, and the public has been made aware of the type of remote participation, including audio-visual or telephonic, that will be made available at a regularly scheduled meeting and has been provided the opportunity to comment at an in-person meeting of the legislative body authorizing the subsidiary body to meet entirely remotely.
(iii) Teleconference meetings of the eligible subsidiary body would promote the attraction, retention, and diversity of eligible subsidiary body members.
(B) (i) An eligible subsidiary body authorized to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section may request to present any recommendations it develops to the legislative body that created it. (ii) Upon receiving a request described in clause (i), the legislative body that created the subsidiary body shall hold a discussion at a regular meeting held within 60 days after the legislative body receives the request, or if the legislative body does not have another regular meeting scheduled within 60 days after the legislative body receives the request, at the next regular meeting after the request is received. (iii) The discussion required by clause (ii) shall not be placed on a consent calendar, but may be combined with the legislative body’s subsequent consideration of the findings described in subparagraph (A) for the following 12 months.
(iv) The legislative body shall not take any action on any recommendations included in the report of a subsidiary body until the next regular meeting of the legislative body following the discussion described in clause (ii).
(C) After the legislative body makes the findings described in subparagraph (A), the eligible subsidiary body shall approve the use of teleconferencing by majority vote before using teleconference pursuant to this section.
(D) The legislative body that created the eligible subsidiary body may elect to prohibit the eligible subsidiary body from using teleconferencing pursuant to this section at any time. (b) (1) For purposes of this section, “eligible subsidiary body” means a legislative body that meets all of the following:
(A) Is described in subdivision (b) of Section 54952.
(B) Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity.
(C) Is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds.
(D) Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals.
(2) An eligible subsidiary body may include members who are elected officials, members who are not elected officials, or any combination thereof.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 15/41 944 of 976
54953.8.7.
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 14. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.)
(a) An eligible multijurisdictional body may conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to Section 54953.8, provided that it complies with the requirements of that section and all of the following additional requirements:
(1) The eligible multijurisdictional body has adopted a resolution that authorizes the eligible multijurisdictional body to use teleconferencing pursuant to this section at a regular meeting in open session. (2) At least a quorum of the members of the eligible multijurisdictional body shall participate from one or more physical locations that are open to the public and within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.
(3) A member of the eligible multijurisdictional body who receives compensation for their service on the eligible multijurisdictional body shall participate from a physical location that is open to the public. For purposes of this paragraph, “compensation” does not include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses. (4) A member of the eligible multijurisdictional body may participate from a remote location provided that:
(A) The eligible multijurisdictional body identifies each member of the eligible multijurisdictional body who plans to participate remotely in the agenda.
(B) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology. (5) A member of the eligible multijurisdictional body shall not participate in a meeting remotely pursuant to this section, unless the location from which the member participates is more than 20 miles each way from any physical location of the meeting described in paragraph (2). (6) The provisions of this section shall not serve as a means for any member of a legislative body to participate in meetings of the legislative body solely by teleconference from a remote location for more than the following number of meetings, as applicable:
(A) Two meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets once per month or less. (B) Five meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets twice per month. (C) Seven meetings per year, if the legislative body regularly meets three or more times per month. (D) For the purpose of counting meetings attended by teleconference under this paragraph, a “meeting” shall be defined as any number of meetings of the legislative body of a local agency that begin on the same calendar day.
(b) For the purposes of this section, both of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Eligible multijurisdictional body” means a multijurisdictional board, commission, or advisory body of a multijurisdictional, cross-county agency, the membership of which board, commission, or advisory body is appointed, and the board, commission, or advisory body is otherwise subject to this chapter. (2) “Multijurisdictional” means either of the following:
(A) A legislative body that includes representatives from more than one county, city, city and county, or special district.
(B) A legislative body of a joint powers entity formed pursuant to an agreement entered into in accordance with Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 15. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.)
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 16/41 945 of 976
54954.
54954.1.
(a) Each legislative body of a local agency, except for advisory committees or standing committees, shall provide, by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings. Meetings of advisory committees or standing committees, for which an agenda is posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54954.2, shall be considered for purposes of this chapter as regular meetings of the legislative body. (b) Regular and special meetings of the legislative body shall be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except to do any of the following:
(1) Comply with state or federal law or court order, or attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party.
(2) Inspect real or personal property which cannot be conveniently brought within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the real or personal property.
(3) Participate in meetings or discussions of multiagency significance that are outside the boundaries of a local agency’s jurisdiction. However, any meeting or discussion held pursuant to this subdivision shall take place within the jurisdiction of one of the participating local agencies and be noticed by all participating agencies as provided for in this chapter.
(4) Meet in the closest meeting facility if the local agency has no meeting facility within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, or at the principal office of the local agency if that office is located outside the territory over which the agency exercises jurisdiction. (5) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California when a local meeting would be impractical, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction. (6) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction if the meeting takes place in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility. (7) Visit the office of the local agency’s legal counsel for a closed session on pending litigation held pursuant to Section 54956.9, when to do so would reduce legal fees or costs. (c) Meetings of the governing board of a school district shall be held within the district, except under the circumstances enumerated in subdivision (b), or to do any of the following:
(1) Attend a conference on nonadversarial collective bargaining techniques. (2) Interview members of the public residing in another district with reference to the trustees’ potential employment of an applicant for the position of the superintendent of the district. (3) Interview a potential employee from another district. (d) Meetings of a joint powers authority shall occur within the territory of at least one of its member agencies, or as provided in subdivision (b). However, a joint powers authority which has members throughout the state may meet at any facility in the state which complies with the requirements of Section 54961. (e) If, by reason of fire, flood, earthquake, or other emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings shall be held for the duration of the emergency at the place designated by the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee in a notice to the local media that have requested notice pursuant to Section 54956, by the most rapid means of communication available at the time. (Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 257, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2005.) Any person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet, of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person. If a local agency has an internet website, the legislative body or its designee shall email a copy of, or website link to, the agenda or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet if the person requests that the item or items be delivered by email. If the local agency determines it is technologically infeasible to send a copy of all documents constituting the agenda packet or 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 17/41 946 of 976
54954.2.
a link to a website that contains the documents by email or by other electronic means, the legislative body or its designee shall send by mail a copy of the agenda or a website link to the agenda and mail a copy of all other documents constituting the agenda packet in accordance with the mailing requirements established pursuant to this section. If requested, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Upon receipt of the written request, the legislative body or its designee shall cause the requested materials to be mailed at the time the agenda is posted pursuant to Section 54954.2 and 54956 or upon distribution to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body, whichever occurs first. Any request for mailed copies of agendas or agenda packets shall be valid for the calendar year in which it is filed, and must be renewed following January 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a fee for mailing the agenda or agenda packet, which fee shall not exceed the cost of providing the service. Failure of the requesting person to receive the agenda or agenda packet pursuant to this section shall not constitute grounds for invalidation of the actions of the legislative body taken at the meeting for which the agenda or agenda packet was not received. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 763, Sec. 1. (SB 274) Effective January 1, 2022.) (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda that meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The agenda shall contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.
(B) The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency’s internet website, if the local agency has one.
(C) (i) If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. (ii) The agenda shall include information regarding how, to whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting. (2) For a meeting occurring on and after January 1, 2019, of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an internet website, the following provisions shall apply:
(A) An online posting of an agenda shall be posted on the primary internet website home page of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that is accessible through a prominent, direct link to the current agenda. The direct link to the agenda shall not be in a contextual menu; however, a link in addition to the direct link to the agenda may be accessible through a contextual menu.
(B) An online posting of an agenda, including, but not limited to, an agenda posted in an integrated agenda management platform, shall be posted in an open format that meets all of the following requirements:
(i) Retrievable, downloadable, indexable, and electronically searchable by commonly used internet search applications.
(ii) Platform independent and machine readable.
(iii) Available to the public free of charge and without any restriction that would impede the reuse or redistribution of the agenda.
(C) A legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an internet website and an integrated agenda management platform shall not be required to comply with subparagraph (A) if all of the following are met:
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 18/41 947 of 976
(i) A direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall be posted on the primary internet website home page of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state. The direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall not be in a contextual menu. When a person clicks on the direct link to the integrated agenda management platform, the direct link shall take the person directly to an internet website with the agendas of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state.
(ii) The integrated agenda management platform may contain the prior agendas of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. (iii) The current agenda of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state shall be the first agenda available at the top of the integrated agenda management platform.
(iv) All agendas posted in the integrated agenda management platform shall comply with the requirements in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (B).
(D) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a political subdivision of a local agency that was established by the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state.
(E) For purposes of this paragraph, both of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Integrated agenda management platform” means an internet website of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state dedicated to providing the entirety of the agenda information for the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state to the public. (2) “Legislative body” means a legislative body that meets the definition of subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (3) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item.
(1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.
(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a). (3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. (c) This section is necessary to implement and reasonably within the scope of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the requirement that the agenda be posted on the local agency’s internet website, if the local agency has one, shall only apply to a legislative body that meets either of the following standards:
(1) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 19/41 948 of 976
54954.3.
54954.4.
(2) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (b) of Section 54952, if the members of the legislative body are compensated for their appearance, and if one or more of the members of the legislative body are also members of a legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 131, Sec. 92) by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 16. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.)
(a) (1) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.
(2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if any of the following conditions are met:
(i) The item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body.
(ii) When considering the item, a quorum of the committee members did not participate from a singular physical location, that was clearly identified on the agenda, open to the public, and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction. (iii) The committee has primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals. This clause shall not apply to an item if the local agency has adopted a law applicable to the meeting of the committee at which the item that was considered prohibits the committee from placing a limit on the total amount of time for public comment on the item.
(3) Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) (1) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), when the legislative body of a local agency limits time for public comment, the legislative body of a local agency shall provide at least twice the allotted time to a member of the public who utilizes a translator to ensure that non-English speakers receive the same opportunity to directly address the legislative body of a local agency.
(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply if the legislative body of a local agency utilizes simultaneous translation equipment in a manner that allows the legislative body of a local agency to hear the translated public testimony simultaneously.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 17. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that Section 12 of Chapter 641 of the Statutes of 1986, authorizing reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for costs mandated by the state pursuant to that act, shall be interpreted strictly. The intent of the Legislature is to provide reimbursement for only those costs 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 20/41 949 of 976
54954.5.
which are clearly and unequivocally incurred as the direct and necessary result of compliance with Chapter 641 of the Statutes of 1986.
(b) In this regard, the Legislature directs all state employees and officials involved in reviewing or authorizing claims for reimbursement, or otherwise participating in the reimbursement process, to rigorously review each claim and authorize only those claims, or parts thereof, which represent costs which are clearly and unequivocally incurred as the direct and necessary result of compliance with Chapter 641 of the Statutes of 1986 and for which complete documentation exists. For purposes of Section 54954.2, costs eligible for reimbursement shall only include the actual cost to post a single agenda for any one meeting. (c) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that complete, faithful, and uninterrupted compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) is a matter of overriding public importance. Unless specifically stated, no future Budget Act, or related budget enactments, shall, in any manner, be interpreted to suspend, eliminate, or otherwise modify the legal obligation and duty of local agencies to fully comply with Chapter 641 of the Statutes of 1986 in a complete, faithful, and uninterrupted manner.
(Added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 238, Sec. 1.)
For purposes of describing closed session items pursuant to Section 54954.2, the agenda may describe closed sessions as provided below. No legislative body or elected official shall be in violation of Section 54954.2 or 54956 if the closed session items were described in substantial compliance with this section. Substantial compliance is satisfied by including the information provided below, irrespective of its format. (a) With respect to a closed session held pursuant to Section 54956.7:

LICENSE/PERMIT DETERMINATION
Applicant(s): (Specify number of applicants)
(b) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.8:

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: (Specify street address, or if no street address, the parcel number or other unique reference, of the real property under negotiation)
Agency negotiator: (Specify names of negotiators attending the closed session) (If circumstances necessitate the absence of a specified negotiator, an agent or designee may participate in place of the absent negotiator so long as the name of the agent or designee is announced at an open session held prior to the closed session.) Negotiating parties: (Specify name of party (not agent)) Under negotiation: (Specify whether instruction to negotiator will concern price, terms of payment, or both) (c) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: (Specify by reference to claimant’s name, names of parties, case or claim numbers) or
Case name unspecified: (Specify whether disclosure would jeopardize service of process or existing settlement negotiations)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (Specify number of potential cases)
(In addition to the information noticed above, the agency may be required to provide additional information on the agenda or in an oral statement prior to the closed session pursuant to paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9.)
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (Specify number of potential cases)
(d) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95:

LIABILITY CLAIMS
Claimant: (Specify name unless unspecified pursuant to Section 54961) Agency claimed against: (Specify name)
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 21/41 950 of 976
(e) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54957:

THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES
Consultation with: (Specify name of law enforcement agency and title of officer, or name of applicable agency representative and title)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Title: (Specify description of position to be filled)

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: (Specify description of position to be filled)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: (Specify position title of employee being reviewed)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE
(No additional information is required in connection with a closed session to consider discipline, dismissal, or release of a public employee. Discipline includes potential reduction of compensation.) (f) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54957.6:

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: (Specify names of designated representatives attending the closed session) (If circumstances necessitate the absence of a specified designated representative, an agent or designee may participate in place of the absent representative so long as the name of the agent or designee is announced at an open session held prior to the closed session.)
Employee organization: (Specify name of organization representing employee or employees in question) or
Unrepresented employee: (Specify position title of unrepresented employee who is the subject of the negotiations) (g) With respect to closed sessions called pursuant to Section 54957.8:

CASE REVIEW/PLANNING
(No additional information is required in connection with a closed session to consider case review or planning.) (h) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Sections 1461, 32106, and 32155 of the Health and Safety Code or Sections 37606 and 37624.3 of the Government Code:

REPORT INVOLVING TRADE SECRET
Discussion will concern: (Specify whether discussion will concern proposed new service, program, or facility) Estimated date of public disclosure: (Specify month and year)

HEARINGS
Subject matter: (Specify whether testimony/deliberation will concern staff privileges, report of medical audit committee, or report of quality assurance committee)
(i) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.86:

CHARGE OR COMPLAINT INVOLVING INFORMATION PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW (No additional information is required in connection with a closed session to discuss a charge or complaint pursuant to Section 54956.86.)
(j) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.96:

CONFERENCE INVOLVING A JOINT POWERS AGENCY (Specify by name) Discussion will concern: (Specify closed session description used by the joint powers agency) Name of local agency representative on joint powers agency board: (Specify name) (Additional information listing the names of agencies or titles of representatives attending the closed session as consultants or other representatives.)
(k) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.75:

AUDIT BY CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S OFFICE
(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 759, Sec. 6.1. (AB 2690) Effective January 1, 2013.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 22/41 951 of 976
54954.6. (a) (1) Before adopting any new or increased general tax or any new or increased assessment, the legislative body of a local agency shall conduct at least one public meeting at which local officials shall allow public testimony regarding the proposed new or increased general tax or new or increased assessment in addition to the noticed public hearing at which the legislative body proposes to enact or increase the general tax or assessment.

For purposes of this section, the term “new or increased assessment” does not include any of the following:
(A) A fee that does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services, facilities, or regulatory activity for which the fee is charged.
(B) A service charge, rate, or charge, unless a special district’s principal act requires the service charge, rate, or charge to conform to the requirements of this section. (C) An ongoing annual assessment if it is imposed at the same or lower amount as any previous year. (D) An assessment that does not exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments previously specified in the notice given to the public pursuant to subparagraph (G) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) and that was previously adopted by the agency or approved by the voters in the area where the assessment is imposed. (E) Standby or immediate availability charges.
(2) The legislative body shall provide at least 45 days’ public notice of the public hearing at which the legislative body proposes to enact or increase the general tax or assessment. The legislative body shall provide notice for the public meeting at the same time and in the same document as the notice for the public hearing, but the meeting shall occur prior to the hearing.
(b) (1) The joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing required by subdivision (a) with respect to a proposal for a new or increased general tax shall be accomplished by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in a newspaper of general circulation for three weeks pursuant to Section 6063 and by a first-class mailing to those interested parties who have filed a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of public meetings or hearings on new or increased general taxes. The public meeting pursuant to subdivision (a) shall take place no earlier than 10 days after the first publication of the joint notice pursuant to this subdivision. The public hearing shall take place no earlier than seven days after the public meeting pursuant to this subdivision.

Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), the joint notice need not include notice of the public meeting after the meeting has taken place. The public hearing pursuant to subdivision (a) shall take place no earlier than 45 days after the first publication of the joint notice pursuant to this subdivision. Any written request for mailed notices shall be effective for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. (2) The notice required by paragraph (1) of this subdivision shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) The amount or rate of the tax. If the tax is proposed to be increased from any previous year, the joint notice shall separately state both the existing tax rate and the proposed tax rate increase. (B) The activity to be taxed.
(C) The estimated amount of revenue to be raised by the tax annually. (D) The method and frequency for collecting the tax.
(E) The dates, times, and locations of the public meeting and hearing described in subdivision (a). (F) The telephone number and address of an individual, office, or organization that interested persons may contact to receive additional information about the tax. (c) (1) The joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing required by subdivision (a) with respect to a proposal for a new or increased assessment on real property or businesses shall be accomplished through a mailing, postage prepaid, in the United States mail and shall be deemed given when so deposited. The public meeting pursuant to subdivision (a) shall take place no earlier than 10 days after the joint mailing pursuant to this subdivision. The public hearing shall take place no earlier than seven days after the public meeting pursuant to this 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 23/41 952 of 976
subdivision. The envelope or the cover of the mailing shall include the name of the local agency and the return address of the sender. This mailed notice shall be in at least 10-point type and shall be given to all property owners or business owners proposed to be subject to the new or increased assessment by a mailing by name to those persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized county assessment roll, the State Board of Equalization assessment roll, or the local agency’s records pertaining to business ownership, as the case may be. (2) The joint notice required by paragraph (1) of this subdivision shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) In the case of an assessment proposed to be levied on property, the estimated amount of the assessment per parcel. In the case of an assessment proposed to be levied on businesses, the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to calculate the amount of assessment to be levied against each business. If the assessment is proposed to be increased from any previous year, the joint notice shall separately state both the amount of the existing assessment and the proposed assessment increase.
(B) A general description of the purpose or improvements that the assessment will fund. (C) The address to which property owners may mail a protest against the assessment. (D) The telephone number and address of an individual, office, or organization that interested persons may contact to receive additional information about the assessment. (E) A statement that a majority protest will cause the assessment to be abandoned if the assessment act used to levy the assessment so provides. Notice shall also state the percentage of protests required to trigger an election, if applicable.
(F) The dates, times, and locations of the public meeting and hearing described in subdivision (a). (G) A proposed assessment formula or range as described in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if applicable and that is noticed pursuant to this section. (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of an assessment that is proposed exclusively for operation and maintenance expenses imposed throughout the entire local agency, or exclusively for operation and maintenance assessments proposed to be levied on 50,000 parcels or more, notice may be provided pursuant to this subdivision or pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and shall include the estimated amount of the assessment of various types, amounts, or uses of property and the information required by subparagraphs (B) to (G), inclusive, of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c).
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of an assessment proposed to be levied pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code by a regional park district, regional park and open-space district, or regional open-space district formed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of, or pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 35100) of, the Public Resources Code, notice may be provided pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). (d) The notice requirements imposed by this section shall be construed as additional to, and not to supersede, existing provisions of law, and shall be applied concurrently with the existing provisions so as to not delay or prolong the governmental decisionmaking process.
(e) This section shall not apply to any new or increased general tax or any new or increased assessment that requires an election of either of the following:
(1) The property owners subject to the assessment.
(2) The voters within the local agency imposing the tax or assessment. (f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from holding a consolidated meeting or hearing at which the legislative body discusses multiple tax or assessment proposals. (g) The local agency may recover the reasonable costs of public meetings, public hearings, and notice required by this section from the proceeds of the tax or assessment. The costs recovered for these purposes, whether recovered pursuant to this subdivision or any other provision of law, shall not exceed the reasonable costs of the public meetings, public hearings, and notice.
(h) Any new or increased assessment that is subject to the notice and hearing provisions of Article XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution is not subject to the notice and hearing requirements of this section. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 24/41 953 of 976
54955.
54955.1.
54956.
54956.5.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 382, Sec. 3.5. (SB 194) Effective January 1, 2012.) The legislative body of a local agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting the clerk or secretary of the legislative body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place and he shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in Section 54956 for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting was held within 24 hours after the time of the adjournment. When a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaw, or other rule.
(Amended by Stats. 1959, Ch. 647.)
Any hearing being held, or noticed or ordered to be held, by a legislative body of a local agency at any meeting may by order or notice of continuance be continued or recontinued to any subsequent meeting of the legislative body in the same manner and to the same extent set forth in Section 54955 for the adjournment of meetings; provided, that if the hearing is continued to a time less than 24 hours after the time specified in the order or notice of hearing, a copy of the order or notice of continuance of hearing shall be posted immediately following the meeting at which the order or declaration of continuance was adopted or made. (Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 469.)
(a) (1) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in writing and posting a notice on the local agency’s internet website, if the local agency has one. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telephone or electronic mail. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. (2) The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, a legislative body shall not call a special meeting regarding the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits, of the legislative body or of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1. However, this subdivision does not apply to a local agency calling a special meeting to discuss the local agency’s budget. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 18. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) For purposes of this section, “emergency situation” means both of the following:
(1) An emergency, which shall be defined as a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both, as determined by a majority of the members of the legislative body. (2) A dire emergency, which shall be defined as a crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, or threatened terrorist activity that poses peril so immediate and significant that requiring a legislative body to provide onehour notice before holding an emergency meeting under this section may endanger the public health, safety, or both, as determined by a majority of the members of the legislative body. (b) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of an emergency situation involving matters upon which prompt action is necessary due to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities, a legislative body may hold an emergency meeting without complying with either the 24-hour notice requirement or the 24-hour posting requirement of Section 54956 or both of the notice and posting requirements. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 25/41 954 of 976
54956.6.
54956.7.
54956.75.
(2) Each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station that has requested notice of special meetings pursuant to Section 54956 shall be notified by the presiding officer of the legislative body, or designee thereof, one hour prior to the emergency meeting, or, in the case of a dire emergency, at or near the time that the presiding officer or designee notifies the members of the legislative body of the emergency meeting. (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the notice required by this paragraph shall be given by telephone and all telephone numbers provided in the most recent request of a newspaper or station for notification of special meetings shall be exhausted. In the event that telephone services are not functioning, the notice requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed waived, and the legislative body, or designee of the legislative body, shall notify those newspapers, radio stations, or television stations of the fact of the holding of the emergency meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and any action taken at the meeting as soon after the meeting as possible.
(B) For an emergency meeting held pursuant to this section, the presiding officer of the legislative body, or designee thereof, may send the notifications required by this paragraph by email instead of by telephone, as provided in subparagraph (A), to all local newspapers of general circulation, and radio or television stations, that have requested those notifications by email, and all email addresses provided by representatives of those newspapers or stations shall be exhausted. In the event that internet services and telephone services are not functioning, the notice requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed waived, and the legislative body, or designee of the legislative body, shall notify those newspapers, radio stations, or television stations of the fact of the holding of the emergency meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and any action taken at the meeting as soon after the meeting as possible.
(c) During a meeting held pursuant to this section, the legislative body may meet in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 if agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present, or, if less than twothirds of the members are present, by a unanimous vote of the members present. (d) All special meeting requirements, as prescribed in Section 54956 shall be applicable to a meeting called pursuant to this section, with the exception of the 24-hour notice requirement. (e) The minutes of a meeting called pursuant to this section, a list of persons who the presiding officer of the legislative body, or designee of the legislative body, notified or attempted to notify, a copy of the rollcall vote, and any actions taken at the meeting shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days in a public place as soon after the meeting as possible.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 19. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) No fees may be charged by the legislative body of a local agency for carrying out any provision of this chapter, except as specifically authorized by this chapter. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1284.)
Whenever a legislative body of a local agency determines that it is necessary to discuss and determine whether an applicant for a license or license renewal, who has a criminal record, is sufficiently rehabilitated to obtain the license, the legislative body may hold a closed session with the applicant and the applicant’s attorney, if any, for the purpose of holding the discussion and making the determination. If the legislative body determines, as a result of the closed session, that the issuance or renewal of the license should be denied, the applicant shall be offered the opportunity to withdraw the application. If the applicant withdraws the application, no record shall be kept of the discussions or decisions made at the closed session and all matters relating to the closed session shall be confidential. If the applicant does not withdraw the application, the legislative body shall take action at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at its next public meeting denying the application for the license but all matters relating to the closed session are confidential and shall not be disclosed without the consent of the applicant, except in an action by an applicant who has been denied a license challenging the denial of the license.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 298, Sec. 1.)
(a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency that has received a confidential final draft audit report from the Bureau of State Audits from holding closed sessions to discuss its response to that report.
(b) After the public release of an audit report by the Bureau of State Audits, if a legislative body of a local agency meets to discuss the audit report, it shall do so in an open session unless exempted from that requirement by some other provision of law.
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 26/41 955 of 976
54956.8.
54956.81.
54956.86.
54956.87.
(Added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 576, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2005.) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.

However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.

For purposes of this section, negotiators may be members of the legislative body of the local agency.

For purposes of this section, “lease” includes renewal or renegotiation of a lease.

Nothing in this section shall preclude a local agency from holding a closed session for discussions regarding eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Section 54956.9.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 260, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1999.) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency that invests pension funds may hold a closed session to consider the purchase or sale of particular, specific pension fund investments. All investment transaction decisions made during the closed session shall be made by rollcall vote entered into the minutes of the closed session as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 54957.2. (Added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 533, Sec. 20. Effective January 1, 2005.) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency which provides services pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code may hold a closed session to hear a charge or complaint from a member enrolled in its health plan if the member does not wish to have his or her name, medical status, or other information that is protected by federal law publicly disclosed. Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body shall inform the member, in writing, of his or her right to have the charge or complaint heard in an open session rather than a closed session. (Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 182, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1997.) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the records of a health plan that is licensed pursuant to the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code) and that is governed by a county board of supervisors, whether paper records, records maintained in the management information system, or records in any other form, that relate to provider rate or payment determinations, allocation or distribution methodologies for provider payments, formulas or calculations for these payments, and contract negotiations with providers of health care for alternative rates are exempt from disclosure for a period of three years after the contract is fully executed. The transmission of the records, or the information contained therein in an alternative form, to the board of supervisors shall not constitute a waiver of exemption from disclosure, and the records and information once transmitted to the board of supervisors shall be subject to this same exemption.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governing board of a health plan that is licensed pursuant to the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code) and that is governed by a county board of supervisors may order that a meeting held solely for the purpose of discussion or taking action on health plan trade secrets, as defined in subdivision (f), shall be held in closed session. The requirements of making a public report of action taken in closed session, and the vote or abstention of every member present, may be limited to a brief general description without the information constituting the trade secret.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governing board of a health plan may meet in closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to contracts and contract negotiations by the health plan with providers of health care services concerning all matters related to rates of payment. The governing board may delete the portion or portions containing trade secrets from any documents that were finally approved in the closed session held pursuant to subdivision (b) that are provided to persons who have made the timely or standing request.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the governing board from meeting in closed session as otherwise provided by law.
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 27/41 956 of 976
54956.9.
(e) The provisions of this section shall not prevent access to any records by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in the exercise of its powers pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 10500) of Chapter 4 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 2. The provisions of this section also shall not prevent access to any records by the Department of Managed Health Care in the exercise of its powers pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1340) of Chapter

2.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
(f) For purposes of this section, “health plan trade secret” means a trade secret, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3426.1 of the Civil Code, that also meets both of the following criteria:
(1) The secrecy of the information is necessary for the health plan to initiate a new service, program, marketing strategy, business plan, or technology, or to add a benefit or product. (2) Premature disclosure of the trade secret would create a substantial probability of depriving the health plan of a substantial economic benefit or opportunity.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 190, Sec. 65. (AB 1517) Effective January 1, 2016.) (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer-client privilege other than those provided in this section are hereby abrogated. This section is the exclusive expression of the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of conducting closed-session meetings pursuant to this chapter. (c) For purposes of this section, “litigation” includes any adjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator. (d) For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been initiated formally. (2) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.
(3) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to paragraph (2). (4) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation.
(e) For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (d), “existing facts and circumstances” shall consist only of one of the following:
(1) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed.
(2) Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced. (3) The receipt of a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code) or some other written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening litigation, which claim or communication shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5. (4) A statement made by a person in an open and public meeting threatening litigation on a specific matter within the responsibility of the legislative body.
(5) A statement threatening litigation made by a person outside an open and public meeting on a specific matter within the responsibility of the legislative body so long as the official or employee of the local agency receiving knowledge of the threat makes a contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to the meeting, which 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 28/41 957 of 976
54956.95.
54956.96.
record shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5. The records so created need not identify the alleged victim of unlawful or tortious sexual conduct or anyone making the threat on their behalf, or identify a public employee who is the alleged perpetrator of any unlawful or tortious conduct upon which a threat of litigation is based, unless the identity of the person has been publicly disclosed. (f) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of written communications that are privileged and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
(g) Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. (h) A local agency shall be considered to be a “party” or to have a “significant exposure to litigation” if an officer or employee of the local agency is a party or has significant exposure to litigation concerning prior or prospective activities or alleged activities during the course and scope of that office or employment, including litigation in which it is an issue whether an activity is outside the course and scope of the office or employment. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 615, Sec. 206. (AB 474) Effective January 1, 2022. Operative January 1, 2023, pursuant to Sec. 463 of Stats. 2021, Ch. 615.)
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1, for purposes of insurance pooling, or a local agency member of the joint powers agency, from holding a closed session to discuss a claim for the payment of tort liability losses, public liability losses, or workers’ compensation liability incurred by the joint powers agency or a local agency member of the joint powers agency.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the Local Agency Self-Insurance Authority formed pursuant to Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 6599.01) of Division 7 of Title 1, or a local agency member of the authority, from holding a closed session to discuss a claim for the payment of tort liability losses, public liability losses, or workers’ compensation liability incurred by the authority or a local agency member of the authority. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect Section 54956.9 with respect to any other local agency. (Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 882, Sec. 3.)
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1, from adopting a policy or a bylaw or including in its joint powers agreement provisions that authorize either or both of the following:
(1) All information received by the legislative body of the local agency member in a closed session related to the information presented to the joint powers agency in closed session shall be confidential. However, a member of the legislative body of a local agency member may disclose information obtained in a closed session that has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency to the following individuals:
(A) Legal counsel of that local agency member for purposes of obtaining advice on whether the matter has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency member. (B) Other members of the legislative body of the local agency present in a closed session of that local agency member.
(2) Any designated alternate member of the legislative body of the joint powers agency who is also a member of the legislative body of a local agency member and who is attending a properly noticed meeting of the joint powers agency in lieu of a local agency member’s regularly appointed member to attend closed sessions of the joint powers agency.
(b) (1) In addition to the authority described in subdivision (a), the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, may adopt a policy or a bylaw or include in its joint powers agreement a provision that authorizes both of the following:
(A) A designated alternate member of the legislative body of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, who is not a member of the legislative body of a local agency member and who is 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 29/41 958 of 976
54956.96.
attending a properly noticed meeting of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, in lieu of a local agency member’s regularly appointed member, to attend closed sessions of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity. (B) All information that is received by a designated alternate member of the legislative body of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, who is not a member of the legislative body of a local agency member, and that is presented to the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, in closed session, shall be confidential. However, the designated alternate member may disclose information obtained in a closed session that has direct financial or liability implications for the local agency member for which the designated alternate member attended the closed session, to the following individuals:
(i) Legal counsel of that local agency member for purposes of obtaining advice on whether the matter has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency member. (ii) Members of the legislative body of the local agency present in a closed session of that local agency member.
(2) If the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, adopts a policy or bylaw or includes in its joint powers agreement a provision authorized pursuant to paragraph (1), the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity, shall establish policies to prevent conflicts of interest and to address breaches of confidentiality that apply to a designated alternate member who is not a member of the legislative body of a local agency member who attends a closed session of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, or its successor entity.
(c) If the legislative body of a joint powers agency adopts a policy or a bylaw or includes provisions in its joint powers agreement pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), then the legislative body of the local agency member, upon the advice of its legal counsel, may conduct a closed session in order to receive, discuss, and take action concerning information obtained in a closed session of the joint powers agency pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 248, Sec. 1) by Stats. 2024, Ch. 24, Sec. 1. (AB 1852) Effective January 1, 2025.

Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions. See later operative version, as amended by Sec. 2 of Stats. 2024, Ch.

24.)
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1, from adopting a policy or a bylaw or including in its joint powers agreement provisions that authorize either or both of the following:
(1) All information received by the legislative body of the local agency member in a closed session related to the information presented to the joint powers agency in closed session shall be confidential. However, a member of the legislative body of a local agency member may disclose information obtained in a closed session that has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency to the following individuals:
(A) Legal counsel of that local agency member for purposes of obtaining advice on whether the matter has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency member. (B) Other members of the legislative body of the local agency present in a closed session of that local agency member.
(2) A designated alternate member of the legislative body of the joint powers agency who is also a member of the legislative body of a local agency member and who is attending a properly noticed meeting of the joint powers agency in lieu of a local agency member’s regularly appointed member to attend closed sessions of the joint powers agency.
(b) If the legislative body of a joint powers agency adopts a policy or a bylaw or includes provisions in its joint powers agreement pursuant to subdivision (a), then the legislative body of the local agency member, upon the advice of its legal counsel, may conduct a closed session in order to receive, discuss, and take action concerning information obtained in a closed session of the joint powers agency pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). (c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2030. (Amended (as added by Stats. 2019, Ch. 248, Sec. 2) by Stats. 2024, Ch. 24, Sec. 2. (AB 1852) Effective January 1, 2025.

Section operative January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 30/41 959 of 976
54956.97.
54956.98.
54957.

Notwithstanding any provision of law, the governing board, or a committee of the governing board, of a public bank, as defined in Section 57600 of the Government Code, may meet in closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to all of the following:
(a) A loan or investment decision.
(b) A decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee. (c) A meeting with a state or federal regulator.
(Added by Stats. 2019, Ch. 442, Sec. 14. (AB 857) Effective January 1, 2020.) (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Shareholder, member, or owner local agency” or “shareholder, member, or owner” means a local agency that is a shareholder of a public bank.
(2) “Public bank” has the same meaning as defined in Section 57600. (b) The governing board of a public bank may adopt a policy or a bylaw or include in its governing documents provisions that authorize any of the following:
(1) All information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of the public bank in a closed session related to the information presented to the governing board of a public bank in closed session shall be confidential.

However, a member of the governing board of a shareholder, member, or owner local agency may disclose information obtained in a closed session that has direct financial or liability implications for that local agency to the following individuals:
(A) Legal counsel of that shareholder, member, or owner local agency for purposes of obtaining advice on whether the matter has direct financial or liability implications for that shareholder local agency. (B) Other members of the governing board of the local agency present in a closed session of that shareholder, member, or owner local agency.
(2) A designated alternate member of the governing board of the public bank who is also a member of the governing board of a shareholder, member, or owner local agency and who is attending a properly noticed meeting of the public bank governing board in lieu of a shareholder, member, or owner local agency’s regularly appointed member may attend a closed session of the public bank governing board. (c) If the governing board of a public bank adopts a policy or a bylaw or includes provisions in its governing documents pursuant to subdivision (b), then the governing board of the shareholder, member, or owner local agency, upon the advice of its legal counsel, may conduct a closed session in order to receive, discuss, and take action concerning information obtained in a closed session of the public bank governing board pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(Added by Stats. 2019, Ch. 442, Sec. 15. (AB 857) Effective January 1, 2020.) (a) (1) This chapter does not prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions with the Governor, Attorney General, district attorney, agency counsel, sheriff, or chief of police, or other law enforcement or security personnel, or a security consultant or a security operations manager, on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings, a threat to the security of essential public services, including water, drinking water, wastewater treatment, natural gas service, and electric service, a threat to the public’s right of access to public services or public facilities, or a threat to critical infrastructure controls or critical infrastructure information relating to cybersecurity.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A) “Critical infrastructure controls” means networks and systems controlling assets so vital to the local agency that the incapacity or destruction of those networks, systems, or assets would have a debilitating impact on public health, safety, economic security, or any combination thereof. (B) “Critical infrastructure information” means information not customarily in the public domain pertaining to any of the following:
1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 31/41 960 of 976
54957.1.
(i) Actual, potential, or threatened interference with, or an attack on, compromise of, or incapacitation of critical infrastructure controls by either physical or computer-based attack or other similar conduct, including, but not limited to, the misuse of, or unauthorized access to, all types of communications and data transmission systems, that violates federal, state, or local law or harms public health, safety, or economic security, or any combination thereof.
(ii) The ability of critical infrastructure controls to resist any interference, compromise, or incapacitation, including, but not limited to, any planned or past assessment or estimate of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure.
(iii) Any planned or past operational problem or solution regarding critical infrastructure controls, including, but not limited to, repair, recovery, reconstruction, insurance, or continuity, to the extent it is related to interference, compromise, or incapacitation of critical infrastructure controls. (b) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this chapter does not prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public session. (2) As a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an employee by another person or employee, the employee shall be given written notice of their right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the employee personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. If notice is not given, any disciplinary or other action taken by the legislative body against the employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null and void.
(3) The legislative body also may exclude from the public or closed meeting, during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body. (4) For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “employee” shall include an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee but shall not include any elected official, member of a legislative body or other independent contractors. This subdivision shall not limit local officials’ ability to hold closed session meetings pursuant to Sections 1461, 32106, and 32155 of the Health and Safety Code or Sections 37606 and 37624.3 of the Government Code. Closed sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline.
(Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 243, Sec. 1. (AB 2715) Effective January 1, 2025.) (a) The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention on that action of every member present, as follows:
(1) Approval of an agreement concluding real estate negotiations pursuant to Section 54956.8 shall be reported after the agreement is final, as follows:
(A) If its own approval renders the agreement final, the body shall report that approval and the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. (B) If final approval rests with the other party to the negotiations, the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval and the substance of the agreement upon inquiry by any person, as soon as the other party or its agent has informed the local agency of its approval. (2) Approval given to its legal counsel to defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. The report shall identify, if known, the adverse party or parties and the substance of the litigation. In the case of approval given to initiate or intervene in an action, the announcement need not identify the action, the defendants, or other particulars, but shall specify that the direction to initiate or intervene in an action has been given and that the action, the defendants, and the other particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry, unless to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 32/41 961 of 976
54957.2.
(3) Approval given to its legal counsel of a settlement of pending litigation, as defined in Section 54956.9, at any stage prior to or during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding shall be reported after the settlement is final, as follows:
(A) If the legislative body accepts a settlement offer signed by the opposing party, the body shall report its acceptance and identify the substance of the agreement in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held.
(B) If final approval rests with some other party to the litigation or with the court, then as soon as the settlement becomes final, and upon inquiry by any person, the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, and identify the substance of the agreement.
(4) Disposition reached as to claims discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95 shall be reported as soon as reached in a manner that identifies the name of the claimant, the name of the local agency claimed against, the substance of the claim, and any monetary amount approved for payment and agreed upon by the claimant.
(5) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. Any report required by this paragraph shall identify the title of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph notwithstanding, the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any.
(6) Approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees pursuant to Section 54957.6 shall be reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted or ratified by the other party. The report shall identify the item approved and the other party or parties to the negotiation. (7) Pension fund investment transaction decisions made pursuant to Section 54956.81 shall be disclosed at the first open meeting of the legislative body held after the earlier of the close of the investment transaction or the transfer of pension fund assets for the investment transaction. (b) Reports that are required to be made pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall provide to any person who has submitted a written request to the legislative body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda, or to any person who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956, if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends, copies of any contracts, settlement agreements, or other documents that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session. If the action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the related documents requiring retyping, the documents need not be released until the retyping is completed during normal business hours, provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the amendments for the benefit of the document requester or any other person present and requesting the information.
(c) The documentation referred to in subdivision (b) shall be available to any person on the next business day following the meeting in which the action referred to is taken or, in the case of substantial amendments, when any necessary retyping is complete.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the legislative body approve actions not otherwise subject to legislative body approval.
(e) No action for injury to a reputational, liberty, or other personal interest may be commenced by or on behalf of any employee or former employee with respect to whom a disclosure is made by a legislative body in an effort to comply with this section.
(f) This section is necessary to implement, and reasonably within the scope of, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 538, Sec. 311. Effective January 1, 2007.) (a) The legislative body of a local agency may, by ordinance or resolution, designate a clerk or other officer or employee of the local agency who shall then attend each closed session of the legislative body and keep and enter in a minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made at the meeting. The minute book made pursuant to this section is not a public record subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), and shall be kept confidential. The minute book shall be available only to members of the legislative body or, if a violation of this chapter is alleged to have occurred at a 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 33/41 962 of 976
54957.5.
closed session, to a court of general jurisdiction wherein the local agency lies. The minute book may, but need not, consist of a recording of the closed session.
(b) An elected legislative body of a local agency may require that each legislative body all or a majority of whose members are appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body keep a minute book as prescribed under subdivision (a).
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 615, Sec. 207. (AB 474) Effective January 1, 2022. Operative January 1, 2023, pursuant to Sec. 463 of Stats. 2021, Ch. 615.)
(a) Agendas of public meetings are disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), and shall be made available upon request without delay and in compliance with Section 54954.2 or Section 54956, as applicable. However, this section shall not apply to a writing, or portion thereof, that is exempt from public disclosure. (b) (1) If a writing is a public record related to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency and is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by a person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the body less than 72 hours before that meeting, the writing shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the body.
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a local agency shall comply with both of the following requirements:
(i) A local agency shall make any writing described in paragraph (1) available for public inspection at a public office or location that the agency shall designate for this purpose. (ii) A local agency shall list the address of the office or location designated pursuant to clause (i) on the agendas for all meetings of the legislative body of that agency. (B) A local agency shall not be required to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A) if all of the following requirements are met:
(i) An initial staff report or similar document containing an executive summary and the staff recommendation, if any, relating to that agenda item is made available for public inspection at the office or location designated pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A) at least 72 hours before the meeting. (ii) The local agency immediately posts any writing described in paragraph (1) on the local agency’s internet website in a position and manner that makes it clear that the writing relates to an agenda item for an upcoming meeting.
(iii) The local agency lists the web address of the local agency’s internet website on the agendas for all meetings of the legislative body of that agency.
(iv) (I) Subject to subclause (II), the local agency makes physical copies available for public inspection, beginning the next regular business hours for the local agency, at the office or location designated pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A).
(II) This clause is satisfied only if the next regular business hours of the local agency commence at least 24 hours before that meeting.
(c) Writings that are public records described in subdivision (b) and distributed during a public meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its legislative body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. These writings shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats upon request by a person with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.
(d) This chapter shall not be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from charging a fee or deposit for a copy of a public record pursuant to Section 7922.530, except that a surcharge shall not be imposed on persons with disabilities in violation of Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 34/41 963 of 976
54957.6.
54957.7.
54957.8.
(e) This section shall not be construed to limit or delay the public’s right to inspect or obtain a copy of any record required to be disclosed under the requirements of the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), including, but not limited to, the ability of the public to inspect public records pursuant to Section 7922.525 and obtain copies of public records pursuant to either subdivision (b) of Section 7922.530 or Section 7922.535. This chapter shall not be construed to require a legislative body of a local agency to place any paid advertisement or any other paid notice in any publication. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 615, Sec. 208) by Stats. 2022, Ch. 971, Sec. 1. (AB 2647) Effective January 1, 2023.)
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a legislative body of a local agency may hold closed sessions with the local agency’s designated representatives regarding the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of its represented and unrepresented employees, and, for represented employees, any other matter within the statutorily provided scope of representation, subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) Prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its designated representatives.
(2) The closed session shall be for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the local agency’s designated representatives.
(3) The closed session may take place prior to and during consultations and discussions with representatives of employee organizations and unrepresented employees.
(4) Any closed session with the local agency’s designated representative regarding the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits may include discussion of an agency’s available funds and funding priorities, but only insofar as these discussions relate to providing instructions to the local agency’s designated representative.
(5) The closed session shall not include final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees.
(6) For the purposes enumerated in this section, a legislative body of a local agency may also meet with a state conciliator who has intervened in the proceedings.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “employee” shall include an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee, but shall not include any elected official, member of a legislative body, or other independent contractors.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 20. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) Prior to holding any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall disclose, in an open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in the closed session. The disclosure may take the form of a reference to the item or items as they are listed by number or letter on the agenda. In the closed session, the legislative body may consider only those matters covered in its statement. Nothing in this section shall require or authorize a disclosure of information prohibited by state or federal law. (b) After any closed session, the legislative body shall reconvene into open session prior to adjournment and shall make any disclosures required by Section 54957.1 of action taken in the closed session. (c) The announcements required to be made in open session pursuant to this section may be made at the location announced in the agenda for the closed session, as long as the public is allowed to be present at that location for the purpose of hearing the announcements.
(Amended by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1137, Sec. 15. Effective January 1, 1994. Operative April 1, 1994, by Sec. 23 of Ch. 1137.) (a) For purposes of this section, “multijurisdictional law enforcement agency” means a joint powers entity formed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 that provides law enforcement services for the parties to the joint powers agreement for the purpose of investigating criminal activity involving drugs; gangs; sex crimes; firearms trafficking or felony possession of a firearm; high technology, computer, or identity theft; human trafficking; or vehicle theft. 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 35/41 964 of 976
54957.9.
54957.95.
54957.96.
54957.10.
(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a multijurisdictional law enforcement agency, or an advisory body of a multijurisdictional law enforcement agency, from holding closed sessions to discuss the case records of any ongoing criminal investigation of the multijurisdictional law enforcement agency or of any party to the joint powers agreement, to hear testimony from persons involved in the investigation, and to discuss courses of action in particular cases.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 427, Sec. 1. Effective September 22, 2006.) In the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the legislative body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 21. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) (1) In addition to authority exercised pursuant to Sections 54954.3 and 54957.9, the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting or their designee may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting, including any teleconferenced meeting. (2) Prior to removing an individual, the presiding member or their designee shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding member or their designee may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. This paragraph does not apply to any behavior described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(b) As used in this section:
(1) “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, one of the following:
(A) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Section 54954.3 or any other law.
(B) Engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force. (2) “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 22. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) (a) The existing authority of a legislative body or its presiding officer to remove or limit participation by persons who engage in behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting, including existing limitations upon that authority, shall apply to members of the public participating in a meeting via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference and a two-way telephonic service. A two-way audiovisual platform may be structured to disable the use of video for the public participants. (2) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require internet access and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and verbally participate. (Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 327, Sec. 23. (SB 707) Effective January 1, 2026.) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a legislative body of a local agency may hold closed sessions to discuss a local agency employee’s application for early withdrawal of funds in a deferred compensation plan when 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 36/41 965 of 976
54958.
54959.
54960.
the application is based on financial hardship arising from an unforeseeable emergency due to illness, accident, casualty, or other extraordinary event, as specified in the deferred compensation plan. (Added by Stats. 2001, Ch. 45, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2002.) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the legislative body of every local agency notwithstanding the conflicting provisions of any other state law.
(Added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588.)
Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 32, Sec. 18. Effective March 30, 1994. Operative April 1, 1994, by Sec. 23 of Ch. 32.) (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to ongoing actions or threatened future actions of the legislative body, or to determine the applicability of this chapter to past actions of the legislative body, subject to Section 54960.2, or to determine whether any rule or action by the legislative body to penalize or otherwise discourage the expression of one or more of its members is valid or invalid under the laws of this state or of the United States, or to compel the legislative body to audio record its closed sessions as hereinafter provided.
(b) The court in its discretion may, upon a judgment of a violation of Section 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.9, 54956.95, 54957, or 54957.6, order the legislative body to audio record its closed sessions and preserve the audio recordings for the period and under the terms of security and confidentiality the court deems appropriate. (c) (1) Each recording so kept shall be immediately labeled with the date of the closed session recorded and the title of the clerk or other officer who shall be custodian of the recording. (2) The audio recordings shall be subject to the following discovery procedures:
(A) In any case in which discovery or disclosure of the audio recording is sought by either the district attorney or the plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to Section 54959, 54960, or 54960.1 alleging that a violation of this chapter has occurred in a closed session that has been recorded pursuant to this section, the party seeking discovery or disclosure shall file a written notice of motion with the appropriate court with notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the audio recording. The notice shall be given pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (B) The notice shall include, in addition to the items required by Section 1010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all of the following:
(i) Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the date and time of the meeting recorded, and the governmental agency that has custody and control of the recording.
(ii) An affidavit that contains specific facts indicating that a violation of the act occurred in the closed session.
(3) If the court, following a review of the motion, finds that there is good cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the court may review, in camera, the recording of that portion of the closed session alleged to have violated the act.
(4) If, following the in camera review, the court concludes that disclosure of a portion of the recording would be likely to materially assist in the resolution of the litigation alleging violation of this chapter, the court shall, in its discretion, make a certified transcript of the portion of the recording a public exhibit in the proceeding. (5) This section shall not permit discovery of communications that are protected by the attorney-client privilege. (Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 732, Sec. 1. (SB 1003) Effective January 1, 2013.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 37/41 966 of 976
54960.1. (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 is null and void under this section.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body from curing or correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section.
(b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision (a), the district attorney or interested person shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. (c) (1) The written demand shall be made within 90 days from the date the action was taken unless the action was taken in an open session but in violation of Section 54954.2, in which case the written demand shall be made within 30 days from the date the action was taken.
(2) Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged action. (3) If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the action described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires. (4) Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body’s decision to cure or correct, or not to cure or correct, or within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be required to commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or thereafter be barred from commencing the action.
(d) An action taken that is alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, and 54956.5.
(2) The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract, instrument, or agreement thereto. (3) The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation, including a contract let by competitive bid other than compensation for services in the form of salary or fees for professional services, upon which a party has, in good faith and without notice of a challenge to the validity of the action, detrimentally relied. (4) The action taken was in connection with the collection of any tax. (5) Any person, city, city and county, county, district, or any agency or subdivision of the state alleging noncompliance with subdivision (a) of Section 54954.2, Section 54956, or Section 54956.5, because of any defect, error, irregularity, or omission in the notice given pursuant to those provisions, had actual notice of the item of business at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was taken, if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section 54954.2, or 24 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was taken if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section 54956, or prior to the meeting at which the action was taken if the meeting is held pursuant to Section 54956.5.
(e) During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to subdivision (a) if the court determines, pursuant to a showing by the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of the legislative body, the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be dismissed with prejudice. (f) The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter. (Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 454, Sec. 23. Effective January 1, 2003.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 38/41 967 of 976
54960.2. (a) The district attorney or any interested person may file an action to determine the applicability of this chapter to past actions of the legislative body pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960 only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The district attorney or interested person alleging a violation of this chapter first submits a cease and desist letter by postal mail or facsimile transmission to the clerk or secretary of the legislative body being accused of the violation, as designated in the statement pertaining to that public agency on file pursuant to Section 53051, or if the agency does not have a statement on file designating a clerk or a secretary, to the chief executive officer of that agency, clearly describing the past action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. (2) The cease and desist letter required under paragraph (1) is submitted to the legislative body within nine months of the alleged violation.
(3) The time during which the legislative body may respond to the cease and desist letter pursuant to subdivision (b) has expired and the legislative body has not provided an unconditional commitment pursuant to subdivision (c).
(4) Within 60 days of receipt of the legislative body’s response to the cease and desist letter, other than an unconditional commitment pursuant to subdivision (c), or within 60 days of the expiration of the time during which the legislative body may respond to the cease and desist letter pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier, the party submitting the cease and desist letter shall commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960 or thereafter be barred from commencing the action. (b) The legislative body may respond to a cease and desist letter submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) within 30 days of receiving the letter. This subdivision shall not be construed to prevent the legislative body from providing an unconditional commitment pursuant to subdivision (c) at any time after the 30-day period has expired, except that in that event the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this section, in accordance with Section 54960.5. (c) (1) If the legislative body elects to respond to the cease and desist letter with an unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to violate this chapter, that response shall be in substantially the following form:

To ______________________:

The [name of legislative body] has received your cease and desist letter dated [date] alleging that the following described past action of the legislative body violates the Ralph M. Brown Act:
[Describe alleged past action, as set forth in the cease and desist letter submitted pursuant to subdivision (a)] In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the [name of legislative body] hereby unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged past action as described above.

The [name of legislative body] may rescind this commitment only by a majority vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting and noticed on its posted agenda as “Rescission of Brown Act Commitment.” You will be provided with written notice, sent by any means or media you provide in response to this message, to whatever address or addresses you specify, of any intention to consider rescinding this commitment at least 30 days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this commitment is rescinded, you will have the right to commence legal action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960 of the Government Code. That notice will be delivered to you by the same means as this commitment, or may be mailed to an address that you have designated in writing.

Very truly yours,
________________________________________________
[Chairperson or acting chairperson of the legislative body] 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 39/41 968 of 976
54960.5.
54961.
54962.
(2) An unconditional commitment pursuant to this subdivision shall be approved by the legislative body in open session at a regular or special meeting as a separate item of business, and not on its consent agenda. (3) An action shall not be commenced to determine the applicability of this chapter to any past action of the legislative body for which the legislative body has provided an unconditional commitment pursuant to this subdivision. During any action seeking a judicial determination regarding the applicability of this chapter to any past action of the legislative body pursuant to subdivision (a), if the court determines that the legislative body has provided an unconditional commitment pursuant to this subdivision, the action shall be dismissed with prejudice. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to modify or limit the existing ability of the district attorney or any interested person to commence an action to determine the applicability of this chapter to ongoing actions or threatened future actions of the legislative body. (4) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the fact that a legislative body provides an unconditional commitment shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter. (d) If the legislative body provides an unconditional commitment as set forth in subdivision (c), the legislative body shall not thereafter take or engage in the challenged action described in the cease and desist letter, except as provided in subdivision (e). Violation of this subdivision shall constitute an independent violation of this chapter, without regard to whether the challenged action would otherwise violate this chapter. An action alleging past violation or threatened future violation of this subdivision may be brought pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960, without regard to the procedural requirements of this section. (e) The legislative body may resolve to rescind an unconditional commitment made pursuant to subdivision (c) by a majority vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting as a separate item of business not on its consent agenda, and noticed on its posted agenda as “Rescission of Brown Act Commitment,” provided that not less than 30 days prior to such regular meeting, the legislative body provides written notice of its intent to consider the rescission to each person to whom the unconditional commitment was made, and to the district attorney. Upon rescission, the district attorney or any interested person may commence an action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960. An action under this subdivision may be brought pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960, without regard to the procedural requirements of this section. (Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 732, Sec. 2. (SB 1003) Effective January 1, 2013.) A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 54960, 54960.1, or 54960.2 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter. Additionally, when an action brought pursuant to Section 54960.2 is dismissed with prejudice because a legislative body has provided an unconditional commitment pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of that section at any time after the 30-day period for making such a commitment has expired, the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff if the filing of that action caused the legislative body to issue the unconditional commitment. The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency.

A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a defendant in any action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of such action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit. (Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 732, Sec. 3. (SB 1003) Effective January 1, 2013.) (a) No legislative body of a local agency shall conduct any meeting in any facility that prohibits the admittance of any person, or persons, on the basis of ancestry or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135, or which is inaccessible to disabled persons, or where members of the public may not be present without making a payment or purchase. This section shall apply to every local agency as defined in Section 54951. (b) No notice, agenda, announcement, or report required under this chapter need identify any victim or alleged victim of tortious sexual conduct or child abuse unless the identity of the person has been publicly disclosed. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 568, Sec. 35. Effective January 1, 2008.) Except as expressly authorized by this chapter, or by Sections 1461, 1462, 32106, and 32155 of the Health and Safety Code, or by Sections 37606, 37606.1, and 37624.3 of the Government Code as they apply to hospitals, or by any provision of the Education Code pertaining to school districts and community college districts, no closed session may be held by any legislative body of any local agency. (Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 157, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2007.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 40/41 969 of 976
54963. (a) A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by Section 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information.
(b) For purposes of this section, “confidential information” means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to meet lawfully in closed session under this chapter.
(c) Violation of this section may be addressed by the use of such remedies as are currently available by law, including, but not limited to:
(1) Injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential information prohibited by this section. (2) Disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section.
(3) Referral of a member of a legislative body who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section to the grandjury.
(d) Disciplinary action pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall require that the employee in question has either received training as to the requirements of this section or otherwise has been given notice of the requirements of this section.
(e) A local agency may not take any action authorized by subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be deemed a violation of this section, for doing any of the following:
(1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law, including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that are necessary to establish the illegality of an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency or the potential illegality of an action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session if that action were to be taken by a legislative body of a local agency. (2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken by a legislative body of a local agency in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal or potentially illegal action. (3) Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed session under this chapter that is not confidential information.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53296) of Chapter 2 of this code. (Added by Stats. 2002, Ch. 1119, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2003.) 1/7/26, 3:26 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=5.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article= 41/41 970 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determination Guide and Worksheet (Gov. Code § 54953.4(e)(1))
Disclaimer: This resource is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for review by agency counsel. Agencies should consult their own legal counsel to confirm applicability, interpret statutory requirements, and ensure compliance with SB 707 and related laws.

CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected] 1/7/2026 ǀ Page 1 of 6 Purpose
To identify SB 707 “applicable languages” using the most recent ACS language and English proficiency data (Table B16001 or C16001).

Start Here (How to Use This Guide)

1. Open the worksheet on page 4 now.

2. Follow Steps 1–6 and fill out the matching worksheet sec�on (STEP __) as you go.

3. If you select “None of the above (no further analysis required)” in Worksheet Step 1, stop—you’re done.

4. Keep your downloaded ACS table open while comple�ng Worksheet Steps 2–5.

Note about the population number used: ACS Tables B16001 and C16001 only include people age 5 and older. To maintain consistency in the math, this worksheet uses the B16001 or C16001 total (age 5 +) as the “applicable population.” If you instead used the population described in 54953.4(e)(1)(B) (e.g., entire city population, which would include children under 5), the percentages could be slightly lower. Agencies should consult with their legal counsel to confirm this approach.

Step 1: Determine if the Legisla�ve Body is an “Eligible Legisla�ve Body” If the legisla�ve body meets the defini�on of an “eligible legisla�ve body,” con�nue to Step 2. “Eligible legisla�ve body” means any of the following:

A. A city council of a city with a popula�on of 30,000 or more.

B. A county board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a popula�on of 30,000 or more.

C. A city council of a city located in a county with a popula�on of 600,000 or more.

D. The board of directors of a special district that has an internet website and meets any of the following condi�ons:
i. The boundaries of the special district include the en�rety of a county with a popula�on of 600,000 or more, and the special district has over 200 full-�me equivalent employees. ii. The special district has over 1,000 full-�me equivalent employees. iii. The special district has annual revenues, based on the most recent Financial Transac�on Report data published by the California State Controller, that exceed four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000), adjusted annually for infla�on commencing January 1, 2027, as measured by the percentage change in the California Consumer Price Index from January 1 of the prior year to January 1 of the current year, and the special district employs over 200 full-�me equivalent employees.

If the legislative body is not an “eligible legislative body,” it does not qualify, and no further analysis is required. 971 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determina�on Guide and Worksheet CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected]
1/7/2026 ǀ Page 2 of 6
Step 2: Identify the Legislative Body Type and Select the Area to Use in ACS Iden�fy what kind of eligible legisla�ve body you are and select the area you will use for the ACS table, consistent with Gov. Code § 54953.4(e)(1)(B).
• City council → use the city (place)
• County board of supervisors → use the county
• Special district → choose one of the following (by board discre�on):
a. Use the county with the greatest popula�on within the district boundaries, OR b. Use the district’s service area (only if the district has reliable service-area language data) Note: You will enter the “Applicable Popula�on” number in the worksheet using the ACS B16001 or C16001 “Total:” es�mate for the area selected above (see Step 4).

Special districts: If the board selects the ‘county with the greatest popula�on within district boundaries’ op�on, use ACS B16001 or C16001 in Step 3 for that county as the applicable geography. If the board selects ‘service area,’ the district must use reliable service-area language data (ACS may not provide service-area boundaries directly).

Step 3: Obtain Language Data
Use language and English-proficiency data from the most recent ACS, typically ACS 5-year es�mates:

1. Visit htps://data.census.gov/

2. In the search bar, type: “B16001 [your city/county/area]” (or, if B16001 isn’t available, “C16001 [your city/county/area]”). Example: “C16001 Chula Vista, California” Note (B16001 vs. C16001): Try B16001 first. If a recent B16001 is not available for your city/county/area, use C16001 instead for the same area and ACS release. C16001 is less detailed and may combine languages into broader categories. If a combined category meets (or is close to) the 20% threshold and you need to iden�fy a specific language, consult addi�onal Census/ACS materials for more detail, consider an alterna�ve data source (with the required finding), and/or consult legal counsel.

3. Click the result that shows the table �tle: “Language Spoken at Home…” a. Click the Filters icon (le� page column) and ensure the Dataset is the ACS 5-year es�mates using the most recent year
b. Geography: confirm it’s your city/county (or add it if needed)

4. Use the Download icon (across the top) to download the data to Excel or CSV Agencies may use an alternative data source only if they formally determine, based on substantial evidence, that it is equally or more reliable than the ACS for their jurisdiction.

Step 4: Iden�fy Languages Spoken by 20% or More of the Applicable Popula�on From the ACS B16001 or C16001 data downloaded in Step 3:

1. Click the “Data” tab (it may not open automa�cally). In the first row labeled “Total:” copy the value under the “Es�mate” column and enter it as the Applicable Popula�on in the worksheet.

2. Iden�fy any language(s) spoken by 20% or more of that applicable popula�on.

Languages spoken by fewer than 20% of the applicable population do not qualify and may be excluded from further analysis.
972 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determina�on Guide and Worksheet CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected]
1/7/2026 ǀ Page 3 of 6
Step 5: Apply the English Proficiency Test
For each language that meets the 20% threshold in Step 4, determine whether 20% or more of people who speak that language speak English less than “very well.”
Note: Use the ACS es�mate for “less than very well” where provided. If the table provides separate categories, sum “well,” “not well,” and “not at all” (i.e., all categories other than “very well”).

Only languages that meet both condi�ons qualify:

1. ≥ 20% of the applicable popula�on speaks the language, and

2. ≥ 20% of that language group speaks English less than “very well.” If either condition fails, the language is excluded.

Step 6: Limit to the Top Three Languages (If Necessary) • If three or fewer languages meet the criteria → all are “applicable languages.” • If more than three languages meet the criteria → select the three languages spoken by the largest percentage of the applicable popula�on.

Step 7: Document the Determina�on (Best Prac�ce)
Prepare a short internal memo or staff report that includes:
• Date of analysis
• Eligibility determina�on (Step 1)
• Type of legisla�ve body and selected geography (Step 2) • Data source used (ACS vintage and table, or alterna�ve source and the suppor�ng finding) • Calcula�ons for each qualifying language
• Final list of applicable languages (including top three selec�on if applicable) Con�nue to the worksheet on Page 4.
973 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determina�on Guide and Worksheet CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected]
1/7/2026 ǀ Page 4 of 6
Applicable Languages Determina�on Worksheet (SB 707)
Agency: ______________________________
(STEP 1)
Eligible Legisla�ve Body ☐ City council of a city with a popula�on of 30,000 or more.

Determina�on: ☐ County board of supervisors of a county, or city and county, with a (Confirm eligibility criteria popula�on of 30,000 or more. against the current codified ☐ City council of a city located in a county with a popula�on of 600,000 or more. text of Gov. Code § 54953.4 Board of directors of a special district that has an internet website and meets any of before finalizing.) the following condi�ons:
☐ The boundaries of the special district include the en�rety of a county with a popula�on of 600,000 or more, and the special district has over 200 full-�me equivalent employees.
☐ The special district has over 1,000 full-�me equivalent employees. ☐ The special district has annual revenues, based on the most recent Financial Transac�on Report data published by the California State Controller, that exceed four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000), adjusted annually for infla�on commencing January 1, 2027, as measured by the percentage change in the California Consumer Price Index from January 1 of the prior year to January 1 of the current year, and the special district employs over 200 full-�me equivalent employees.
☐ None of the above (no further analysis required)
(STEP 2)
Type of Legisla�ve Body: ☐ City Council ☐ County Board of Supervisors ☐ Special District Special Districts ONLY - ☐ Popula�on of the county with the greatest popula�on within the district Popula�on Used: boundaries
☐ Popula�on of the district’s service area (only if the district has reliable language data for that area)
Applicable Popula�on: _______________________________ (From the downloaded ACS B16001 or C16001 table, enter the value in the first row labeled “Total:” under the “Es�mate” column.) To keep the calculations consistent, this worksheet uses the ACS Table B16001 or C16001 total (population age 5 and over) as the “applicable population” denominator, so the language counts and population total come from the same ACS table and geography. Using a larger population total that includes residents under age 5 (who are not included in B16001) could lower the calculated percentages and potentially make a language appear below the 20% threshold when it would otherwise qualify.
(STEP 3)
American Community Survey (ACS) Source Informa�on
ACS release: (e.g., “2023 ACS 5-year”)
ACS table: (e.g., “B16001” or “C16001”)
Geography used: (e.g., “Chula Vista city, California”)
Download date:

San Mateo 97,006 4-23-2026 ✔
✔
San Mateo City, California C16001 2024 AC 974 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determina�on Guide and Worksheet CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected]
1/7/2026 ǀ Page 5 of 6
(STEPS 4 & 5)
Languages Spoken and Threshold Determina�on

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D COLUMN E COLUMN F COLUMN G COLUMN H Applicable
Popula�on
Language Es�mated
Number of
Speakers
% of
Applicable
Popula�on
Speak
English Less
Than “Very
Well”
% of
Es�mated
Number of
Speakers
Meets Both
Language
Thresholds
Included in
Top Three
(If Needed)
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
Table Comple�on Instruc�ons (see example on the following page):

Column A: Enter the Applicable Popula�on from Step 2. (From the downloaded ACS B16001 or C16001 table, enter the value in the first row labeled “Total:” under the “Es�mate” column.) Column B: Enter the language from the ACS data table downloaded in Step 3.

Column C: Enter the es�mated number of speakers from the ACS data table column �tled “Es�mate.” Column D: Calculate the percentage of speakers of that language from the applicable popula�on. Formula: (Column C/Column A)*100.

If the percentage is less than 20%, the language does not qualify and may be excluded from further analysis.

Column E: Enter the number of speakers from the ACS data table who speak English less than “very well.” In ACS Table B16001 or C16001, “less than very well” means all categories other than “Speaks English very well.” If the table displays separate categories (e.g., “well,” “not well,” “not at all”), sum those categories to obtain Column E.

Column F: Calculate the percentage of that language’s speakers who speak English less than very well. Formula:
(Column E/Column C)*100.

Column G: If both Column D and Column F are 20% or greater, the language meets both thresholds; check Yes.

Otherwise, check No.

Column H: If there are more than three languages that meet both thresholds(i.e., ≥ 20% in both Columns D and F), choose the three languages spoken by the largest percentage of the applicable population (Column D). (STEP 6)
Applicable Languages: ______________________________ or ☐ None ______________________________
______________________________
Prepared by: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________ 97006 Spanish 19909 8626 43.3% French 965 1.0% 0.0% Tagalog 2786 2.9% 0.0% Russian 1454 1.5% 0.0% Korean 718 0.7% 0.0% Chinese 9121 9.4% 0.0% Spanish Martin McTaggart 4-23-2026 20.5% ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
975 of 976
SB 707 “Applicable Languages” Determina�on Guide and Worksheet CMCA Legisla�ve Program ǀ [email protected]
1/7/2026 ǀ Page 6 of 6
EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED TABLE: Languages Spoken and Threshold Determina�on

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D COLUMN E COLUMN F COLUMN G COLUMN H Applicable
Popula�on
Language Es�mated
Number of
Speakers
% of
Applicable
Popula�on
Speak
English less
than “very
well”
% of
Es�mated
Number of
Speakers
Meets Both
Language
Thresholds
Included in
Top Three
(If Needed)
261,003
(From ACS
B16001 or
C16001
Table Total:

Population 5
years and
over, Line 1)
Spanish
(from ACS
Data Table)
119,622
(from ACS
Data Table)
(119,622/
261,003)*
100=

45.83%
43,898
(from ACS
Data Table)
(43,898/
119,622)*
100=

36.70%
☒ Yes
☐ No
☒ Yes
☐ No
Tagalog 16,225 6.22% N/A N/A ☐ Yes
☒ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ No
976 of 976

San Mateo City CouncilMay 4, 2026

San Mateo City Council
May 4, 2026