HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-07; City Council Legislative Subcommittee; 03; Legislative and Advocacy UpdateMeeting Date: July 7, 2026
To: Legislative Subcommittee
From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Staff Contact: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
-339-2958
Subject: Update
District:
Recommended Action
Receive updates on federal and state legislative and budget activity and the city’s recent and
ongoing advocacy efforts; discuss and provide feedback to staff, including identifying high-
priority bills, advocacy positions, funding opportunities, and items for future City Council
consideration.
Discussion
Staff and the city’s contract lobbyists – Federal: Carpi & Clay Government Relations / State:
California Public Policy Group – will present updates and overviews of federal and state
legislative and budget activity and the priority legislation and intergovernmental matters being
tracked on behalf of the city (Exhibits 1 through 3).
On June 28, 2026, the city received the attached correspondence from the nonprofit Equitable
Land Use Alliance (ELUA) requesting the Legislative Subcommittee’s consideration of Assembly
Bill 1751 (Quirk-Silva), the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, which is opposed by
ELUA (Exhibit 4).
The Subcommittee is requested to provide feedback to help city staff and the city’s lobbying
consultants focus the city’s advocacy efforts on high-priority bills and to identify bills for future
City Council consideration.
Next Steps
Staff and the city’s contract lobbyists will monitor, evaluate, and engage the Legislative
Subcommittee in a discussion of legislative activity and proposed measures that may impact
city operations and policy priorities throughout the legislative session.
If the Legislative Subcommittee decides to refer any matters to the City Council, staff will work
with the City Manager to place an item on a future City Council agenda for consideration.
LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE
AMENDED 07-02-2026
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 1 of 129
Exhibits
1.Carpi & Clay Government Relations – Federal Monthly Update, June 30, 2026
2.California Public Policy Group Legislative Summary: June 2026
3.California Public Policy Group – Priority State Legislation as of July 1,2, 2026
4.Correspondence Received
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 2 of 129
1
June 30, 2026
City of Carlsbad
Federal Update
Fiscal Year 2027 Appropriations Update
The House continued advancing FY27 spending bills in June and is on track to have passed all twelve appropriations bills by the July 4th Congressional recess. Over in the Senate, movement on the FY27 appropriations has continued to stall as Chair Susan Collins (R-ME)
Collins and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) have not yet reached a bipartisan
agreement on overall spending levels.
FY27 Appropriations Bill
Subcommittee Allocation (in
House Subcommittee Markup
House Full Committee Markup House Floor
Agriculture–Rural Development–FDA $26.27 23 by a 10–7 29 by a 35–25 June 4 by a
Commerce–Justice–Science $77.341 30 by an 8–6 13 by a 32–28
Defense 11 by a voice 24 by a 34–27
Energy–Water
Development 15 by a voice 20 by a 34–25
General $25.298 Passed on April
17 by a 9–6 vote 22 by a 34–28
Homeland Security 5 by a voice 10 by a 34–27
Interior–
Environment
Passed on May
21 by a 7–5 vote 3 by a 35–27
Labor–HHS–Education 5 by an 11–7 9 by a 34–28
Exhibit 1
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 3 of 129
2 www.carpiclay.com
Legislative Branch $7.3 Passed on April 30 by a 5–4 vote 13 by a 34–28
Military Construction–VA $157 17 by a voice 21 by a 58–0 May 15 by a
National Security–State $47.32 23 by an 8–5 28 by a 35–27
Transportation–HUD Passed on May 21 by a 7–5 vote 3 by a 34–27
President Trump Signs Reconciliation Bill to Fund CBP and ICE
On June 10, President Trump signed the Secure America Act (S. 2) into law, providing $69.5 billion in multiyear mandatory funding for immigration enforcement through the budget reconciliation process. The law provides $38.5 billion for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and $26 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with all funds
available through fiscal year 2029. The law also includes at least $350 million for ICE operations in jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, with funds prohibited from being used to release or parole individuals encountered in those jurisdictions. The bill passed the Senate by a 52–47 vote on June 3 and the House by a 214–
212 vote on June 9.
Congress Passes Bipartisan Housing Package
On June 22, the Senate passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) by an 85–5 vote, and the House passed the bill on June 23 by a vote of 358–32. The legislation is the product of months of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations among Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC), Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-AR), and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA). Key
provisions include:
•NEPA reforms to streamline environmental reviews for small and infill housing projects;
•Grants to help communities develop pre-approved home designs; updates to the HOMEInvestment Partnerships Program;
•Three-year reauthorization of the CDBG-DR program;
•Increase of 100,000 units to the Rental Assistance Demonstration program cap;
•Reforms to manufactured housing financing standards;
•Nine community banking provisions to expand local lending capacity; and
•Prohibition on large institutional investors purchasing certain single-family homes.
On June 24, President Trump canceled a planned signing ceremony, saying he would withhold action on the bill until Congress passes the SAVE America Act. Once transmitted to the
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 4 of 129
3 www.carpiclay.com
President, the bill will become law automatically if the President neither signs nor vetoes it within ten days while Congress remains in session.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
Rep. Gallagher Sworn In Following CA-1 Special Election. On June 10, former
Assemblymember James Gallagher (R-CA) was sworn in as a Member of the House of
Representatives following his victory in the special election to fill the seat vacated by the death of Representative Doug LaMalfa in January. Rep. Gallagher’s addition brings the House to 431 members, with 218 Republicans, 212 Democrats, and one independent who caucuses with Republicans.
Senate Committee Holds Hearing on OMB Nomination. On June 16, the Senate Budget Committee held a hearing to consider the nomination of Hal Duncan, to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During the hearing, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) pressed Duncan on whether the proposed OMB grants rule contains any guardrails to
prevent cronyism or politically motivated grant terminations, warning that it could allow political
appointees to terminate awards based on a President’s personal or partisan preferences. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) argued that the rule would expand agency authority to suspend or terminate grants, elevate political appointees, and allow OMB to override congressional funding decisions; Duncan responded that the changes are about accountability and ensuring
decisions are made by officials accountable to the President. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
echoed concerns raised by Murray and others, saying the proposal would further politicize the grantmaking process and is especially alarming in the context of this Administration’s broader actions. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) defended the proposal as a taxpayer-protection and anti-waste reform, and Duncan agreed, emphasizing political appointee review, restrictions on funding DEI, illegal immigration, and “radical gender ideologies,” stronger fraud controls, and
an E-Verify requirement for grant recipients and subrecipients.
CONGRESSIONAL LETTERS
California Democrats Urge Removal of Rideshare Liability Provision from House Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. On June 12, Representatives Derek Tran (D-CA) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) led 34 members of the California congressional delegation in a letter to Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries urging the removal of a provision in the BUILD
America 250 Act (H.R. 8870) that would preempt state law and immunize rideshare companies from liability for injuries, sexual assaults, and fatalities occurring during rides. The provision was incorporated as an amendment offered by Representative Vince Fong (R-CA) during the May 22 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 5 of 129
4 www.carpiclay.com
FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
DOJ Publishes COPS Office NOFOs. On June 9, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published
notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) for nearly $300 million through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Available programs include up to $158 million through the COPS Hiring Program for law enforcement hiring and community policing capacity (due July 23); up to $73 million through the STOP School Violence Prevention Program for evidence-based school safety programs (due August 4); up to $34 million through
the Anti-Heroin Task Force Program for statewide investigations into heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioid distribution (due July 23); up to $13 million through the Anti-Methamphetamine Program for investigations into methamphetamine manufacture and
distribution (due July 23); up to $10 million through the Preparing for Active Shooter Situations
Program for scenario-based first responder training (due August 4); and up to $9 million through
the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act Program for mental health and wellness services for law enforcement (due July 30).
DOJ Announces Model Cities Initiative. On June 3, DOJ announced the Model Cities
Initiative, a competitive grant program making approximately $300 million available to two to four cities to implement comprehensive public safety strategies. Eligible applicants are local government entities serving a population of at least 100,000. Eligible uses include hiring law enforcement personnel, purchasing equipment and technology such as body-worn cameras,
real-time crime centers, license plate readers, and AI systems, mental health and substance
use services, reentry and recidivism reduction programs, victim services, and youth crime
prevention. Applications must reflect a whole-of-city approach, with mayors, sheriffs, prosecutors, and other local leaders submitting a joint proposal. DOJ will administer awards through cooperative agreements rather than traditional grants, allowing for a higher level of federal involvement in implementation and oversight. Applications are due September 1.
DOT Publishes INFRA Grants NOFO. On June 2, the Department of Transportation (DOT) published a NOFO for the availability of $626.7 million through the National Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) grant program. The grants help to fund
surface transportation infrastructure projects of national or regional significance that improve
the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of people and goods in addition to
expanding safe, accessible public parking for commercial motor vehicles. Funding is administered through two distinct tracks: Track 1 utilizes FY23 and FY24 resources to support surface transportation projects of national and regional significance, while Track 2 is a dedicated carve-out of FY26 resources specifically for commercial motor vehicle parking
projects of national or regional significance. Applicants must clearly identify their chosen track in the Project Information Form, as each track is subject to different selection priorities. Applications for Track 1 are due July 1, and applications for Track 2 are due July 15.
FEMA Publishes FY2026 Emergency Management Performance Grant Program NOFO.
On June 15, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a NOFO for the
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, making $337 million available to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to bolster emergency management organizations. Eligible uses include hiring and training staff, purchasing equipment such as generators and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 6 of 129
5 www.carpiclay.com
mobile command vehicles, and establishing interoperable communications systems. Applications are due July 15.
FEMA Publishes FY2026 Emergency Operations Center Grant Program NOFO. On June 15, FEMA published a NOFO for the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program, making approximately $83 million available to state governments and federally recognized tribal governments to construct, upgrade, or equip emergency operations centers. The program focuses on improving the flexibility, security, and interoperability of facilities that serve as
centralized coordination hubs during major disasters or emergencies. Applications are due July 15.
FHWA Publishes BIT3 Grants NOFO. On June 3, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) published a NOFO for the availability of $25 million through the Type 3 Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Competitive (BIT3) Grant Program. The purpose of the program is to fund the replacement or rehabilitation of county-owned bridges that are classified as Type 3 bridges by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and cross a water conveyance structure owned by USBR. Eligible applicants under the BIT3 Competitive Grant Program are counties which own a Type 3 bridge crossing a water
conveyance structure owned by USBR. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until funds are expended.
HUD Publishes FY26 Continuum of Care Competition NOFO. On June 1, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published the FY26 Continuum of Care and Youth
Homelessness Demonstration Program Competition NOFO, making approximately $4.04
billion available for homeless assistance programs. The NOFO reflects a significant policy shift away from a Housing First approach, which the Trump administration contends has failed to reduce homelessness. The NOFO emphasizes the McKinney-Vento Act goals of optimizing self-sufficiency and reducing homelessness, and increases the share of funding subject to
competitive merit review from approximately 10 percent to 40 percent of each Continuum of Care’s Annual Renewal Demand. It sets aside $1.3 billion for new Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects and incentivizes programs that include treatment and recovery services, supportive service participation requirements, and cooperation with law
enforcement to reduce encampments. Applications are due August 26.
Reclamation Publishes WaterSMART Cooperative Watershed Management Program NOFO. On June 10, the Bureau of Reclamation published a NOFO for the WaterSMART Cooperative Watershed Management Program, making $25 million available for watershed group development, restoration planning, and watershed management project planning and
design. Eligible applicants include existing watershed groups and entities sponsoring the establishment of new watershed groups located in western states and territories. The opportunity has four application rounds, with deadlines of October 7, 2026; February 24, 2027; September 1, 2027; and February 15, 2028. Reclamation will host an informational webinar
on July 21, 2026.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 7 of 129
6 www.carpiclay.com
FEDERAL FUNDING AWARDS
DOT Announces IFAC Grant Awards. DOT has announced nearly $47 million to 45 projects
in 27 states through the Innovate Finance and Asset Concession (IFAC) grant program. The funding will help public entities scan their existing assets to unlock their value and explore innovative financing, alternative delivery, and public-private partnership opportunities.
EPA Announces Brownfields Grants. On June 24, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced more than $270 million in brownfields funding to 221 communities, including $248 million in Multipurpose, Assessment, and Cleanup grants to 190 communities and $22.5 million in supplemental funding to 31 Revolving Loan Fund grantees. Funds support site
assessment, cleanup, community outreach, and redevelopment of contaminated properties.
HUD and VA Announce HUD-VASH Funding. On June 26, the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) announced $33 million in funding for 2,532 new HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers across 265 public housing authorities in 44 states. HUD also awarded $10 million in administrative fees to 289 public
housing authorities in 46 states that currently administer the program. HUD-VASH combines HUD rental assistance with VA case management and clinical services to help homeless veterans obtain stable housing.
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND PERSONNEL CHANGES
Supreme Court Rules Federal Election-Day Statutes Do Not Require Ballots to Be Received by Election Day. On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Watson v.
Republican National Committee that federal election-day statutes do not preempt Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days thereafter. In Justice Barrett’s majority opinion, the Court held that the federal statutes govern when voters must cast their ballots, not when ballots must be received, finding that the word “election” in the statutes refers to the electorate’s act of choosing a candidate—
which is complete when voting occurs, not when ballots arrive. The ruling preserves similar
grace periods in approximately 30 states.
Supreme Court Gives President Broad Power to Fire Independent Agency Officials, Exempts Federal Reserve. On June 29, the Supreme Court issued two major decisions on
presidential removal authority. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled 6–3 that the Federal Trade Commission’s statutory for-cause removal protection is unconstitutional, overruling precedent from 1935. In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion, the Court held that because the FTC exercises core executive power—including rulemaking, enforcement, and in-house adjudication—its commissioners must be removable by the President at will. The decision casts
doubt on the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections at other independent agencies,
potentially affecting dozens of commissions across the federal government. In Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled 5–4 to deny the President’s request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while litigation over her firing continues, holding that the Federal Reserve
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 8 of 129
7 www.carpiclay.com
occupies a distinct historical tradition of central bank independence and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before being removed. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority
opinion leaves open questions about what constitutes sufficient cause for removal of a Federal
Reserve Governor and what procedural protections are required.
Federal Judges Block Key Provisions of Executive Orders on Elections. Two federal district court judges in Boston issued rulings blocking key provisions of President Trump’s two executive orders on elections. On June 24, Judge Denise Casper’s ruling bars the Trump
administration from implementing most of the President’s first election executive order, which would have required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and barred mail ballots arriving after Election Day from being counted. On June 25, Judge Indira Talwani granted summary judgment to 23 states and the District of Columbia, blocking an executive order
directing federal agencies to compile a federal voter list for each state and directed the U.S.
Postal Service to restrict mail ballot delivery to voters on those lists. Judge Talwani enjoined their enforcement with respect to the November 3 general election and any earlier federal elections in the plaintiff states. The Trump administration is expected to appeal both rulings.
DOT Publishes Title VI Regulations Final Rule. On June 11, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) published a final rule that amends its regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”) to eliminate disparate-impact liability. DOT has stated these amendments are intended to align regulations with Title VI’s original public meaning, avoid constitutional concerns, reduce compliance costs, and implement changes directed in
Executive Order 14281. These revisions also align with changes made by the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ) to its Title VI Regulations at 28 CFR part 42, effective December 10, 2025.
The rule is effective immediately.
FCC Adopts Wireline Deployment NPRM. On June 25, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) building on a
September 2025 Notice of Inquiry. The NPRM proposes a rebuttable presumption that state and local governments violate Section 253 of the Communications Act if they fail to act on wireline right-of-way authorization requests within 120 days. It also proposes to limit fees that state and local governments may charge to a reasonable approximation of their actual, direct
costs of managing the public right-of-way—rather than market rates—and to require that in-
kind compensation count toward any applicable fee limits. The NPRM further proposes to
prohibit state and local governments from imposing additional requirements on wireline infrastructure on the grounds that it may also be used to provide other services such as broadband. State and local governments have raised concerns that the proposal would impinge on their authority to manage public rights-of-way and that the cost-based fee standard would
deprive them of revenue. Comments are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due 90 days after publication.
FEMA Releases Updated Risk Assessment Software. On June 4, FEMA released Hazus
7.2, an updated version of its hazard risk assessment software used by emergency managers,
planners, and researchers nationwide. The update adds the U.S. Geological Survey’s
ShakeMap model, which collects seismic data in real time and can estimate the potential impacts of earthquake events, restoring earthquake modeling capability that was lost when
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 9 of 129
8 www.carpiclay.com
FEMA retired support for Hazus 6.1 in March 2026. The release also includes updates to result export features and user performance.
Reclamation Signs MOU to Explore Desalination and Water Recycling for Colorado River Basin. On June 3, the Bureau of Reclamation and major water agencies in California, Nevada, and Arizona signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to jointly explore how desalination and advanced water purification could strengthen long-term water reliability in the Colorado River Basin. Signatories include the San Diego County Water Authority, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. The MOU establishes a framework for evaluating how new water supplies produced through desalination or water recycling could be integrated
into Basin operations, potentially allowing agencies to facilitate interstate water transfers using
existing infrastructure without constructing new pipelines. The agreement does not alter existing water rights or commit any party to a specific project. Colorado River system storage currently stands at approximately 36 percent of capacity.
Reclamation Principal Deputy Commissioner Named. Aubrey Bettencourt of California has
been appointed Principal Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation and designated as the agency’s lead under Secretary Burgum’s recent order on Department leadership. She previously served as the top conservation official at the Department of Agriculture and, during President Trump’s first term, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the
Department of the Interior. She has also served as executive director of both the Almond
Alliance of California and the California Water Alliance. Bettencourt has been rumored as a
potential nominee for Commissioner, a Senate-confirmed position, though no official nomination has been made.
## ## ##
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 10 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 1
Date: July 1, 2026
To: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
From: Sharon Gonsalves
Managing Director
California Public Policy Group
Re: CPPG Legislative Summary: June 2026
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
June Marked Key Deadlines for Legislation and for the State Budget
June concluded an active several months for the Legislature, encompassing the June 15 deadline to
pass a Budget Act and the bulk of committee hearings leading to the July 2 deadline by which all
policy committees must meet and confer on bills in their second house. Bills that remain in motion
reside in their second house, meaning that Assembly bills are being heard in the Senate and Senate
bills are being heard in the Assembly. June 25 also marked the final day for measures to be added to,
or withdrawn from, the November 2026 ballot.
On July 2, the Legislature adjourned for Summer Recess, and when it reconvenes on August 3, with
limited exceptions, only appropriations committees may meet to determine the fate of fiscal
measures. The deadline for fiscal measures to clear their second-house Appropriations Committee
is August 14. The final two weeks of session leading up to the last day of the 2025-2026 legislative
session on August 31 are reserved for Floor deliberations only. The Governor has until September 30
to sign or veto all legislation passed by the Legislature after August 1.
Senate Bill 1164
SB 1164 (Cervantes) repeals the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 and replaces it with a new
California Voting Rights Act of 2026. Presented as the Legislature’s response to recent U.S. Supreme
Court decisions narrowing the scope of the federal Voting Rights Act, the measure substantially
expands the types of voting-rights claims that may be brought against local governments. Where
current law is largely focused on challenges to at-large election systems, the proposed act creates
two new causes of action—voter suppression and vote dilution—and applies broadly to local
agencies, including charter and general law cities, counties, school and community college districts,
and other special districts that conduct elections. For local agencies, the most consequential
change is the elimination of a long-standing safe harbor. Under existing law, jurisdictions that
transition to district-based elections have generally been insulated from California Voting Rights Act
claims. Under SB 1164, that protection would no longer exist. Any method of election and any district
map could be challenged, neither claim would require proof of discriminatory intent, and once a
plaintiff demonstrates a “material disparity”—a term left undefined in the bill—the burden would
shift to the local agency to justify its electoral system. The bill also creates a more plaintiff-friendly
litigation framework by authorizing one-way attorney’s fee recovery, granting broad standing to sue,
establishing expedited court procedures, and imposing a new state preclearance requirement on a
limited category of jurisdictions with recent voting-rights violations or findings against them.
Exhibit 2
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 11 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 2
2026 ELECTIONS UPDATE
California Chamber of Commerce Measure
On June 16, the Secretary of State published on their website that a ballot measure aimed at
significantly curtailing the scope and timing of environmental reviews under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had become eligible for the November ballot, setting the stage for
one of the state’s most consequential policy debates of the year. The measure, known as the
“Building an Affordable California Act,” is backed by the California Chamber of Commerce and a
broad coalition of business, housing, infrastructure, and clean-energy organizations. Supporters
argue that California’s environmental review process has become overly burdensome, costly, and
vulnerable to abuse, making it more difficult to build the housing, transportation, clean-energy, and
infrastructure projects needed to address the state’s affordability and climate challenges.
If approved by voters, the measure would establish new procedures for reviewing designated
“essential projects,” including firm deadlines for environmental review and accelerated timelines
for public comment and legal challenges. In most cases, public agencies would be required to
complete environmental reviews within one year after a project application is deemed complete.
Court challenges to project approvals would also be subject to expedited review. Proponents
contend that the measure would reduce project delays, lower development costs, and help address
California’s housing shortage and broader cost-of-living challenges. They argue that CEQA litigation
and lengthy review processes have become significant barriers to building critical projects across
the state. Opponents are expected to argue that the proposal weakens one of California’s most
important environmental protection laws. Environmental organizations and local-government
advocates are likely to contend that shorter review periods and restrictions on litigation would limit
public participation and reduce opportunities to identify and mitigate environmental impacts. The
debate comes less than a year after Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature enacted major
CEQA reforms as part of the state budget package, including new exemptions for many urban infill
housing projects. Supporters of the initiative argue that those changes were only a first step and do
not go far enough to address systemic barriers to development. Critics, meanwhile, are expected to
argue that the state should allow the recently enacted reforms to take effect before pursuing more
sweeping changes through the ballot box.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Measure
This measure (#1983/25-0006A1), sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA),
would have invalidated certain local tax increases retroactively, eliminated real estate transfer
taxes, and imposed stricter requirements on cities and counties seeking to adopt new taxes. It would
also have limited future revenue-raising options by increasing voter-approval thresholds for some
taxes and restricting the types of taxes local governments may enact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office
(LAO), the Legislature’s non-partisan research and advisory division, had estimated that local
governments could collectively lose several billion dollars in annual revenue. The measure qualified
for the ballot in April 2026.
On June 22, AB 736 (Mark González) was gut-and-amended to serve as the Legislature’s vehicle for
negotiating with HJTA in the hope of securing the measure’s withdrawal from the ballot. On June 23,
HJTA announced that it had rejected the proposal and would not remove the measure from the
November 2026 ballot. On June 25, the Legislature withdrew AB 736 from its scheduled hearing,
pausing consideration of the bill after a deal was reached to remove the HJTA-qualified initiative from
the November ballot in exchange for placing a narrower constitutional amendment before voters and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 12 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 3
withdrawing ACA 13 (Ward, 2023). ACA 13 had already qualified for the November 3, 2026, ballot and
served as the Legislature’s leverage to bring HJTA to the negotiating table: by raising the bar for
initiatives seeking to impose higher voter-approval thresholds, it posed a direct threat to the passage
of HJTA’s qualified initiative. Withdrawing ACA 13 was therefore the concession that secured the
agreement. The agreement was implemented through two measures: ACA 22 (Wicks), which placed
the narrower constitutional amendment on the ballot, and ACA 21 (Rivas), which directed the
Secretary of State to withdraw ACA 13 from the November 3, 2026, ballot. Both measures received
the required two-thirds vote in each house on the afternoon of June 25. Unlike bills, proposed
constitutional amendments become eligible for the ballot upon approval by the Legislature and are
not subject to the Governor's signature.
ADMINISTRATIONS ACTIONS UPDATE
High Speed Rail Authority Tax Increment Financing Proposal
The California High-Speed Rail Authority continues to advocate for a proposal that would authorize
the Authority to cap and capture property and sales tax revenues and exercise land use authority
within a half-mile of high-speed rail stations through state-administered tax increment financing
(TIF) districts. The Authority argues in its 2026 draft business plan that it should be granted the ability
to establish TIF districts to help fund rail construction and operations. The proposal would represent
a substantial expansion of state authority, as it would likely require constitutional amendments to
vest the Authority with independent taxing authority and land use powers. A local government
association opposition letter can be found here.
As of this writing, the proposal has not yet been introduced in legislative form.
ACTIVE POSITIONED BILLS
•AB 35 (Alvarez) Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean
Air Bond Act of 2024: Administrative Procedure Act: exemption: program guidelines and
selection criteria.
o Location: Assembly Concurrence
o Position: Support
•AB 748 (Harabedian) Single-family and multifamily housing units: preapproved plans.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Oppose
•AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
o Location: Senate Local Government
o Position: Oppose
•AB 1294 (Haney) Real property tax: welfare exemption: moderate-income housing.
o Location: Senate Revenue And Taxation
o Position: Oppose
•AB 1337 (Ward) Information Practices Act of 1977.
o Location: Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, And Consumer Protection
o Position: Oppose
•AB 1569 (Davies) Pupil safety: electric bicycle: safety and training program.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Support
•AB 1614 (Dixon) Vehicles: bicycles.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 13 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 4
o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
•AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing
Accountability Act.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Oppose
•AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time.
o Location: Senate Judiciary
o Position: Support
•AB 2179 (Patel) Workplace violence: restraining orders.
o Location: Senate Third Reading
o Position: Sponsor
•AB 2296 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Support
•AB 2346 (Wilson) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Support
•AB 2433 (Alvarez) Housing development: density bonus.
o Location: Senate Appropriations
o Position: Oppose Unless Amended
•AB 2453 (Rodriguez, Michelle) Vehicles: off-highway motor vehicles.
o Location: Senate Natural Resources And Water
o Position: Sponsor
•SB 490 (Umberg) Alcohol and drug programs.
o Location: Assembly Appropriations
o Position: Support
•SB 569 (Blakespear) Bikeways: reversions and modifications.
o Location: Assembly Transportation
o Position: Neutral
•SB 722 (Wahab) Transit-oriented housing development: excluded parcels and sites.
o Location: Assembly Consent Calendar
o Position: Support
•SB 741 (Blakespear) Low Carbon Transit Operations Program.
o Location: Assembly Appropriations
o Position: Support
•SB 758 (Umberg) Public health: nitrous oxide.
o Location: Assembly Public Safety
o Position: Support
•SB 866 (Blakespear) Planning and zoning: annual report: emergency shelter.
o Location: Assembly Housing And Community Development
o Position: Watch
•SB 936 (Blakespear) Nitrous oxide: sales.
o Location: Assembly Public Safety
o Position: Support
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 14 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 5
• SB 1014 (Grayson) Development projects: preliminary estimate of required improvements:
onsite and offsite improvements.
o Location: Assembly Appropriations
o Position: Oppose
• SB 1036 (Grayson) Mitigation Fee Act.
o Location: Senate Chaptered
o Position: Watch
• SB 1085 (Durazo) Water supply planning: housing developments.
o Location: Assembly Local Government
o Position: Oppose
• SB 1159 (Cabaldon) Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.
o Location: Assembly Judiciary
o Position: Support
• SB 1167 (Blakespear) Vehicles: electric bicycles.
o Location: Assembly Appropriations
o Position: Support
• SJR 12 (Laird) Proposed 2026–2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program: opposition.
o Location: Assembly Third Reading
o Position: Support
LOOKING FORWARD
• August 3: Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess
• August 31: Last day for the Legislature to pass bills; end of the session
• September 30: Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 15 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 1
City of Carlsbad Priority Legislation as of July 2, 2026
Artificial Intelligence
SB 1159 (Cabaldon) Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance. (Amended
06/25/2026)
The California Constitution provides that people have the right of access to information concerning
the conduct of the people’s business. Various provisions of existing law, including the California
Public Records Act, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and the
Ralph M. Brown Act, provide, with some exceptions, for public access to government records and
meetings of government bodies. Among those acts, the California Public Records Act defines
“person” to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or
association. This bill would specify that, for purposes of the California Public Records Act, the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Legislative Open Records Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, the California Coastal Act of 1976, and CEQA, “person,” “interested
person,” “participant,” “member of the public,” as applicable, and any other similar terms under
each act referring to those who may engage with governmental agencies, do not include artificial
intelligence, as defined, systems, autonomous agents, or robots, whether physical or digital. The
bill would authorize governmental agencies to use a disclosure verification tool to determine if
artificial intelligence is present. The bill would make findings and declarations related to these
provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/25/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #3 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/23/2026 - Assembly Judiciary
Position: Support
Notes1:
5/13/26: KB marked as support per client request. 5/15/26: KB shared draft letter with the client.
5/29/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation. 6/10/26: II resubmitted the support letter to
Asm. committees through the legislative portal. 6/24/26: II testified in support of the Assembly
Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.
Exhibit 3
AMENDED 07-02-2026
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 16 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 2
Children, Youth and Recreation
AB 387 (Alanis) Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act. (Amended 06/25/2026)
Existing law, the Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act, requires a youth sports organization to ensure, by
January 1, 2028, that its athletes have access to an automated external defibrillator (AED) during
any official practice or match. Existing law requires a youth sports organization, commencing
January 1, 2028, to ensure that its AED is maintained and tested according to specified operation
and maintenance guidelines. This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2028, a public or
private local facility with a permanent sports infrastructure, as defined, to ensure that the youth
sports organization has access to an AED procured and maintained by the facility during an official
practice or match permitted by the facility. The bill would require the youth sports organization,
commencing January 1, 2028, to ensure there is access to an operational AED if an AED is not
available at a public or private local facility where an official practice or match is taking place. The
bill would additionally require a public or private local facility, commencing January 1, 2028, to
ensure that its AED is maintained and tested according to specified operation and maintenance
guidelines. The bill would require a public or private local facility to work in collaboration with the
youth sports organization to ensure that any AED that is installed be accessible to youth sports
organizations at the time of official practices or matches permitted by the facility. The bill would
require a public or private local facility that has installed an AED to work with the youth sports
organization to identify means to share the financial costs associated with ensuring the AED is
maintained and accessible at the facility. (Based on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/12/2026 - Senate Education
AB 2007 (Bauer-Kahan) Youth programs: identifying information of youth. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law makes a person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or
selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that
person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of the person’s parent or legal
guardian, liable for damages, as specified, among other remedies, as prescribed. Existing law
generally regulates organizations and businesses that provide athletic, instructional, or other
services to minors by imposing disclosure, training, background check, and child abuse prevention
requirements on those entities and their personnel. This bill would prohibit specified nonschool
youth programs from using certain identifying information of a youth, including their picture, video,
audio recording, likeness, and attributed statements, for communications, marketing, educational,
or training purposes unless the program obtains express written consent from the parent or
guardian after providing specified notice, as provided. The bill would prohibit the program from
making participation contingent upon providing consent or selling that youth information. The bill
would authorize a parent or guardian to revoke consent at any time during the youth’s enrollment in
the covered program and up to one year after the youth is no longer enrolled in the program, and
would require a covered entity to remove that information from communications, marketing,
educational, and training materials within 7 days of receiving a notice of consent revocation. The
bill would authorize a parent or guardian to bring a civil action against a program for
noncompliance with these provisions and would provide for specified remedies, including, among
others, specified civil penalties per youth who has had their information disclosed and injunctive or
declaratory relief. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 17 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 3
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Elections, Political Reform and Redistricting
SB 1164 (Cervantes) Elections. (Amended 06/24/2026)
The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) prohibits a political subdivision from imposing or
applying an at-large method of election for members of the political subdivision’s governing body in
a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability
to influence the outcome of an election, as specified. Existing law requires courts to implement
appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, for violations of the
CVRA. This bill, the California Voting Rights Act of 2026, would repeal and replace the CVRA. The
bill would prohibit a political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or
enforcing any election policy or practice, as defined, that results in, or is likely to result in, voter
suppression. An election policy or practice would result in voter suppression if it (1) causes a
material disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the opportunity or ability
to participate in the political process for members of a protected class, which is defined as any
race, color, or language-minority group; or (2) based on the totality of circumstances, causes an
impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class to participate in the
political process. An election policy or practice would not violate the prohibition on voter
suppression if the political subdivision or state agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the election policy or practice is necessary to significantly further a compelling and
particularized governmental interest and there is no reasonable alternative that comparably
furthers the governmental interest and results in a smaller disparity between members of a
protected class and other members of the electorate. The bill would also prohibit a political
subdivision from employing any method of election, as defined, that has the effect, or will likely
have the effect, of diluting the vote of protected class members. Vote dilution would be established
if there is an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to
nominate or elect candidates of their choice, as provided, and another method of election or a
change to the existing method of election would likely mitigate the impairment. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/24/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #38 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness
AB 262 (Caloza) California Housing and Homelessness Agency: PINK Alert. (Amended
06/22/2026)
Existing law, the Governor’s Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 2025, beginning July 1, 2026, eliminates
the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and instead establishes the Business and
Consumer Services Agency and the California Housing and Homelessness Agency (agency).
Existing law requires the agency to coordinate with the California Health and Human Services
Agency and the California Consumer Protection Agency on various state policies, including
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 18 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 4
housing. This bill would require the agency to create a study on issues impacting pregnant people
experiencing homelessness and report the results of the study, as well as recommendations to
establish a PINK Alert, to the Legislature by July 1, 2028. The bill would require the
recommendations to include how the PINK Alert can meet specified conditions, including that it be
a system that nonprofits can opt in to in order to get notifications if there is a pregnant person in
need of emergency housing or prenatal services. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 442 (Hadwick) Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973: working forest management
plans: nonindustrial timber management plans. (Amended 06/01/2026)
Under the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, the Legislature finds and declares the policy
of the state to encourage prudent and responsible forest management of nonindustrial
timberlands by approving working forest management plans in advance. This bill would increase
the maximum acreage for nonindustrial tree farmers and nonindustrial management plans to 4,000
acres and for working forest landowners and working forest management plans to 15,000 acres.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/01/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #236 S-CONSENT CALENDAR SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Consent Calendar
AB 1559 (Calderon) Residential property insurance images. (Amended 04/13/2026)
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including residential property insurance.
Existing law requires an insurer to send various notices to a policyholder at specified intervals. This
bill would require an admitted insurer to notify a residential property insurance policyholder that
aerial images may be taken or obtained of the insured property, as specified, unless a claim has
been submitted or is pending on the property and the images will be used only for evaluating the
claim. The bill would require the insurer to provide the aerial images upon request, as specified,
and would require the notice to include instructions regarding how a policyholder may make that
request. This bill would prohibit an admitted insurer from basing a decision to terminate insurance
coverage, as defined, on an aerial image of the insured property taken more than 180 days prior to
sending notice of that decision to the policyholder, except as specified. The bill would require an
admitted insurer that bases a decision to terminate insurance coverage on an aerial image to
provide the policyholder with that aerial image, notice of that decision, and the opportunity to
dispute the accuracy of the image, and to verify remediation, before the effective date of the
decision to terminate insurance coverage. This bill would make the above-described provisions
operative on July 1, 2027. (Based on 04/13/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, And Consumer Protection
AB 2101 (Gipson) Human trafficking: notice and training: disaster sites. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law requires specified businesses and other establishments, including, among others,
airports, intercity passenger rail or light rail stations, bus stations, and truck stops, to post a notice,
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 19 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 5
as developed by the Department of Justice, that contains information relating to slavery and human
trafficking, including information regarding specified nonprofit organizations that a person can call
for services or support in the elimination of slavery and human trafficking. This bill would
additionally require a privately operated entity that operates in a designated disaster site or
designated mitigation site, as those terms are defined, that is involved in the response, recovery,
rebuilding, or cleanup of a disaster site, permitting related to recovery, rebuilding, or cleanup of a
disaster site, or efforts to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of a disaster, to post the above-
described notice, except for telecommunications companies or internet service providers. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2341 (Fong) Local government: emergency response services: use of languages other than
English. (Amended 06/23/2026)
Existing law requires, in the event of an emergency within the jurisdiction of a local agency that
provides emergency response services and that serves a population within which 5% or more of the
people speak English less than “very well,” according to American Community Survey data, and
jointly speak a language other than English, that the local agency provide information related to the
emergency in English and in all languages spoken jointly by the 5% or more of the population that
speaks English less than “very well,” as specified. This bill would revise these provisions to instead
require the local agency to provide information related to an emergency within a local agency’s
jurisdiction in English and translated in each language spoken by 5% or more of the population that
speaks English less than “very well.” The bill, to determine whether a language meets the criteria
for translation, would require a local agency to calculate the total population of those within its
jurisdiction that speaks English less than “very well,” and, for each language included in the
American Community Survey data, or data from an equally reliable source, determine whether
speakers of any language who speak English less than “very well” comprise at least 5% of the total
population of that jurisdiction that speaks English less than “very well.” The bill would make
organizational and clarifying changes to the above-described provisions, as specified. This bill
would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. (Based
on 06/23/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Consent Calendar
AB 2385 (Petrie-Norris) Local reconstruction agencies. (Amended 06/24/2026)
The Community Redevelopment Law established redevelopment agencies in each community and
granted specified powers to those redevelopment agencies for the purpose of promoting
redevelopment in blighted areas. Existing law dissolved those community redevelopment agencies
in 2012. Other existing law, the Disaster Recovery Reconstruction Act of 1986, authorizes each city,
county, or other local subdivision, as provided, to prepare, prior to a disaster, plans and ordinances
facilitating the expeditious and orderly recovery and reconstruction of the area in case of a
disaster. Existing law authorizes the plans and ordinances to include, among other things, a
contingency plan of action and organization for short-term and long-term recovery and
reconstruction to be instituted after a disaster. Existing law authorizes the plans and ordinances to
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 20 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 6
include the authority and proposed organization for establishment of a local reconstruction
authority with powers parallel to those of a community redevelopment agency, except as specified.
This bill would refer to those plans as a disaster recovery plan and would require a city or county
that prepares a disaster recovery plan to amend its general plan, if necessary, as provided, to
ensure consistency between both plans. The bill would revise the contingency plan of action and
organization to include intermediate recovery and reconstruction, in addition to the short-term and
long-term recovery and reconstruction, and would specify elements that may be included in the
contingency plan of action and organization. The bill would require the Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation, in consultation with other specified state and local entities, to assess the
recovery and rebuilding needs of jurisdictions across the state and develop model ordinance
language, as provided. The bill would also require the Office of Emergency Services, in consultation
with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, to prepare guidance on disaster recovery
plans, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/24/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
SB 877 (Pérez) Residential property insurance: loss estimate transparency. (Amended
06/10/2026)
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including residential property insurance.
Existing law prohibits a policy of residential property insurance from being issued or renewed by an
insurer unless the named insured is provided a copy of specified information, including the
California Residential Insurance Disclosure. Under existing law, the California Standard Form Fire
Insurance Policy requires an insured to notify every claimant that they can request copies of claim-
related documents, as defined to include all valuation, measurement, and loss adjustment
calculations of the amount of loss, covered damage, and cost of repairs, that the insurer is
required to provide within 15 calendar days of the request. Under existing law, it is a misdemeanor
to issue or countersign a fire policy that varies from the standard form fire insurance policy. This bill
would modify the definition of claim-related documents for purposes of the above-described
provisions to include all valuation, measurement, and loss adjustment calculations, whether
preliminary or final, that relate to the amount of loss, covered damage, and cost of repairs.
Because the bill would make changes to the standard form for fire insurance, the bill would expand
the scope of an existing crime and impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/10/2026 text)
Location: 06/17/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 904 (Seyarto) Recovery from a state of emergency. (Amended 07/01/2026)
Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor to proclaim a state of
emergency when specified conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property exist, and authorizes the Governor to exercise certain powers in response to that
emergency, including, but not limited to, suspending specified statutes, ordinances, orders,
regulations, or rules. This bill would impose specific duties on the Department of Housing and
Community Development if the Office of Emergency Services makes a written determination,
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 21 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 7
within 10 days after the date that the Governor declared a state of emergency relating to a wildfire,
that the wildfire caused substantial structural damage requiring significant rebuilding efforts, as
defined. The bill would require the department, under this condition, to consult with other specified
state entities and local governments to identify state permitting requirements and local procedures
that could be suspended or revised to support recovery and rebuilding efforts as a result of the
wildfire, as specified. The bill would require the department to prepare and submit initial and
periodic reports to the Governor and Legislature with the information and recommendations. This
bill, on or before July 1, 2028, would require the Department of Housing and Community
Development, in consultation with other specified state entities, to convene a workgroup to review
and provide a report to the Governor and the Legislature with recommendations regarding any
provision of the California Building Standards Code that should be suspended for specified types of
projects to facilitate rapid, safe, disaster-resilient, and cost-effective rebuilding and recovery
guidance for any future state of emergency. The bill would require the workgroup to review and
update the report to the Governor and Legislature after the release of every update to the California
Building Standards Code. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 07/01/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 911 (Becker) Transfer of real property: fire hazard severity zones: compliance
documentation. (Amended 06/01/2026)
Existing law requires a seller of a real property that is located in a high or very high fire hazard
severity zone to provide to the buyer documentation stating that the property is in compliance with
specified fire safety requirements or local vegetation management ordinances. If the seller of a real
property as described above has not obtained that documentation of compliance, existing law
requires the seller and the buyer to enter into a written agreement pursuant to which the buyer
agrees to obtain documentation of compliance with those specified fire safety requirements or
local vegetation management ordinances. In a local jurisdiction that has not enacted an ordinance
requiring an owner or buyer to obtain documentation of compliance, and if a state or local agency,
or other government entity, or other qualified nonprofit entity, provides an inspection with
documentation for the jurisdiction in which the property is located, existing law requires the buyer
to obtain documentation of compliance within one year of the date of the close of escrow. Existing
law requires each county assessor and recorder to make available, without charge and upon
request, a form entitled “Preliminary Change of Ownership Report,” which transferees of real
property are required complete and authorized to file with the recorder concurrent with the
recordation of any document effecting a change in ownership. This bill would additionally require
the buyer to disclose whether they have an obligation to obtain documentation of compliance
within one year of the date of the close of escrow pursuant to that agreement on the preliminary
change of ownership report. The bill would require the county assessor to make available to the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and to local fire agencies the property address of any
property, and name of the transferee, for which the transferee indicated on the preliminary change
of ownership report that the property is located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone and
that the transferee has an obligation to obtain documentation of compliance within one year of the
date of the close of escrow pursuant to that written agreement. The bill would also require that fire
department, or the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, as applicable, to conduct a
compliance inspection at the property if it has not received documentation of compliance from a
qualified entity or otherwise certified compliance within one year of the date of the close of escrow.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 22 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 8
The bill would authorize the local fire department to prioritize compliance inspections and
reinspections based on certain factors. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws. (Based on 06/01/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Energy and Utilities
AB 1761 (Rogers) Electricity: calculation methodology: data disclosure. (Amended 03/19/2026)
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities,
including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and
charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable.
This bill would require the commission to ensure that all data serving as a basis for any decision or
ruling issued by the commission, or in any proposal or analysis provided by commission staff, for
the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any charge imposed on
customers of a load-serving entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical
corporation-owned generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge and any other
charge derived from those costs, is made available to load-serving entities and ratepayer
advocates on behalf of customers. The bill would require the commission to require an electrical
corporation or other party, in submitting a proposal or analysis for the determination or application
of a calculation methodology for any charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to
recover costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation-owned generation, or any other
resource or value included in that charge and any other charge derived from those costs, to make
all data serving as a basis for that proposal or analysis available to load-serving entities and
ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers. The bill would require that data to meet specified
requirements, including that it is made through a public disclosure, except for market-sensitive
data, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 03/19/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1820 (Schiavo) Electric vehicle charging stations: permit fees. (Amended 06/17/2026)
Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to administratively approve an application to
install an electric vehicle charging station through the issuance of a building permit or similar
nondiscretionary permit, and requires every local government to adopt an ordinance that creates
an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, as provided.
Existing law defines “electric vehicle charging station” to mean any level of electric vehicle supply
equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with specified provisions, and delivers
electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. Existing law
requires fees charged by a local agency for specified purposes, including permits, to not exceed
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a
question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of this cost is submitted to, and
approved by, 2/3 of the electors. Existing law, until January 1, 2034, prohibits a city, county, city or
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 23 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 9
county, or charter city from charging a permit fee for a solar energy system that exceeds the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, which cannot
exceed $450 plus $15 per kilowatt for each kilowatt above 15kW for residential solar energy
systems, and $1,000 plus $7 per kilowatt for each kilowatt between 51kW and 250kW, plus $5 for
every kilowatt above 250kW, for commercial solar energy systems, unless the city, county, city and
county, or charter city provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit as
part of a written finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance, as provided. This bill, until January
1, 2036, would prohibit a city, county, city or county, or charter city from charging a permit fee for
an electric vehicle charging station that exceeds the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service for which the fee is charged, which cannot exceed $100 plus $15 per kilowatt for each
kilowatt above 15kW for residential electric vehicle charging stations, and $500 plus $5 per kilowatt
for each kilowatt between 51kW and 250kW, plus $2 for every kilowatt above 250kW, for
commercial electric vehicle charging stations, unless the city, county, city and county, or charter
city provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit as part of a written
finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance, as provided. The bill would make its provisions
operative on July 1, 2027, but for every city, county, city and county, or charter city with a
population of fewer than 200,000 residents, the provisions would apply beginning on January 1,
2028. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/17/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2369 (Rogers) Electricity: energy storage: energy-only resources. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public
utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the
State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission), to
provide transmission-focused guidance to the Independent System Operator (ISO) about resource
portfolios of expected future renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources, as specified,
to allow the ISO to identify and approve transmission facilities needed to interconnect resources
and reliably serve the needs of load centers. In providing that guidance, existing law requires the
PUC and the Energy Commission to annually provide projections to support the Independent
System Operator’s planning and approvals in its annual transmission planning process, as
provided. This bill would require the PUC and Energy Commission, as part of providing those
projections, to also identify cost-effective opportunities to increase the reliability contribution or
mitigate congestion of planned or existing energy-only resources through transmission capacity
expansions. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
SB 222 (Wiener) Residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC systems. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
and prescribes the authorities, duties, and responsibilities of the commission pertaining to energy
matters. Existing law requires the commission, on or before January 1, 2019, in consultation with
the Contractors State License Board, local building officials, and other stakeholders, to approve a
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 24 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 10
plan that promotes compliance with specified regulations relating to building energy efficiency
standards in the installation of central air-conditioning and heat pumps, as specified. Existing law
authorizes the commission to adopt regulations to increase compliance with permitting and
inspection requirements for central air-conditioning and heat pumps, and associated sales and
installations, consistent with the above-described plan. This bill would establish various
requirements and authorizations for the installation of a residential heat pump water heater or heat
pump HVAC system, as defined, by, among other things, requiring a city, county, or city and
county, beginning July 1, 2027, to adopt and offer asynchronous inspections for installations that
do not require a licensed contractor and building inspector to be simultaneously present during the
inspection. The bill would additionally require a city, county, or city and county, except as
specified, to post specific information online, and on or before July 1, 2028, to implement an online
automated permitting process for the installation of a residential heat pump water heater or
residential heat pump HVAC system that issues permits in real time to a licensed contractor that
meets certain criteria. The bill would require the criteria to include, among others, that the licensed
contractor certify under penalty of perjury that they have performed a load calculation to properly
size the new equipment, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. By imposing these various new duties on the described local
entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Local Government
SB 886 (Padilla) California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act. (Amended
06/29/2026)
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities,
including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and
charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable.
This bill, the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act, would require the
commission, on or before July 1, 2027, to establish separate tariffs for the interconnection of the
participating customer facilities and the provision of transmission, distribution, and optional
generation services to participating customers, as specified. The bill would require the
commission, as part of establishing the separate tariffs, to, at a minimum, evaluate the risks and
benefits of the separate tariffs to nonparticipating customers, ensure that the separate tariffs
prevent the creation of stranded costs for, or cost shifts to, nonparticipating customers, and, for
unbundled customers, ensure that charges generally included in the generation component of the
unbundled customer’s consolidated bill are assessed as a separate line item on their bill. The bill
would require that the interconnection tariff, among other things, require a participating customer
that submits an application for interconnection of a data center to an electrical corporation to
disclose whether an application for the same data center has been submitted in other electrical
corporation service territories or other jurisdictions and to disclose each instance in which an
application for the same data center has been submitted, assign cost responsibility for all
transmission facility upgrades triggered by a new facility interconnection to the applicable
participating customer, require an early termination fee to be assessed against a participating
customer under specified circumstances. The bill would require, for the generation tariff, a
participating customer to prefund a contract of at least 10 years in duration through the load-
serving entity, as defined, for the costs of procurement necessary to serve the participating
customer, as provided. The bill would also require each electrical corporation to publish and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 25 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 11
update maps showing locations where participating customers can interconnect without the need
for significant, costly, and time-consuming transmission upgrades. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/29/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Environment and Climate
AB 35 (Alvarez) Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air
Bond Act of 2024: Administrative Procedure Act: exemption: program guidelines and selection
criteria. (Amended 06/11/2026)
Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, sets forth the requirements for the adoption,
publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. The Safe Drinking Water,
Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 (act), approved by the
voters as Proposition 4 at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorized the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $10,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation
Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience, wildfire
and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based
climate solutions, climate-smart, sustainable, and resilient farms, ranches, and working lands,
park creation and outdoor access, and clean air programs. Existing law authorizes certain
regulations needed to effectuate or implement programs of the act to be adopted as emergency
regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, as provided. Existing law requires
the emergency regulations to be filed with the Office of Administrative Law and requires the
emergency regulations to remain in effect until repealed or amended by the adopting state agency.
This bill, notwithstanding the above, would exempt the adoption of regulations needed to
effectuate or implement programs of the act from the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, as provided. The bill would require a state entity that receives funding to administer
a competitive grant program established using the Administrative Procedure Act exemption to do
certain things, including, among other things, to develop draft project solicitation and evaluation
guidelines, to transmit copies of those guidelines to the fiscal committees and to the appropriate
policy committees of the Legislature, to hold a noticed public meeting on those guidelines, and to
submit those guidelines to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, except as provided. The
bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to post an electronic form of the
guidelines submitted by a state entity and the subsequent verifications on the Natural Resources
Agency’s internet website. The bill would authorize the use of certain previously developed
program guidelines and selection criteria for these purposes, as provided. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/11/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #62 A-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Location: 06/25/2026 - Assembly Concurrence
Position: Support
Notes1:
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 26 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 12
1/14/26: DA tagged as support. 1/15/26: SG sent draft support letter to the City for review. 1/26/26:
EN received final Word draft of letter, finalized, and sent back to the City for their records. 1/26/26:
DA submitted letter to portal and delegation. 5/7/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/9/26: KR
testified in support in Senate Natural Resources. 6/18/26: KB submitted letter to portal.
AB 1436 (Ávila Farías) State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets:
exception. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt and implement motor vehicle
emission standards, in-use performance standards, and motor vehicle fuel specifications for the
control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution that the state board has found necessary,
cost effective, and technologically feasible. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
establishes the state board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources
emitting greenhouse gases and requires the state board to adopt rules and regulations to achieve
the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions
from those sources. Pursuant to its authority, the state board has adopted the Advanced Clean
Fleets Regulation, which imposes various requirements for transitioning local, state, and federal
government fleets of medium- and heavy-duty trucks, other high-priority fleets of medium- and
heavy-duty trucks, and drayage trucks to zero-emission vehicles. Existing federal law, the Clean Air
Act, prohibits any state or any political subdivision thereof from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines, except through a waiver, as provided. This bill would prohibit the state board from
enforcing any regulation that directly or indirectly compels compliance by private fleets, as
provided, until the state has obtained a required waiver or authorization under the federal Clean Air
Act. This bill contains other existing laws. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Location: 06/15/2026 - Senate Environmental Quality
Notes1:
06/12/26 (DH) Gut and Amend: Dealing with CARB and ACF on regulating private fleets--recco
support for this effort
AB 1777 (Garcia) Air pollution: indirect sources. (Introduced 02/09/2026)
Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the
primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts
and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution
from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes air districts to adopt and
implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution.
Existing law requires the state board to adopt rules and regulations relating to vehicular emissions
standards, as specified, that will achieve the ambient air quality standards required by federal law
in conjunction with other measures adopted by the state board, air districts, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. This bill would authorize the state board, if necessary to carry
out that duty to achieve those ambient air quality standards, to adopt regulations to reduce or
mitigate emissions from indirect sources of pollution. This bill contains other related provisions
and other existing laws. (Based on 02/09/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #69 A-THIRD READING FILE - ASSEMBLY BILLS
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 27 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 13
Location: 05/18/2026 - Assembly Third Reading
AB 2253 (Boerner) Solid waste: products: environmental marketing claims. (Amended
06/25/2026)
Existing law requires a manufacturer or supplier making an environmental marketing claim relating
to the recycled content of a plastic food container product to maintain specified information and
documentation in written form in its records in support of that claim. Existing law requires the
maintained information to include that the recycled content for materials has been diverted from
the solid waste stream either during the manufacturing process (preconsumer) or after consumer
use (postconsumer) and that the recycled content claim conforms to the uniform standards for
recycled content contained in the Federal Trade Commission Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims. Existing law provides for the imposition of a civil penalty by a city, county, or the
state for a violation of these provisions. This bill would expand the application of those provisions
from plastic food container products to all products. The bill would revise the reference to the
Federal Trade Commission Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims to specifically
refer to those guides as they read on January 1, 2026. The bill would additionally require
documentation in written form that the recycled content claim is based on the actual physical
recycled content used in the production of the product, calculated as specified, without the use of
certain types of accounting. The bill would define “postconsumer” for purposes of these
provisions. (Based on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Senate Environmental Quality
AB 2254 (Addis) Coastal resources: monarch butterfly habitat. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife and sets forth the duties of that
department, which include administering various programs for the protection and conservation of
fish and wildlife. Existing law authorizes the department to take feasible actions to conserve
monarch butterflies and the unique habitats they depend upon for successful migration. Existing
law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, among other things, establishes the California Coastal
Commission and provides for planning and regulation of development in the coastal zone, as
defined. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2028, the department, in coordination with
the commission, to identify monarch butterfly overwintering habitat sites in the coastal zone and
current local government monarch butterfly overwintering habitat management plans or policies.
The bill would also require, on or before July 1, 2028, the department, in coordination with the
commission, to develop and provide guidance on model policies to be used by a local government
for the protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat, including habitat restoration and
enhancement. The bill would require, after the above-described guidance on model policies is
finalized, a local government with a monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site located within
their jurisdiction and the coastal zone, as described, to develop and implement enforceable
monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site protection policies, as provided. By imposing
additional duties on a local government, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 28 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 14
SB 887 (Padilla) California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development
projects: data centers: clean energy powerplant projects. (Amended 06/29/2026)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or
cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project
that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to
adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires
a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is
no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA requires the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to prepare and propose
guidelines for the implementation of CEQA by public agencies and requires the Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the guidelines. CEQA requires the guidelines to
include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on
the environment and that are exempt from CEQA, commonly known as categorical exemptions.
This bill would define “data center” for the purposes of CEQA and prohibit the application of
categorical exemption to a project for the development and operation of a data center, as
specified. By increasing the duties of a lead agency in relation to the environmental review of a data
center project, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/29/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 1075 (Reyes) Air resources: toxic air contaminants: criteria air pollutants: community
emissions reduction programs: local community emissions reduction plans. (Amended
06/25/2026)
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce
emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants in communities affected by a high
cumulative exposure burden that includes an assessment and identification of those communities.
Existing law requires the statewide strategy to be updated at least once every 5 years. Existing law
requires the state board, based on the assessment and identification, to select locations around
the state for preparation of community emissions reduction programs. Existing law requires the
assessment and identification to prioritize disadvantaged communities, as defined. Existing law
requires the regional air quality management district or the regional air pollution control district
encompassing the location selected by the state board, within one year of selection, to adopt a
community emissions reduction program to achieve emissions reductions for the location selected
using cost-effective measures, as provided. Existing law requires the state board to provide grants
to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community
participation in the implementation of the statewide strategy. Under this existing regulatory
authority, the state board provides grants to development and implement local community
emissions reduction plans. This bill would revise the definition of “disadvantaged community” to
include a disadvantaged unincorporated community. By expanding the definition of
“disadvantaged community,” the bill would expand the duties of districts in the preparation of
community emissions reduction programs, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The
bill would require the local community emissions reduction plans to be submitted to the state
board for review and approval and would authorize the state board or the relevant air district to
enforce those plans. The bill would specify that a steering committee formed by an air district to
assist it in the development and implementation of a community emissions reduction program
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 29 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 15
remains active until the emissions objectives identified in the program are achieved or more than 5
years have passed since the adoption of the community emissions reduction program and 2/3 of
the members of the committee vote to disband the committee. The bill would require members of
the steering committee to meet certain requirements. The bill would specify eligible uses for the
grants provided. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/25/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #34 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SJR 12 (Laird) Proposed 2026–2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program: opposition. (Amended 03/16/2026)
This measure would request that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management hold public
hearings in California on the proposed 2026–2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program, preparean environmental impact statement to accompany the program, and
provide the public the opportunity to comment on a draft programmatic environmental impact
statement for potential offshore oil and gas leasing in California. The measure would strongly and
unequivocally oppose any new offshore drilling and declare unequivocal support for the current
federal prohibition on new oil or gas drilling in federal waters offshore of the Pacific coast. (Based
on 03/16/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #89 A-THIRD READING FILE - SENATE BILLS (Floor Mgr.- Hart)
Location: 06/09/2026 - Assembly Third Reading
Position: Support
Notes1:
5/12/26: KB added support positioning after City's leg committee. 5/15/26: KB shared draft letter
with the client. 5/29/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation. 6/8/26: CS testified in support
in Asm. Natural Resources.
Governmental Operations
AB 1337 (Ward) Information Practices Act of 1977. (Amended 06/01/2026)
Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions,
and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and
disclosure of personal information, as defined. Existing law exempts from the provisions of the act
counties, cities, any city and county, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political
subdivisions, and other local public agencies, as specified. This bill would, beginning January 1,
2028, recast those provisions to, among other things, remove that exemption for local agencies,
and would revise and expand the definition of “personal information.” The bill would make other
technical, nonsubstantive, and conforming changes. Because the bill would expand the duties of
local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/01/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 30 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 16
Location: 05/06/2026 - Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, And Consumer Protection
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
6/16/25. CPPG tagged as oppose. 6/29/25: CPPG sent letter to City. 7/1/25: CPPG submitted to Sen
Jud and sent to Senator Blakespear. 5/27/26: EN updated draft letter for Senate Privacy and sent to
the City for review. 5/28/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation. 6/2/26: Bill amended; EN
resubmitted letter to portal.
AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits. (Amended 07/01/2026)
The Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement
System (PERS) to provide a defined benefit to members of the system based on final
compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. Existing law
creates the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, which is continuously appropriated for purposes
of PERS, including depositing employer and employee contributions. Under the California
Constitution, assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds. The California Public
Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) establishes a variety of requirements and
restrictions on public employers offering defined benefit pension plans. In this regard, PEPRA
restricts the amount of compensation that may be applied for purposes of calculating a defined
pension benefit for a new member, as defined, by restricting it to specified percentages of the
contribution and benefit base under a specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and
disability insurance benefits. Existing law, the Teachers’ Retirement Law, establishes the State
Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) and creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State
Teachers’ Retirement Plan, which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on
final compensation, creditable service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. This
bill, for service performed on and after January 1, 2027, would prohibit the pensionable
compensation for calendar year 2027 used to calculate the defined benefit paid to a new member
of a retirement system subject to PEPRA who retires from the system from exceeding specified
percentages of the contribution and benefit base under the specified federal law with respect to
old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. The bill would make related, conforming
changes to these provisions on pensionable compensation. The bill also would require a new
member of STRS to be subject to specified limits of the Teachers’ Retirement Law. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 07/01/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1439 (Garcia) Public retirement systems: development projects: labor standards.
(Amended 06/11/2026)
The California Constitution grants the retirement board of a public employee retirement system
plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the
retirement fund and system. These provisions qualify this grant of powers by reserving to the
Legislature the authority to prohibit investments if it is in the public interest and the prohibition
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 31 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 17
satisfies standards of fiduciary care and loyalty required of a retirement board. Existing law
prohibits the boards of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers’
Retirement System (STRS) from making certain new investments or renewing existing investments
of public employee retirement funds, including in a thermal coal company, as defined. Existing law
provides that a board is not required to take any action regarding those investments unless the
board determines in good faith that the action is consistent with the board’s fiduciary
responsibilities established in the California Constitution. This bill would request the University of
California, Berkeley, Labor Center to conduct an independent study to analyze the extent of labor
standards protections in California real estate and infrastructure development projects funded
through the real asset portfolios of PERS and STRS. The bill would request that the study and a
report of its findings be completed and provided to the Legislature and the Department of Finance
by January 1, 2028, as specified. (Based on 06/11/2026 text)
Location: 06/22/2026 - Senate Appr. Suspense File
AB 1564 (Ahrens) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications. (Amended
05/18/2026)
Existing law that governs the labor relations of public employees and employers, including, among
others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, provisions relating to public schools,
and provisions relating to higher education prohibits employers from taking certain actions relating
to employee organization, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees,
discriminating or threatening to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees because of their exercise of their guaranteed rights. Those
provisions of existing law further prohibit denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed
to them by existing law. This bill would prohibit a public employer from questioning a public
employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative
regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee
representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the
recognized employee organization’s representation. The bill would also prohibit a public employer
from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an
exclusive representative to disclose those confidential communications to a third party. The bill
would not apply to a criminal investigation or when a public safety officer is under investigation and
certain circumstances exist. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1576 (Ortega) Workers’ compensation: Subsequent injuries payments. (Amended
04/20/2026)
Existing law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative
Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries
sustained in the course of employment. Existing law provides certain methods for determining
workers’ compensation benefits payable to a worker or the worker’s dependents for purposes of
permanent total disability or permanent partial disability that include a determination of the
percentage of permanent disability incurred. Existing law requires that, for injuries incurred before
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 32 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 18
January 1, 2013, in determining the percentages of permanent disability, account be taken of the
nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee, and the
injured employee’s age at the time of the injury, and requires that specified factors be considered
in determining an employee’s diminished earning capacity for these purposes. For purposes of
these provisions, “nature of the physical injury or disfigurement” incorporates the descriptions and
measurements of physical impairment and the corresponding percentages of impairments
published in the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment (5th Edition). For injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2013, in determining the
percentages of permanent disability, existing law requires the same factors be taken into account
but removes from consideration the employee’s diminished future earning capacity and, instead,
incorporates an adjustment factor of 1.4, as specified. Existing law also establishes the
Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. Under existing law, if a
permanently, partially disabled employee receives a subsequent compensable injury resulting in
additional permanent disability, then that employee receives compensation from the Subsequent
Injuries Benefits Trust Fund. Existing law requires, when applicable, the additional permanent
disability resulting from the subsequent injury to be equal to 35% or more of total, when considered
alone and without regard to, or adjustment for, the occupation or the age of the employee. For
purposes of determining permanent disability resulting from a subsequent injury, this bill would
measure permanent disability, for injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and prior to
January 1, 2013, by the whole person impairment rating as determined in accordance with the AMA
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th Edition), after adjustment for diminished
future earning capacity and without regard to, or adjustment for, the occupation or age of the
employee. For injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2013, the bill would measure permanent
disability in the same manner as an injury occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and prior to January
1, 2013, except that an adjustment for diminished future earning capacity is replaced by the 1.4
adjustment factor. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 04/20/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Appr. Suspense File
AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan) Data centers: reporting. (Amended 06/11/2026)
Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
and vests the commission with various responsibilities with respect to developing and
implementing the state’s energy policies. Existing law requires the commission to biennially adopt
an integrated energy policy report, as specified, and to make the reports accessible to state, local,
and federal entities and to the general public. This bill would require the commission to establish a
process for the owner of a data center, as defined, to submit specified information to the
commission, including, among other information, the data center’s location and size, the data
center’s power usage effectiveness, as defined, and the quantity of fuel consumed by onsite
generators or other fuel-based energy systems, as specified. The bill would require the owner of a
data center to submit the required information in the manner specified by the commission. The bill
would require the commission, beginning with the 2029 edition of the integrated energy policy
report, and in subsequent editions as deemed appropriate by the commission, to include an
assessment of electrical load trends for data centers, as provided. The bill would require the
commission to annually publish the information submitted in an anonymized and aggregated
format on its internet website. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws. (Based on 06/11/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 33 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 19
Calendar: 07/02/26 #39 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1578 (Jackson) State and local officials: sexual harassment training and education: anti-
hate speech training. (Amended 05/22/2026)
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act makes specified employment practices unlawful,
including the harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents of the
employer with the employer’s knowledge. Under existing law, the Civil Rights Department
administers these provisions. Existing law requires a specified employer with 5 or more employees
to, by January 1, 2021, provide at least 2 hours of classroom or other effective interactive training
and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of
classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all
nonsupervisory employees in California and, after that date, once every 2 years. Existing law
requires an employer to include prevention of abusive conduct as a component of that training and
education. This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, for an employer that is
a state agency or local agency that the above-described training and education include, as a
component of the training and education for elected officials, anti-hate speech training, as
described. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 05/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/23/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1680 (Calderon) California FAIR Plan Association. (Amended 06/22/2026)
The California FAIR Plan Association is a joint reinsurance association in which all insurers
licensed to write basic property insurance participate to administer a program for the equitable
apportionment of basic property insurance for persons who are unable to obtain that coverage
through normal channels. Existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to approve the
association’s plan of operation and authorizes the commissioner to examine the association’s
books, records, files, papers, and documents that relate to its operation. Existing law authorizes
the commissioner to impose civil penalties for various violations of the Insurance Code. This bill
would require the association to take corrective actions, as specified by the commissioner or their
designee, to rectify violations of applicable statutes, regulations, accounting principles, the plan of
operation, or other legally binding applicable rules identified in a report of examination or other
operational report. The bill would subject the association to a penalty of not more than $20,000 for
failing to take the specified corrective action within a timeframe agreed upon by the commissioner
or their designee. The bill would set other civil penalty amounts for violations of provisions relative
to the association as not to exceed $10,000 for each act in violation or not to exceed $20,000 if the
act was willful, and would require the commissioner to impose those penalties, as specified. The
bill would also authorize the commissioner to require the association to both adjust the policy
limits available under programs underwritten by the association and make additional coverage
offerings available for fair rental value coverage under the association’s renters’ property insurance
program. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 34 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 20
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/25/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time. (Amended
06/25/2026)
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request
for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the
records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of
duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from
disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a
request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public
records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the
reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days
under unusual circumstances, as defined. This bill would instead require each agency to determine
whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to
promptly notify the person as described above within 10 business days of a request for a copy of
records. The bill would instead authorize the time period for each agency to respond to be
extended by no more than 14 business days. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws. (Based on 06/25/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in weekly meeting. 4/17: KB
sent City draft of the letter. 4/22/26: KB testified on behalf of the City at Asm Appropriations.
4/28/26: KB submitted letter to delegation and portal (Assembly Judiciary Committee and
Assembly Appropriations Committee). 6/17/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/30/26: EN provided
me too support testimony in Senate Judiciary.
AB 1883 (Bryan) Workplace surveillance tools. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of
Industrial Relations. Existing law authorizes the division, which is headed by the Labor
Commissioner, to enforce the Labor Code and all labor laws of the state, the enforcement of which
is not specifically vested in any other officer, board, or commission. This bill would generally
regulate the use of workplace surveillance tools and an employer’s use of worker data. The bill
would prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool on workers for various
purposes, including preventing compliance with laws or regulations, inferring information about
workers engaging in a protected activity, making inferences about an individual’s emotional state
or based on their gait, or collecting neural data. The bill would prohibit an employer from using
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 35 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 21
facial recognition technology to make inferences about a worker for firing, deactivation, or
disciplinary purposes. The bill would, with certain exceptions, also prohibit an employer from using
a workplace surveillance tool to infer specified categories of information about a worker, including,
among others, their veteran status, ancestral history, religious beliefs, or disability status. This bill
would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill’s provisions, would authorize an
employee to bring a civil action for specified remedies for a violation of the bill’s provisions, and
would authorize a public prosecutor to enforce the provisions. The bill would subject an employer
who violates the bill’s provisions to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation. The bill would
define various terms for purposes of its provisions. This bill contains other related
provisions. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #30 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1961 (Ahrens) Civil actions: protective orders: workplace violence. (Amended 06/18/2026)
Existing law authorizes an employer or collective bargaining representative of an employee who
has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, to
seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the
court, any number of other employees at the workplace or at other workplaces of the employer.
Existing law authorizes one or more representative parties to bring suit for the benefit of a class of
parties if the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties
are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. This bill would authorize an
employer to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of all employees at the
employer’s workplace or a location at which a group of employees perform their primary job duties
if harassment, unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence is directed at that workplace or
location. The bill would not require an employer to name any individual employee as a protected
party if the employer seeks a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of all employees at the
employer’s workplace or a location at which a group of employees perform their primary job duties.
This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to adopt or modify its
forms, as specified. (Based on 06/18/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Appr. Suspense File
AB 2033 (Papan) Local Agency Public Construction Act: job order contracting: cities.
(Amended 05/22/2026)
Existing law, the Local Agency Public Construction Act, sets forth procedures that a local agency is
required to follow when procuring certain services or work. Existing law authorizes certain local
agencies to engage in job order contracting, as prescribed. This bill would establish a pilot program
to authorize a city to use job order contracting as a procurement method. The bill would impose a
$3,000,000 cap on awards under a single job order contract and a $750,000 cap on any single job
order. The bill would limit the term of an initial contract to a maximum of 12 months, with
extensions as prescribed. The bill would establish various additional procedures and requirements
for the use of job order contracting under this authorization. The bill would require the city, on or
before January 1, 2030, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature
a report on the use of job order contracting under the bill. The bill would repeal these provisions on
January 1, 2032. (Based on 05/22/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 36 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 22
Location: 06/10/2026 - Senate Local Government
AB 2179 (Patel) Workplace violence: restraining orders. (Amended 06/01/2026)
Existing law authorizes any employer or authorized bargaining representative, as specified, whose
employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence that can reasonably be
construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary
restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and other employees at the
workplace, as described. This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2027, allow any party or witness to a
petition for a restraining order to appear remotely at a hearing and would prohibit any fee for
appearing remotely. The bill would require the court of each county to develop rules and
instructions for such remote appearances and post them on its website. The bill would also,
commencing on July 1, 2027, require courts to allow filings related to such protective orders to be
submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. (Based
on 06/01/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #122 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - THIRD READING FILE
Location: 06/16/2026 - Senate Third Reading
Position: Sponsor
Notes1:
2/19/26: Bill introduced; EN tagged as sponsor. 2/24/26: EN sent draft sponsor letter to City for
review. EN received final letter and sent to delegation and author's office. Bill not yet referred to a
committee. 3/10/26: DA submitted sponsor letter to portal. 3/11/26: DA submitted sponsor letter
to delegation. 3/24/26: SG provided primary support testimony. 4/15/26: Bill on consent. 5/29/26:
KB submitted letter to portal. 6/11/26: KB submitted letter to portal.
SB 951 (Reyes) Employment: technological displacement: notice. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of
various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in
California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner
(commissioner), within the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law establishes the
Employment Development Department (EDD), which is administered by the Director of
Employment Development. Under existing law, the Director of Employment Development is vested
with specified duties, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction related to job creation activity
functions, among other things. This bill would establish the California Worker Technological
Displacement Act, which would require an employer, as defined, to provide at least a 60-day
advanced written notice before any technological displacement affecting workers, as described.
The bill would require an employer to provide that notice to affected workers, the EDD, and
specified local entities. The bill would also require an employer to provide a written technology
hiring disruption notice to the EDD when it executes a technological cessation in hiring caused in
whole by the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) or other automating technology. The bill would
impose various reporting requirements on the EDD. For employers with more than 100 workers,
this bill would entitle workers affected by technological displacement to a right of first bid on other
positions with the employer, except as specified. The bill would prohibit an employer, during the
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 37 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 23
60-day period from when notice is provided to the worker, from discharging a worker affected by a
technological displacement without reasonable and substantiated cause. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection
SB 1005 (Caballero) Local agency: payment: rounding amount. (Amended 06/04/2026)
Existing law requires a public agency to accept specified methods of payment for designated
obligations. This bill would authorize a local agency to round the amount of any payment made
wholly or partly in cash to the local agency, or any refund or other amount tendered wholly or partly
in cash by the local agency, to the nearest $0.05. The bill would apply to a local agency only if the
governing body of the local agency adopts, by majority vote, a resolution to make its provisions
applicable to the local agency. The bill would define terms for its purposes. This bill would declare
that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. (Based on 06/04/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #87 A-THIRD READING FILE - SENATE BILLS (Floor Mgr.- Ward)
Location: 06/08/2026 - Assembly Third Reading
SB 1187 (Durazo) Open meetings. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a
legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and that all persons be permitted
to attend and participate. Existing law, beginning July 1, 2026, requires eligible legislative bodies, as
defined, to have in place a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling requests for meeting
agendas and documents. Existing law additionally requires these legislative bodies to translate the
agenda for each meeting of that body and to reasonably assist members of the public who wish to
translate a public meeting or receive interpretation, as specified. This bill would instead delete the
above-described requirements on eligible legislative bodies. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Location: 05/18/2026 - Assembly Local Government
SB 1229 (Allen) Coastal resources: coastal development permits: disaster exemption.
(Amended 04/09/2026)
Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, among other things, requires anyone wishing to
perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, in addition to
obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional,
or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission
or a local government, as provided. The act provides that a coastal development permit is not
required for the replacement of any structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a
disaster. This bill would prohibit that coastal development permit exemption from applying to the
replacement of a structure by an applicant who was not listed as the property owner of record
immediately preceding the disaster if replacement of the structure would, among other things,
encroach upon an open space easement or deed restriction that has been recorded or offered for
dedication, as provided. By creating additional duties for a local government in reviewing coastal
development permits, the bill would impose state-mandated local program. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/09/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 38 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 24
Calendar: 07/02/26 #31 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/08/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Health and Human Services
SB 490 (Umberg) Alcohol and drug programs. (Amended 01/05/2026)
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of adult alcohol or other drug recovery or
treatment facilities by the State Department of Public Health and prohibits the operation of one of
those facilities without a current valid license. Existing law requires the department, if a facility is
alleged to be in violation of that prohibition, to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation.
Existing law requires, if the department’s employee or agent finds evidence that the facility is
providing services without a license, the employee or agent to take specified actions, including,
among others, submitting the findings of the investigation to the department and issuing a written
notice to the facility that includes the date by which the facility is required to cease providing
services. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State
Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive
health care services, through fee-for-service or managed care delivery systems. The Medi-Cal
program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law
establishes the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program (Drug Medi-Cal) and authorizes the department
to enter into a Drug Medi-Cal contract with each county for the provision of alcohol and drug use
services within the county service area. This bill would require the department, if it determines it
has jurisdiction over the allegation, to initiate that investigation within 10 days of receiving the
allegation and, except as specified, complete the investigation within 60 days of initiating the
investigation. The bill would require the department, if it receives a complaint that does not fall
under its jurisdiction, to notify the complainant that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
The bill would require the employee or agent to provide the notice described above within 10 days
of the employee or agency submitting their findings to the department and to conduct a followup
site visit to determine whether the facility has ceased providing services as required. The bill would
authorize, in counties that elect to administer the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system and
that provide optional recovery housing services, the county behavioral health agency to request
approval from the department to conduct a site visit of a recovery residence that is alleged to be
operating without a license. The bill would permit the department to approve that request in certain
circumstances, including that the department has sufficient evidence to substantiate the
allegation. (Based on 01/05/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #15 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 39 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 25
Cal Cities sponsored. 4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in
weekly meeting. 4/17: KB sent City draft of the letter. 4/28: KB submitted letter to delegation and
portal (Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee) 6/22: KB submitted letter to portal.
SB 989 (Blakespear) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court
Program. (Amended 06/18/2026)
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes
specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and
first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a
court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health
agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other
enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a
diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who
meet other specified criteria. This bill would authorize a first responder to contact the county
behavioral health agency in the county in which the individual resides or is found to request the
agency file a petition to commence the CARE process. The bill would require the agency to review
the request and determine whether to file a petition within 30 business days. The bill would require
the agency, upon completion of the review, to notify the first responder that made the referral of
specified information, including whether or not a petition was filed. Because the bill would require
a higher level of service from county agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local
program. This bill would require the department to create a referral form to be used by the first
responders and would require the department to issue guidance on the procedure to request that
the agency file a petition to commence the CARE process. The bill would also require the agency to
include specified data in their annual report to the department. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/18/2026 text)
Location: 06/23/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Homelessness
SB 16 (Blakespear) Mental health: involuntary commitment. (Amended 06/25/2026)
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment
of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a
mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person
may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county
and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation
and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures
for the county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the
above-described provisions. This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to
develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals who will be
designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county
behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 40 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 26
Notes1:
4/16/25: CP tagged as watch.
SB 692 (Arreguín) Vehicles: homelessness. (Amended 06/25/2026)
Existing law makes it unlawful for a peace officer or an unauthorized person to remove an
unattended vehicle from a highway, except as provided. Under existing law, the removal of a
vehicle is a seizure, subject to the limits set forth in jurisprudence for the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to adopt an
ordinance establishing procedures for the abatement and removal, as public nuisances, of
abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts of vehicles from private or public
property. Existing law requires that any ordinance for the removal of abandoned vehicles contain
certain provisions, including a provision exempting vehicles under certain circumstances, and a
provision providing no less than a 10-day notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle or part
thereof as a public nuisance, unless the property owner and the owner of the vehicle sign releases.
Existing law also exempts from the 10-day notice prior to removal provision, a vehicle meeting
specified requirements, including being valued at less than $200 and being determined to be a
public nuisance, if the property owner has signed a release. This bill would specifically authorize a
local government to perform emergency summary abatement of vehicles creating imminent health
and safety hazards. The bill would modify the exemption from prior 10-day notice of intention to
abate and remove a vehicle to no longer require that both the vehicle be determined to be a public
nuisance and that the property owner sign a release. This bill contains other existing laws. (Based
on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/25/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 866 (Blakespear) Planning and zoning: annual report: emergency shelter. (Amended
06/23/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and
specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a
housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of
each year an annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development that
includes, among other specified information, the agency’s progress in meeting its share of regional
housing needs and the number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year. This bill,
beginning with the first annual report submitted after the due date for the 7th cycle revision of the
housing element, would require that annual report to additionally include specified information
regarding the special housing needs of families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The bill
would require the report to include, among other information, a list of any federal, state, or local
funding that has been allocated from specified programs and a description of any actions taken to
conduct outreach to individuals who are unhoused to inform them about those resources. (Based
on 06/23/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Watch
Notes1:
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 41 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 27
4/16/26: KB marked as watch per client request. 6/23/26: CPPG and City staff met virtually with
Senator Blakespear's staff to discuss concerns. 6/23/26: City requested draft opposition letter.
6/25/26: City won't be positioning on bill. Tagged as watch.
Housing and Land Use
AB 306 (Schultz) California Building Standards Commission: appeals: code interpretations.
(Amended 06/15/2026)
Existing law authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission,
interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency respecting the administration of any
building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the California Building Standards
Commission. Existing law authorizes any local agency having authority to enforce a state building
standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation,
decision, or practice of that agency respecting that building standard to appeal to the commission,
provided that both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. Existing law
authorizes the commission to accept those appeals only if the commission determines that the
issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance. This bill would revise and recast those
provisions to expand the reasons for which a person can appeal to the commission to include,
among other things, a request for approval to use an alternate material. The bill would modify the
conditions under which the commission may accept an appeal by removing the requirement that
both the local agency and the adversely affected person wish to appeal the issue, and by requiring
that certain issues appealed have both statewide significance and that the person seeking the
appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the commission, subject to
a certain exception. The bill would require the commission to review those appealed issues with
specified stakeholders. The bill would additionally authorize any person to request a code
interpretation from the commission relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by
the commission. The bill would require the commission to post, on its internet website and in a
searchable format, decisions on appeals and code interpretations that it issues. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Notes1:
4/16/25 CPPG tagged as oppose 4/21/25 CPPG sent letter to the city 5/12/25 CPPG submitted
5/15/25 CPPG sent to delegation 6/30/25: Bill included in budget; EN removed position.
AB 736 (González, Mark) Transfer taxes: limitation. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law, the Documentary Transfer Tax Act, authorizes the imposition of a tax by a county or
city and county, as provided, with respect to specified instruments that transfer specified interests
in real property. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local jurisdiction, defined to
include a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, from collecting a transfer tax, as
defined, levied on the sale or transfer of a real property interest conveyed if the combined transfer
tax rate levied by the local jurisdiction exceeds 1.5% of the consideration paid for or value of the
real property interest conveyed, except as otherwise provided. The bill would also prohibit a local
jurisdiction from levying a transfer tax on the first sale of single-family housing property occurring
within 5 years of one or more housing units on the real property being destroyed or made
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 42 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 28
uninhabitable by a natural disaster, as defined. By imposing new duties upon local officials with
respect to transfer taxes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would
include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather
than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (Based
on 06/22/2026 text)
Location: 06/22/2026 - Senate Local Government
AB 748 (Harabedian) Single-family and multifamily housing units: preapproved plans.
(Amended 01/05/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provides for the adoption and administration of zoning
laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by counties and cities and the implementation of those
general plans as may be in effect in those counties or cities. In that regard, existing law requires
each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory
dwelling unit plans. This bill would require each local agency, as defined, to develop a program for
the preapproval of single-family and multifamily residential housing plans, whereby the local
agency accepts single-family and multifamily plan submissions for preapproval and approves or
denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would require a large jurisdiction, as
defined, to develop this program by July 1, 2027, and a small jurisdiction, as defined, to develop a
program by January 1, 2029. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved single-
family or multifamily residential housing plans and the contact information of the applicant on the
local agency’s internet website. This bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny
ministerially an application for a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit within 30 days
if the lot meets certain conditions and the application utilizes specified plans that have been
preapproved by the local agency or that are identical to a plan used in an application approved by
the local agency. The bill would prohibit the preapproval program from applying to single-family or
multifamily residential housing plans intended for use in certain communities and developments,
as specified. This bill contains other existing laws. (Based on 01/05/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in weekly meeting. 4/17: KB
sent City draft of the letter. 4/28: KB submitted letter to Assembly Local Government Committee,
Assembly Appropriations Committee, and Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee and delegation. 6/11: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/17/26: EN testified in opposition
in Senate Local Government.
AB 750 (Quirk-Silva) Department of Housing and Community Development. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon
appropriation, to make loans or grants, or both loans and grants, to rehabilitate, capitalize
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 43 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 29
operating subsidy reserves for, and extend the long-term affordability of department-funded
housing projects that have an affordability restriction that has expired, that have an affordability
restriction with a remaining term of less than 10 years, or are otherwise at risk of conversion to
market-rate housing. This bill would also authorize the department to make those loans and grants
to rehabilitate, capitalize operating subsidy reserves for, and extend the long-term affordability of
housing projects that qualify as a challenged development, as defined. The bill would require the
department to grant priority for these loans and grants to housing projects that are department
funded and have an affordability restriction that has expired or have a remaining term of less than
10 years, or are otherwise at risk for conversion. The bill would require, prior to allocating program
funds, the department to evaluate the above-described developments to help inform program
guidelines and allocation decisions. The bill would require the department to allocate a certain
percentage of funds to challenged developments that are not department funded based on relative
need and the availability of resources. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/25/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by
ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in
areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified
standards and conditions. Existing law also provides for the creation of junior accessory dwelling
units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial
approval, in single-family residential zones in accordance with specified standards and conditions.
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and
operation of common interest developments. Existing law defines “common interest development”
for purposes of the act to include, among other things, a planned development and a condominium
project. Existing law makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition
contained in any instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development,
and any provision of a governing document, that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the
construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned
for single-family residential use that meets the above-described standards and conditions for
those units. This bill would expand the provision that makes void and unenforceable any covenant,
restriction, or condition contained in any instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in
a planned development to include any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in an
instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a common interest development. The bill
would revise the provision governing prohibitions or restrictions on the construction or use of an
accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential
use to instead apply to the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory
dwelling unit on a lot zoned to allow single-family residential use. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 44 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 30
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
6/9/26: City Council approved oppose position. 6/30/26: KB followed up with the City on the draft
letter. 7/1/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation (Senate Housing Committee, Assembly
Local Government Committee, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee,
Assembly Appropriations Committee, Senate Local Government Committee) 7/1/26: KR testified in
opposition at Senate Local Government Committee
AB 1294 (Haney) Real property tax: welfare exemption: moderate-income housing. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing property tax law, pursuant to constitutional authorization, provides for a “welfare
exemption” for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes
and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are
met. That law provides a partial welfare exemption in the case of residential rental property used
for lower income households, as specified, calculated as that percentage of the value of the
property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households
represents of the total number of residential units. This bill would, for lien dates commencing on or
after January 1, 2027, and before January 1, 2030, provide a partial welfare exemption in the case of
certain residential rental property used for low- and moderate-income households. The partial
exemption would be equal to the value of the units serving low- and moderate-income households,
as defined. The bill would require an owner to make specified certifications relating to the use of
the property. The bill would apply the exemption described above for a period of 15 years from the
date of the initial filing of the exemption, as specified. By expanding the duties of local tax officials,
and by expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This
bill would declare that its provisions are severable. This bill would make legislative findings and
declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda and Sacramento
and the City and County of San Francisco. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 06/22/2026 - Senate Revenue And Taxation
Position: Watch
Notes1:
6/9/26: Council approved oppose stance; letter in draft. 7/1/26: Position move to watch because
the bill was gut and amended. No draft letter sent as amendment happened 6/15.
AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing
Accountability Act. (Amended 06/03/2026)
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists
that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase
permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding
whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and
whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the
local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the
outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would
prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 45 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 31
specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review.
The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant
with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also
authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with
the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is
noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any
action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the
applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved
building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove
the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would
require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is
independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is
authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public
agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The
bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/03/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
6/9/26: City Council approved oppose position. 6/30/26: KB followed up with the City on the draft
letter. 7/1/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation: Senate Housing Committee, Assembly
Local Government Committee, Senate Local Government Committee, Assembly Housing and
Community Development Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee, Assembly
Appropriations Committee
AB 1679 (González, Mark) Local pop-up small business program. (Amended 06/10/2026)
Existing law establishes various programs to promote small businesses operating in nonstandard
locations, including cottage food operations and sidewalk vendors, and imposes requirements on,
and provides authorizations to, local governments relating to these programs. Existing law
authorizes the legislative body of an incorporated city or the board of supervisors of a county, as
applicable, to license any kind of business not prohibited by law, transacted and carried on within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the city or county, and to fix the rate of the license fee and provide for
its collection, as provided. This bill would require a city, including a charter city, county, or city and
county, defined as a local jurisdiction to allow temporary commercial activation authorization for a
pop-up small business, as those terms are defined, to operate for no more than 120 days in an
eligible commercial space without requiring full compliance with standards applicable to
permanent occupancy, as specified. The bill would require a local jurisdiction to consider
temporarily suspending, deferring, or modifying specified standards and discretionary
requirements. The bill would require a temporary commercial activation to comply with health and
safety standards governing temporary use and structures, as specified. This bill would further
require a local jurisdiction to provide written accessibility compliance guidance materials to an
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 46 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 32
applicant. The bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to establish fees not exceeding the
reasonable costs of program administration and create enforcement mechanisms and penalties
for noncompliance. By requiring a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county to allow
temporary commercial activation authorization for pop-up small businesses, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws. (Based on 06/10/2026 text)
Location: 06/17/2026 - Senate Health
AB 1738 (Carrillo) State Housing Law: remote inspections. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards
for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires the building department of every city
or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the State Building Standards Code,
and other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law
pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes an officer,
employee, or agent of an enforcement agency to enter and inspect any building or premises
whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the State
Housing Law, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code, and other
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the State Housing Law. Existing
law provides certain immunities to a public entity or employee immunity relative to an inspection or
license, as provided. This bill would require a city, including a charter city, county, or city and
county, except as specified, to offer a homeowner or contractor, as described, the option of
requesting remote inspections for all or a subset of an inspection required by a building permit for
specified works in one- or 2-family dwelling units, by either January 1, 2028, or July 1, 2028, as
provided. The bill would authorize these local agencies to adopt reasonable protocols governing
the technical conduct of a remote inspection, as specified. The bill would apply the above-
described immunities to remote inspections. The bill would authorize these local agencies to
temporarily ban the homeowner or contractor from using the remote inspection if a homeowner is
found to have willfully misrepresented the work, as provided. By imposing new duties on local
agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings
that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal
affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #5 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act. (Amended 06/29/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, contains various provisions requiring a local government
that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the
application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process, depending on the type of housing
development, as specified. Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate
and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency
and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval
or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act
generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 47 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 33
agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the map within a specified time period. Existing law, known as the Starter Home
Revitalization Act of 2021, among other things, requires a local agency to ministerially consider,
without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing
development project that meets certain requirements, including that the housing development
project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential units, except as
provided. This bill, the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, would authorize a development
proponent to submit an application for a townhome housing development project that is subject to
a prescribed ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain procedural
requirements and satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would also require a
local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a
tentative and final map for a townhome development project that meets specified requirements,
including that the proposed subdivision will result in parcels and residential units that will meet
prescribed densities and that the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet. The
act would define “townhome” for these purposes to mean a single-family dwelling unit that is less
than or equal to 3 stories of occupiable square footage and either shares a common wall, as
specified, or is separated from one or more neighboring units by an air gap, and would define
“townhome development project” to mean a housing development project consisting entirely of
residential units that satisfy this definition of townhome and meeting prescribed density
requirements, size requirements, and unit limits. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 06/29/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1903 (Wicks) Construction defects. (Amended 06/11/2026)
Existing law specifies the rights and requirements of a homeowner to bring an action for
construction defects, including applicable standards for home construction, the statute of
limitations, the burden of proof, the damages recoverable, and detailed prelitigation procedures.
This bill would establish an alternative process for certified buildings, as established by the bill,
and would provide that the bill’s provisions only apply to condominium projects and townhouse
developments constructed on or after January 1, 2027. The bill would authorize a builder to obtain
a certified building status for a building by undergoing private inspection, repairs, and reinspection
during construction, as provided. The bill would prohibit future challenges to the status of the
building as a certified building once certified. The bill would authorize the builder of a certified
building to establish its own process for handling postconstruction claims. The bill would specify
that a builder has a complete and unrestricted right to inspect and repair a certified building at
times mutually agreed upon by the builder and claimant and within timeframes established by the
builder. If a claimant refuses the offer of repair or prevents, restricts, delays, or frustrates access
for more than 7 days from the mutually agreed upon day, the bill would deem the builder to have
received a release. The bill would require an inspector to meet specified criteria, including, among
others, that they are a private licensed architect, engineer, or general contractor, and to certify to
the Department of Real Estate that they meet the criteria. On or before July 1, 2028, the bill would
require the Department of Real Estate to post on its internet website a list of eligible inspectors.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/11/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Housing
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 48 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 34
AB 1914 (Schiavo) General plan elements: childcare. (Amended 06/08/2026)
The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan that includes various elements, including, among others, a
land use, circulation, housing, safety, and environmental justice element. Existing law requires a
city or county to update its general plan elements subject to certain criteria and timelines. This bill
would require a city, county, or city and county, no later than January 1, 2033, to prepare and adopt
a childcare plan or integrate a childcare plan into the next adoption of the city, county, or city and
county’s general plan to address the childcare needs of the jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would
include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather
than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/08/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/29/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1997 (Lee) Land use: housing development approvals: timelines and processes. (Amended
06/18/2026)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or
cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a
project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the
environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that
effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant
effect on the environment. The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various procedures for the review
and approval of development project applications. Among other things, the act requires a public
agency that is the lead agency or a responsible agency for a development project to approve or
disapprove the project within a specified period of time, which varies depending on the project’s
phase in the CEQA process. The act defines “development project” to include specified housing
development projects, as provided. This bill would additionally require approval or disapproval of a
housing development project within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the
EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA if certain other conditions are
met. The bill would also define “housing development project” for the purposes of the Permit
Streamlining Act and make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local
agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2012 (Hoover) Vehicles: transportation of manufactured homes. (Amended 05/20/2026)
Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation or a local authority, upon application in
writing and if good cause appears, to issue a special or annual permit for the transporting of a
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 49 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 35
manufactured home that does not exceed 14 feet in total width, exclusive of lights and devices,
upon any highway, as specified. Existing law prescribes specified requirements and conditions for
transporting the above-described manufactured homes, and makes it unlawful for a person to
violate any of the terms or conditions of the above-described permits. This bill would remove the
good cause requirement for the department or the local authority to issue the above-described
permits for manufactured homes under specified conditions. The bill would clarify that a special
permit is not required to move a manufactured home if the applicant has obtained an annual
permit. (Based on 05/20/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/23/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2051 (Wicks) Public resources: Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group. (Amended
03/25/2026)
Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency and vests the agency with jurisdiction over
various public resources. Existing law establishes the California Environmental Protection Agency
and sets out its mission for programs, policies, and standards. Under existing law, various state
entities, including the California Coastal Commission, the California Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have responsibilities with respect to coastal
permitting and development. This bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency,
in consultation with the Secretary for Environmental Protection, to convene a Coastal Resilience
Permitting Working Group for the purpose of developing a Coastal Resilience Permitting Roadmap
for coastal resilience projects proposed in specified areas. The bill would require the Coastal
Resilience Permitting Working Group to consist of representatives from federal, state, and local
agencies, including, among others, the California Coastal Commission, the California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would, on or
before January 1, 2028, require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to submit the
Coastal Resilience Permitting Roadmap to the Governor and the relevant fiscal and policy
committees of the Legislature. The bill would require, on or before April 1, 2027, the Secretary of
the Natural Resources Agency, in collaboration with the California Coastal Commission, the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and the California Regional Water Quality Boards with jurisdiction over the coast and the San
Francisco Bay, to convene a Coastal Resilience Permit Advisory Group to support the deliberations
of the Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group. (Based on 03/25/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2152 (González, Mark) California Environmental Quality Act: essential local fire station
projects: judicial streamlining. (Amended 05/18/2026)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or
cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project
that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to
adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires
a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 50 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 36
no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment. This bill would authorize an essential local fire station project, as defined, to be
eligible for judicial streamlining, if the lead agency, at its discretion, makes specified
determinations based upon substantial evidence in the record regarding the project, including the
determination that the project will employ best practices to avoid or mitigate significant
environmental effects, as provided. The bill would require the lead agency, upon determination
that a project, activity, or approval is eligible for judicial streamlining pursuant to these provisions,
to file a notice of determination with specified content with the Office of Land Use and Climate
Innovation, as provided. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, on or before July 1, 2027,
adopt rules of court that apply to any action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside,
void, or annul the certification of an environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration,
or negative declaration for an essential local fire station project, including any potential appeals to
the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 365
calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. (Based
on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2296 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation.
(Amended 06/29/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, which
includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. For the 4th and subsequent
revisions of the housing element, existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community
Development, in consultation with each council of governments, to determine each region’s
existing and projected need for housing, and requires the appropriate council of governments, or
the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional
housing plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and
county, as provided. Existing law authorizes at least 2 or more cities and a county, or counties, at
least 28 months prior to the scheduled housing element revision, to form a subregional entity to
allocate the subregion’s existing and projected housing need among its members. If the council of
governments does not receive a notification of this formation at least 28 months prior to the
update, existing law requires the council of governments to implement specified requirements
regarding the regional housing need process. Existing law requires the council of governments to
determine the share of regional housing need assigned to each delegate subregion at least 25
months prior to the scheduled revision. This bill, except with respect to the 7th housing element
cycle for councils of governments with a housing element revision due date during the calendar
year 2027 or 2028, would extend the above-described timeline for cities and counties to form a
subregional entity to allocate the subregion’s housing need, as provided, from 28 months to 34
months, and the above-described timeline for the council of governments to determine the share
of regional housing need assigned to each subregion from 25 months to 31 months, respectively.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/29/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 51 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 37
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/25/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in weekly meeting. 4/17: KB
sent City draft of the letter. 4/22/26: II testified in support on behalf of the city in Assembly Local
Government committee. 4/28/26: KB submitted letter of support to delegation and portal
(Assembly Appropriations Committee, Assembly Local Government Committee, and Assembly
Housing and Community Development Committee).
AB 2415 (Hoover) Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans. (Amended
04/23/2026)
Existing law requires a housing development project to be an allowed use as a transit-oriented
housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within
prescribed distances of a transit-oriented development stop if the development complies with
specified requirements. Existing law applies these provisions to a local agency beginning July 1,
2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development
alternative plan, as specified. Existing law prescribes requirements for these plans, including
requiring that the plan not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total
units or residential floor area by more than 50%. Existing law defines various terms for these
purposes. This bill would provide that a transit-oriented development alternative plan may reduce
the capacity in up to one transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area
by more than 50% if certain requirements are met. (Based on 04/23/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Senate Local Government
AB 2433 (Alvarez) Housing development: density bonus. (Amended 06/29/2026)
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to grant a
density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development
standards, as specified, to an applicant for a housing development when the applicant seeks a
density bonus for the housing development, as specified, if the applicant agrees to construct,
among other things, a specified percentage of units for very low income, lower income, or senior
citizen housing, and meets other requirements. This bill would, instead, require a city or county to
grant a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development
standards, as specified, to an applicant for a housing development when the applicant submits an
application for a housing development that a city, county, or city and county determines meets
specified criteria, including, among others, the housing development includes specified
percentage of units for very low income, lower income, or senior citizen housing. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/29/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 52 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 38
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Oppose Unless Amended
Notes1:
4/16/26: KB marked as watch per client request. 5/13/26: KB marked as OUA per client request.
5/15/26: KB shared draft letter with the client. 5/29/26: KB submitted letter to portal and
delegation. 6/17/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/23/26: KB testified in Senate Local Gov.
AB 2576 (Harabedian) Transit-oriented development: exclusions: historic sites. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law provides that a housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit-
oriented housing development if specified conditions and requirements are met. Existing law
provides that these provisions do not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, unless the local
agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan, as defined,
deemed compliant by the Department of Housing and Community Development before July 1,
2026. Existing law specifies that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local government that denies a
housing development project meeting the requirements referenced above that is located in a high-
resource area is presumed to be in violation of specified law and immediately liable for specified
penalties. Existing law specifies exclusions from the provisions described above, including, among
other sites prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the housing element, a site
with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register. This bill would also
exclude from the provisions described above, a contributing site within a historic district included
on the State Historic Resources Inventory designated before January 1, 2025, and a parcel
individually listed as a historical resource included on the State Historic Resources Inventory
designated before January 1, 2025. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 05/13/2026 - Senate Local Government
AB 2601 (Lee) Planning and zoning: housing development: streamlined approval and
subdivisions. (Amended 04/16/2026)
Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt ordinances
that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The
Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of
subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local
agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final,
and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a proposed housing
development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone,
without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets specified
requirements. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an
urban lot split if the parcel meets specified requirements. This bill would require that an
application for a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within
a single-family residential zone, as described above, be eligible for concurrent processing with an
application for a parcel map for an urban lot split, as provided. The bill would authorize a local
agency to condition issuance of building permits, grading permits, or certificates of occupancy for
a proposed housing development upon the applicant first obtaining approval and recording a
parcel map for eligible parcels pursuant to the above-described urban lot split provisions. The bill
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 53 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 39
would allow the primary dwellings in an urban lot split under these provisions to be developed or
converted to condominiums upon request of the applicant, as specified, or, if the housing
development includes an existing unit, allow the applicant to request a condominium conversion
for that unit pursuant to state and local law. The bill would specify that a “parcel map” for purposes
of these provisions means a parcel map prepared in accordance with specified provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and may include a condominium plan if proposed by the subdivider, as
specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 04/16/2026 text)
Location: 05/13/2026 - Senate Local Government
AB 2689 (Ávila Farías) Low-income housing tax credits: lease nonrenewal: good cause.
(Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law, in modified conformity with federal income tax laws, establishes a low-income
housing tax credit program through which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee allocates
low-income housing tax credits aimed at providing affordable low-income housing within and
throughout the state. Existing federal law sets limitations and guidelines regarding what projects
are eligible for credits, including a requirement that an extended low-income housing commitment
is in effect, and a prohibition against eviction except for good cause. This bill would specify, for
housing projects where the low-income housing commitment requires 100% of the units, not
including any manager’s units, to be restricted to lower income households, as defined, that good
cause for nonrenewal of a lease includes cases where the nonrenewal relates to a household
whose income exceeds 140% of the area median income for at least 2 consecutive years and 30%
of the household’s monthly income exceeds the fair market rent, determined as specified. The bill
would require an owner to provide notice of the potential of good cause for nonrenewal described
above if the household’s income exceeds 140% of the area median income during any income
certification, as specified. The bill would also require an owner electing to not renew a lease as
described above to issue a notice of nonrenewal describing the basis of good cause for nonrenewal
at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the lease, as specified. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #33 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 06/17/2026 - Senate Judiciary
AB 2748 (Quirk-Silva) Building standards: affordable housing developments: electric vehicle
charging. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards
for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires the building department of every city
or county to enforce within its jurisdiction all the provisions published in the California Building
Standards Code and the provisions of the State Housing Law, as provided. Existing law makes any
violation of the State Housing Law a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or by both. This bill would exempt a new or existing
affordable housing development, as defined, for which a permit application is submitted between
January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2030, from the requirements for installation of low power Level
2 or higher electric vehicle charging receptacles in the 2025 California Green Building Standards
Code, as provided. The bill would, instead, require those affordable housing developments for
which a permit application is submitted between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2030, to
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 54 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 40
comply with the applicable requirements for installation of low power Level 2 or higher electric
vehicle charging receptacles in the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code. The bill
would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032. By adding to the duties of local officials, and by
expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #7 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Appropriations
SB 417 (Limón) The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. (Chaptered
06/25/2026)
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency
housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income
households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes
the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law
and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing
housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes
infill development, and housing-related parks. Existing law, the Veterans and Affordable Housing
Bond Act of 2018, authorized, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 to finance
various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing
matching grant programs, as well as financing for a specified program for farm, home, and
mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law.
This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which, if adopted,
would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,250,000,000, pursuant to the State
General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $10,000,000,000
would be used to finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and home ownership
programs, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and
the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and $1,250,000,000 would be used to
provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome
purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond
act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in accordance with specified
law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. (Based
on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/25/2026 - Senate Chaptered
SB 677 (Wiener) Land use: housing development approvals: tax-exempt private activity bonds:
subdivisions: tentative and final maps: appeals. (Amended 06/24/2026)
Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act (act), among other things, prohibits a local agency
from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing
development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency
makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act defines the
term “disapprove the housing development project” for its purposes to include various actions, or
inactions, by a local agency, as specified. This bill would expand the definition of “disapprove the
housing development project” under the act to include, in the case of a housing development
project that includes the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds, a local agency’s failure to
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 55 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 41
take the actions required by certain federal tax regulations in connection with the issuance of those
tax-exempt private activity bonds. The bill would specify that these provisions do not require a local
agency to take any action that would result in it incurring any financial liability, debt, or obligation.
By mandating new duties on local agencies with respect to housing development projects that
include the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/24/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Local Government
Notes1:
1/13/26: EN tagged as oppose. 1/14/26: KR testified in opposition in Senate Local Government
Committee. 1/15/26: SG sent draft oppose letter to the City for review. 1/26/26: EN received final
Word draft of letter, finalized, and sent back to the City for their records. 1/26/26: DA submitted
letter to portal and delegation. 6/9/26: Bill gut and amended; EN removed position.
SB 722 (Wahab) Transit-oriented housing development: excluded parcels and sites. (Amended
01/15/2026)
Existing law requires that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of
a transit-oriented development stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing
development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the
development complies with certain, applicable requirements, as provided. Among these
requirements, existing law prohibits a proposed development under these provisions from being
located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was
previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls, as provided. This bill would
additionally prohibit the development from being located on an existing parcel of land or site
governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law,
the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act. This bill would declare that it is to
take effect immediately as an urgency statute. (Based on 01/15/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #136 A-CONSENT CALENDAR 2ND DAY-SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Consent Calendar
Position: Support
Notes1:
1/14/26: DA tagged as support. 1/15/26: SG sent draft support letter to the City for review. 1/26/26:
EN received final Word draft of letter, finalized, and sent back to the City for their records. 1/26/26:
DA submitted letter to portal and delegation. 5/5/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/10/26: Bill on
consent in Asm HCD. 6/11/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/17/26: CS attended committee - bill
on consent.
SB 741 (Blakespear) Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. (Amended 07/01/2026)
Existing law creates the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program to provide operating and capital
assistance for transit agencies to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and improve mobility.
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to administer the program and to adopt
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 56 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 42
guidelines, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board, that describe the methodologies to
be used by a recipient transit agency to demonstrate that proposed expenditures will meet
specified program expenditure requirements and establish the reporting requirements for
documenting ongoing compliance with those expenditure requirements. This bill would repeal the
requirement for the department to adopt guidelines. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 07/01/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
5/19/25: CPPG tagged as support and sent draft support letter to the City for review. 6/9/25: CPPG
Submitted letter and sent to delegation. 7/7/25: Bill pulled from Asm Natural Resources 7/7
hearing. 6/29/26: SG - Testified in support in Assembly Transportation committee.
SB 996 (Padilla) Manufactured housing: classification as real property. (Amended 06/16/2026)
The Mobilehome Parks Act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to
establish regulations for manufactured home, mobilehome, and commercial modular foundation
systems. Existing law authorizes a manufactured home, mobilehome, or commercial modular to
be installed on a foundation system as either a fixture or improvement to the real property if certain
conditions are met. In this regard, existing law requires, among other things, a manufactured
home, mobilehome, or commercial modular owner or licensed contractor to obtain a building
permit from the appropriate enforcement agency before installing the manufactured home,
mobilehome, or commercial modular on a foundation system by, among other things, submitting
written evidence acceptable to the enforcement agency that the manufactured home,
mobilehome, or commercial modular owner owns, holds title to, or is purchasing the real property
where the mobilehome is to be installed on a foundation system. Existing law specifies that a lease
held by the owner, that is transferable, for the exclusive use of the real property where the
manufactured home, mobilehome, or commercial modular is to be installed, is deemed to comply
with that requirement if the lease is for a term of 35 years or more, or if fewer than 35 years, for a
term mutually agreed upon by the lessor and lessee, and the term of the lease is not revocable at
the discretion of the lessor except for cause, as specified. A willful violation of these provisions is a
crime. This bill would specify that the authorization to install a manufactured home, mobilehome,
or commercial modular as either a fixture or improvement to the real property applies to
permanent foundation systems. The bill would remove the agreements that are deemed to comply
with the requirement that the owner or contractor provide written evidence that the manufactured
home, mobilehome, or commercial modular owner owns, holds title to, or is purchasing the real
property where the mobilehome is to be installed. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 06/16/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 1014 (Grayson) Development projects: preliminary estimate of required improvements:
onsite and offsite improvements. (Amended 06/03/2026)
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act (act), sets forth various procedures for the review and
approval of development project applications, including, among other things, requiring each public
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 57 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 43
agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from
any applicant for a development project. The act also requires a city, county, or city and county to
deem an applicant for a housing development project to have submitted a preliminary application
upon providing specified information about the proposed project to the city, county, or city and
county from which approval for the project is being sought. This bill would permit an applicant who
submits a preliminary application for a housing development project, as specified, or an
application if a preliminary application is not submitted, to include in the preliminary application or
application a request for a preliminary estimate of required improvements, as provided. The bill
would require a city, county, or city and county that receives a request under these provisions to
provide the preliminary estimate within 30 business days of the submission of the request, as
provided. The bill would authorize, for improvements required by a public agency, as specified, the
applicant to request, within 30 days of submission, a list of the types of improvements that may be
required, as provided. The bill, within 30 business days of deeming an application for a
postentitlement phase permit complete, would additionally require the city, county, or city and
county to provide the applicant with an itemized list of all onsite and offsite improvements that will
be required prior to issuance of, or otherwise in connection with, that permit, as provided. The bill
would specify that its provisions do not relieve a city, county, or city and county of its obligation to
comply with certain requirements before subjecting a housing development project to an
improvement that was not in effect when a preliminary application was submitted, as provided. The
bill would define various terms for these purposes. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 06/03/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in weekly meeting. 4/17: KB
sent City draft of the letter. 4/28: KB submitted letter to delegation and portal (Senate Housing
Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee, Senate Local Government Committee) 6/9: KB
submitted letter to portal. 6/17/26: CS testified in opposition in Asm. Local Gov. 6/24/26: CS
testified in opposition in Asm. Housing.
SB 1016 (Blakespear) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court
Program and court-ordered evaluations. (Amended 05/14/2026)
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (CARE Act),
authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family
members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE
agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county
behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication,
housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental
illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic
disorders, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, and who meet other specified criteria.
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE
process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process, to be signed
under the penalty of perjury, and requires the form to contain certain information, including either a
specified affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional or evidence the respondent was
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 58 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 44
detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to specified provisions of law.
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act), generally provides for the evaluation,
treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified
persons. Existing law authorizes, under a superior court order, an evaluation of a person alleged, as
a result of mental disorder, to be a danger to themselves or others or to be gravely disabled, and
authorizes any individual to apply to the person or agency designated by the county for a petition to
the court requesting that an evaluation of the person’s condition be made. Existing law requires
persons who have been detained for evaluation to be released, referred for care and treatment on a
voluntary basis, certified for intensive treatment, or recommended for conservatorship under the
LPS Act. The CARE Act authorizes a court to terminate a respondent’s participation in the CARE
process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is
not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified, and authorizes the court to order the court-ordered
evaluation under the LPS Act. This bill would, among other things, authorize a petitioner of a CARE
Act petition to request that the court order a mental health evaluation under the LPS Act if the
petitioner believes that the person may not be willing or able to participate in the CARE process and
a CARE plan or CARE agreement due to the severity of their mental disorder or lack of insight into
their mental disorder, and would require the Judicial Council to include on the mandatory petition
form an option for the petitioner to request that evaluation. The bill would authorize the court to
issue an order for a mental health evaluation under the LPS Act if the CARE Act petition or report
prepared by the county behavioral health agency establishes probable cause to support the
evaluation and the respondent will not voluntarily receive crisis intervention services or an
evaluation, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 05/14/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #42 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 1036 (Grayson) Mitigation Fee Act. (Chaptered 06/30/2026)
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes various requirements with respect to the
establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee by a local agency as a condition of approval of a
development project, including requiring the local agency to identify the use to which the fee is to
be put and determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. This bill would require the amount of a fee that is
imposed on a development project that demolishes or changes an existing use to be offset to
account for the demolition or change so that the amount of the fee is attributable only to the
development project’s incremental impact on public facilities or services, as provided. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/30/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Senate Chaptered
Position: Watch
SB 1117 (Cervantes) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
(Introduced 02/17/2026)
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by
ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 59 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 45
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law
requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with specified
provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water
corporation from imposing any impact fee upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square
feet of interior livable space or less, and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has
more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionately in relation to the
square footage of the primary dwelling unit. This bill would additionally require the charge to be
based only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space. By changing the duties
of local agencies with regard to calculating fees for ADUs, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter
of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including
charter cities. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 02/17/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Assembly Local Government
SB 1169 (Grayson) Subdivision Map Act: tentative maps: expiration dates. (Amended
06/22/2026)
Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, (act) vests the authority to regulate and control the design
and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures
governing the processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative
maps, among other maps. Existing law requires a vesting tentative map to be filed and processed in
the same manner as a tentative map, except as specified. The act generally requires a subdivider to
file a tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Under existing law, an
approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval. Existing law
authorizes the approval or conditional approval to be extended up to 24 months pursuant to local
ordinance, and by 48 months, as provided, if the subdivider is required to expend more than a
certain amount of money to construct, improve, or finance the construction or improvement of
public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, as provided. This bill
would extend the initial expiration period of an approved or conditionally approved tentative map to
48 months and the extension pursuant to local ordinance to 36 months, except as provided. The
bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide
concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #29 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/17/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 1272 (Menjivar) Local ordinances: administrative fines or penalties. (Amended 06/23/2026)
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a local agency, as defined, to, by ordinance, make
any violation of an ordinance subject to an administrative fine or penalty. Existing law requires a
local agency to set forth, by ordinance, the administrative procedures that govern the imposition,
enforcement, collection, and administrative review of those administrative fines or penalties.
Existing law requires the administrative procedures to provide for a reasonable period of time, as
specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 60 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 46
otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the
violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that
do not create an immediate danger to health or safety. This bill would require, for any violation
pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not
create an immediate danger to health or safety, of any ordinance enacted by the local agency, the
reasonable period of time to correct or otherwise remedy the violation to be no less than 6 months
if certain conditions are met, including that the property involved is an owner-occupied residential
property containing 4 units or less and the current owner of the property submits a sworn affidavit
that the current owner was not responsible for any action that caused the violation and that the
current owner had no knowledge of the violation at the time the owner took title to the property.
These provisions would not apply to an administrative fine or penalty imposed for a violation of
various laws, regulations, and ordinances, as specified. By requiring a sworn affidavit, the bill
would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill
would require a local agency to extend the reasonable period of time described above by an
additional 6 months upon a showing by the current owner of a good faith effort to correct or
otherwise remedy the violation, and would authorize the agency to extend the reasonable period of
time beyond that extension in its discretion, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions
and other existing laws. (Based on 06/23/2026 text)
Location: 06/17/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
POU-Energy
SB 1138 (Padilla) Load-serving entities: resource adequacy requirements. (Amended
06/15/2026)
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities,
including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the commission, in consultation with the
Independent System Operator, to establish resource adequacy requirements for all load-serving
entities, as provided. Existing law defines load-serving entity, for that purpose, as an electrical
corporation, electric service provider, or community choice aggregator. Existing law requires each
load-serving entity to be subject to the same requirements for resource adequacy, the renewables
portfolio standard program, and the integrated resource planning process that apply to electrical
corporations, as provided. This bill would require the commission to authorize a load-serving entity
to elect to demonstrate compliance with resource adequacy requirements by selling to, or
otherwise making transactions with, another load-serving entity, and would require those
transactions to not represent more than 25% of a load-serving entity’s compliance obligations and
be of a short-term duration. The bill would require the commission to authorize those transactions
to be denominated in the same unit of time used to denominate resource adequacy compliance
requirements. The bill would authorize the commission to suspend or adjust that authority of a
load-serving entity to sell to, or otherwise make transactions with, another load-serving entity, as
specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 61 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 47
Public Safety and EMS
AB 762 (Irwin) Disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device: prohibition and
penalties. (Amended 06/30/2026)
Existing law regulates the manufacture, sale, and disposal of various single-use products,
including single-use foodware accessories and condiments and single-use carryout bags. Existing
law prohibits a store from, among other things, providing, distributing, or selling a carryout bag at
the point of sale, except as specified. Existing law defines terms for these purposes. This bill would
prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, a person from importing or manufacturing for sale in this state
a new or refurbished disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device, and, beginning
January 1, 2028, a person from selling, distributing, or offering for sale a new or refurbished
disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device in this state. The bill would define a
“disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation device” to mean a vaporization device that
contains a tobacco product, as defined, but not cannabis or a cannabis product, as defined, and
that is not designed or intended to be reused, as specified. This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/30/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1753 (Stefani) Protective orders: firearms and ammunition: notice and procedures.
(Amended 06/17/2026)
Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective
or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining
orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders,
postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a
restrained person from taking specified actions. Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a
domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order, existing law requires the
court to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine, among other things, if the subject
of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm as reflected in the Department of Justice
Automated Firearms System. If after the search, the court finds that the subject of the proposed
order owns or possesses a firearm, existing law requires the court to make a written record as to
whether the subject has relinquished the firearm and provided proof of the required storage, sale,
or relinquishment of the firearm. Upon a court’s issuance of such a protective order, existing law
requires the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person’s
immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures. Existing law prescribes
procedures by which the restrained person must certify compliance with the court, and for the
court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person has a firearm in
violation of the order. This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures
relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained
person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person’s immediate
possession or control. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require courts to permit a
party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or
workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 62 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 48
and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on their internet websites. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/17/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #40 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - SECOND READING FILE
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 1941 (González, Mark) Organized metal theft. (Amended 06/04/2026)
Existing law makes a person who is a dealer in or collector of junk, metals, or secondhand
materials, or their agent, employee, or representative, who buys or receives any wire, cable,
copper, lead, solder, mercury, iron, or brass that the person knows or reasonably should know is
used by or belongs to specified entities, including a railroad, certain utility companies, or a public
entity engaged in furnishing public utility service, without using due diligence to ascertain that the
person selling or delivering that material has a legal right to do so, guilty of criminally receiving that
property and, in addition to imprisonment, makes that act punishable by a fine of not more than
$5,000. This bill would prohibit organized metal theft, described as acting in concert with one or
more persons to steal metal materials from one or more of specified materials and items with the
intent to sell, exchange, or return those metal materials for value, acting in concert with 2 or more
persons to receive, purchase, or possess those metal materials knowing or believing it to have
been stolen, acting as an agent of another to steal those metal materials as part of an organized
plan to commit theft, or recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or
financing another to undertake acts of theft of metal. The bill would make a violation of organized
metal theft punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The bill would make related findings
and declarations and state the intent of the Legislature. By creating new crimes, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws. (Based on 06/04/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Appropriations
AB 2556 (Boerner) Evidence: credibility of witnesses and evidence affected or excluded by
extrinsic policies. (Chaptered 06/30/2026)
Existing law sets forth the procedure by which, in any prosecution for rape or other specified sexual
offenses, evidence of sexual conduct of the complaining witness may be offered to attack the
credibility of the complaining witness. This procedure involves, among other things, the filing of a
written motion by the defendant, accompanied by an affidavit filed under seal stating an offer of
proof, and, if the court determines that the offer is sufficient, a hearing out of the presence of the
jury regarding the offer of proof. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court may make an order
stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant. Under existing law, these procedures
do not apply if the specified offenses are alleged to have occurred in a local detention facility or
state prison, as defined. This bill would remove this exception, thereby also applying these
procedures to specified offenses alleged to have occurred in a local detention facility or state
prison. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/30/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 63 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 49
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Chaptered
SB 28 (Umberg) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) court program.
(Amended 06/25/2026)
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act),
authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family
members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE
agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county
behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication,
housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental
illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic
disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act,
authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be
appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or
impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship
investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to
investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the
court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under
these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator
determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the
termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as
specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/25/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #6 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 239 (Arreguín) Crimes: criminal threats. (Amended 06/17/2026)
Existing law makes it a crime to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great
bodily injury to another person, as specified. Under existing law, this crime is punishable as a
misdemeanor or by imprisonment in state prison as a felony. Existing law, for the purposes of
sentencing for a felony violation of these provisions, authorizes the court to consider, as a factor in
aggravation, that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result in the
death or great bodily injury of a state constitutional officer, a Member of the Legislature, or a judge
or court commissioner, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the court to consider, as
a factor in aggravation, that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result
in the death or great bodily injury of an elections official of a city, county, city and county, or public
district, or a local agency official, as specified. (Based on 06/17/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #45 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Notes1:
3/18/25: DC tagged as support. 3/21/25: SG sent letter to the City for review. 4/4/25: EN received
final letter, submitted to Senate Local Government and Senate Judiciary, and sent to delegation.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 64 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 50
5/6/25: EN testified in support in Senate Judiciary. 5.15.25 CP sent to delegation 1/27/26: DA
removed position and priority due to gut and amend.
SB 758 (Umberg) Public health: nitrous oxide. (Amended 06/24/2026)
Existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, requires a retailer, as
defined, to hold a license from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to engage
in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This
bill would expand those provisions to prohibit a retailer from selling nitrous oxide in any retail
location, subject to certain exceptions. The bill would authorize a city or county or city and county
to adopt an ordinance imposing greater restrictions on the retail sale of nitrous oxide provided the
ordinance does not restrict legitimate uses, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions
and other existing laws. (Based on 06/24/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
4/14: City approved stance on bill. 4/16: SG and KB confirmed stance in weekly meeting. 4/17: KB
sent City draft of the letter. 4/28: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation (Senate
Appropriations Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Public Safety Committee) 6/22:
KB submitted letter to portal. 6/23: KB testified in support at Asm Business and Professions.
SB 936 (Blakespear) Nitrous oxide: sales. (Amended 05/18/2026)
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to possess nitrous oxide with the intent of inhaling it for
specified purposes, including to cause intoxication. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to
sell nitrous oxide to any person under 18 years of age. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to
dispense nitrous oxide to a person and knowing that the person will use it for specified prohibited
purposes, if that person then causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or another person.
Existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, requires a retailer, as
defined, to hold a license from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to engage
in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. This bill would, except as specifically exempted,
prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide container that is capable of holding more than 8
grams of nitrous oxide or from which an individual may directly inhale nitrous oxide. The bill would
also prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide that has, or is marketed as having, the taste
or smell of any food. The bill would prohibit knowingly selling or distributing a device that allows an
individual to inhale nitrous oxide from the container or hold nitrous oxide for the purposes of
inhalation. The bill would punish a violation of these provisions as an infraction, as specified. The
bill would also authorize a court to suspend the business license, including a license to sell
tobacco products, if the business has a prior conviction for violating these prohibitions. Because
this bill would create new crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (Based
on 05/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #49 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 65 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 51
Position: Support
Notes1:
5/12/26: KB added support after City's leg committee meeting approval. 5/15/26: KB shared draft
letter with the client. 5/29/26: KB submitted letter to portal and delegation. 6/9/26: KB resubmitted
letter to portal. 6/16/26: SG testified in support in Assembly Business and Professions. 6/30/26: DH
provided a me too in support in Assembly Public Safety.
SB 1013 (Cervantes) Automated license plate recognition systems. (Amended 06/15/2026)
Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county,
or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including,
but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated
license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as
otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected
through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that “public agency” does not include a
transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public
works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require new, updated,
expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or
suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an
agency’s collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new
requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would
authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles
or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public
offense or locating an individual who has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency.
The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 30 days after
the date of collection, and as of January 1, 2027, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR
information that has been held for more than 30 days within 14 days, unless that ALPR information
is retained in the evidence file of an active investigation or criminal proceeding or matches
information on an authorized hot list, as defined. By imposing new requirements on public
agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 06/22/2026 - Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection
SB 1156 (Caballero) Vehicles: driving under the influence. (Amended 06/24/2026)
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and
sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Under existing law, if a person is
convicted of a driving under the influence violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or
more separate driving under the influence violations that resulted in convictions, the offense is
subject to escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. This bill would require the
Department of Motor Vehicles, upon an appropriation from the Legislature, to provide, as
appropriate, a summary of the penalties for specified violations involving alcohol or drugs on
specified vehicle registration materials and with each driver’s license, and license renewal, as
specified. The bill would require the department’s summary to include, among other things, the
financial consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, and annual
updates to DUI-related statutes. (Based on 06/24/2026 text)
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 66 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 52
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Revenue and Taxation
SB 423 (Gonzalez) California Public Records Act: private detention facilities. (Amended
06/18/2026)
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request
for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the
records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of
duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from
disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires, upon request, an exact copy to be
provided unless it is impracticable to do so. This bill would specify that certain records maintained
by a state or local agency that relate to private detention facilities, as defined, including any audio
or video recording of any telephonic or other call that reports or describes an incident, as defined,
occurring at a private detention facility, are not confidential, and would require an agency to
disclose those records upon request to any member of the public. By requiring agencies to
disclose certain records to the public, the bill would increase the duties of local officials and create
a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws. (Based on 06/18/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Transportation and Public Works
AB 1421 (Wilson) Vehicles: Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee. (Amended
01/05/2026)
Existing law requires the Chair of the California Transportation Commission to create a Road Usage
Charge Technical Advisory Committee in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation to guide
the development and evaluation of a pilot program assessing the potential for mileage-based
revenue collection as an alternative to the gas tax system. Existing law additionally requires the
Transportation Agency, in consultation with the commission, to implement the pilot program, as
specified. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2027. This bill would require the
commission, in consultation with the Transportation Agency, to consolidate and prepare research
and recommendations related to a road user charge or a mileage-based fee system. The bill would
require the commission to submit a report, as specified, on the research and recommendations
described above to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by no later than
January 1, 2027. The bill would require the commission to consult with appropriate state agencies
and other stakeholders, as specified, in preparing the research and recommendations and report
described above. (Based on 01/05/2026 text)
Location: 01/29/2026 - Senate Rules
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 67 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 53
AB 1569 (Davies) Pupil safety: electric bicycle: safety and training program. (Amended
04/13/2026)
Existing law establishes the State Department of Education in state government, and vests the
department with specified powers and duties relating to the state’s public school system. Existing
law establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol, under the control of the
Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, within the Transportation Agency. Existing law
requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to develop statewide safety and training
programs based on evidence-based practices for users of electric bicycles. This bill would require,
on or before March 1, 2028, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the
Department of the California Highway Patrol, to develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and
training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, as provided. In developing the program, the
bill would authorize the State Department of Education and the Department of the California
Highway Patrol to collaborate with local law enforcement agencies or local governments that have
implemented electric bicycle training programs already to ensure the program reflects proven best
practices. The bill would encourage local educational agencies and parent organizations to offer
training demonstrations to pupils and parents on electric bicycle operations in collaboration with
local law enforcement agencies or local governments, as specified. (Based on 04/13/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/23/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
2/19/26: Bill introduced; EN tagged as support. 2/24/26: EN sent draft support letter to City for
review. EN received final letter and sent to delegation and author's office. Bill not yet referred to a
committee. 3/10/26: DA submitted support letter to portal and delegation. 4/8/26: CS attended
Asm. Education Committee - bill on consent. 4/17/26: KB sent draft letter to City for review.
5/11/26: KB followed up with the City on draft letter. 5/28/26: KB submitted letter to portal. 6/12/26:
KB submitted letter to portal.
AB 1614 (Dixon) Vehicles: bicycles. (Chaptered 06/30/2026)
Existing law, the California Bicycle Transportation Act, establishes 4 classifications of facilities,
referred to as bikeways, that provide primarily for, and promote, bicycle travel. Existing law requires
a person operating a bicycle, which includes an electric bicycle, upon a highway to ride the bicycle
upon or astride a permanent and regular seat unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer
to be ridden without a seat. Existing law requires a person riding as a passenger on a bicycle upon a
highway to be upon or astride a seat attached to the bicycle, as specified. A violation of these
provisions in punishable as an infraction. This bill would make those provisions applicable to the
operation of a bicycle upon a Class I bikeway. By expanding an existing infraction, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws. (Based on 06/30/2026 text)
Location: 06/30/2026 - Assembly Chaptered
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 68 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 54
Position: Support
Notes1:
2/10/26: EN tagged as support. 2/13/26: EN sent draft support letter to the City for review. 2/24/26:
EN followed up on draft letter. 2/27/26: DA submitted letter to portal and delegation. 4/6/26: EN
testified in support in Assembly Transportation. 5/21/26: CPPG resubmitted letter to portal.
6/11/26: KB submitted letter to portal.
AB 1976 (Wicks) Streets and highways: pedestrian and bicycle facilities. (Amended
06/17/2026)
Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and
highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law
grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of
county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and
maintain county highways. This bill would prohibit a city or county from holding a community input
meeting to reconsider, delay, or prevent implementation of a proposed pedestrian or bicycle safety
project after that project has passed 90% design, as specified. After or upon the award of a
contract for, or when county or city staff, as applicable, are directed to begin, the construction of a
pedestrian or bicycle safety project, the bill would prohibit the city or county from terminating the
project unless the city or county makes at least one specified finding at a public meeting. If a city or
county establishes a process for residents of the city or county to submit a petition to request the
installation of a traffic-calming measure, the bill would prohibit the city or county from requiring the
petition to contain the signatures of more than a majority of the total number of persons whose
residences are located, in whole or in part, within 1,000 feet of the proposed traffic-calming
measure, as specified. To the extent that the bill increases the duties of local officials, the bill
would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 06/17/2026 text)
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Environmental Quality
AB 2059 (Wilson) California Environmental Quality Act: transportation impacts: vehicle miles
traveled: mitigation. (Amended 04/22/2026)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or
cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project
that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to
adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires
a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is
no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA requires the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to prepare, develop,
and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption
proposed revisions to the CEQA implementation guidelines to establish criteria for determining the
significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, and requires the
criteria to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. CEQA requires the office to recommend
potential metrics, including, among other metrics, vehicle miles traveled, to measure these
transportation impacts. This bill would, except as provided, specify that a transportation project is
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 69 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 55
presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact as determined by the vehicle-miles-
traveled metric if at least 80% of the project lies within one or more nonmetropolitan counties.
Because the bill would impose additional duties on a lead agency in its analysis of significant
transportation impacts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 04/22/2026 text)
Location: 05/27/2026 - Senate Environmental Quality
AB 2346 (Wilson) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits. (Amended 06/18/2026)
Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an
electric motor of less than 750 watts, and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different
restrictions for various purposes. This bill would require all class 2 electric bicycles manufactured,
sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with a speedometer. The bill
would also require all electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1,
2029, to be equipped with an integrated or detachable front lamp and a rear lamp, as specified. The
bill would also require sellers and distributors of electric bicycles to disclose specified information
at or before the point of sale, including, among other things, the classification and maximum speed
of the electric bicycle and a recommendation that persons under 16 years of age should not ride an
electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour. The bill would make a violation of these
provisions punishable as an infraction, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws. (Based on 06/18/2026 text)
Calendar: 08/03/26 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 CERVANTES,
SABRINA, Chair
Location: 06/24/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
3/22/26: SG sent draft support letter to the City for review. 3/26/26: KB added support. Still awaiting
letter. 04/01/26: KB submitted letter of support to delegation and Asm transportation committee.
AB 2453 (Rodriguez, Michelle) Vehicles: off-highway motor vehicles. (Amended 05/28/2026)
Existing law regulates the operation of recreational off-highway motor vehicles on lands, other than
a highway, that are open and accessible to the public. Existing law generally prohibits a motor
vehicle from being driven upon a highway unless it is registered. However, existing law authorizes
off-highway motor vehicles that are issued identification plates or devices to cross highways in
certain situations, including, among others, a peace officer operating an off-highway motor vehicle
in an emergency response situation. This bill would expand the above-described provision to
additionally authorize first responders, as defined, to operate off-highway motor vehicles in an
emergency response situation. The bill would also authorize peace officers and first responders to
operate off-highway motor vehicles upon a highway, at a distance not to exceed 5 miles, for the
purpose of accessing off-highway recreational areas or locations of patrol, within jurisdictions that
have adopted a policy or plan for the operation of those off-highway motor vehicles pursuant to the
provisions described below. The bill would require peace officers and first responders operating
off-highway motor vehicles pursuant to these provisions to comply with the terms and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 70 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 56
requirements of the policy or plan adopted by the applicable local authority. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 05/28/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
Position: Sponsor
Notes1:
4/6/26: AB 1909 folded into AB 2453. SG sent draft co-sponsor letter to the City for review. EN
tagged as sponsor. 4/7/26: AB 2453 on consent in Assembly Transportation 4/13/26: KB submitted
sponsor letter to delegation and portal (Assembly Appropriations Committee, Assembly
Transportation Committee) 6/1/26: KB submitted sponsor letter to portal.
AB 2595 (Papan) San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program. (Amended 06/15/2026)
Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different
restrictions. Under existing law, a “class 1 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the
bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a “class 2 electric bicycle” is a
bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not
capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under
existing law, a “class 3 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when
the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years
of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot
Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo,
or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that
would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the
first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would
make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the
bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as
specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an
unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the
minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted,
require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among
other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution,
the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as
specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information
campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as
specified. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #168 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - THIRD READING FILE
Location: 06/25/2026 - Senate Third Reading
SB 555 (Caballero) Workers’ compensation: average annual earnings. (Amended 06/01/2026)
Existing law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative
Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 71 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 57
sustained in the course of employment. Existing law provides for temporary disability, permanent
total disability, or permanent partial disability benefits, among other benefits, for an injured
employee and requires the computation of an injured employee’s average annual earnings and
average weekly earnings for purposes of determining those disability benefits. Existing law
requires, for computing average annual earnings for purposes of permanent partial disability
indemnity, that average weekly earnings be taken at various amounts, including between $240 and
$435 for injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2014, except as specified. This bill would require,
for computing average annual earnings for purposes of permanent partial disability indemnity, that
average weekly earnings be taken at between $363 and $658 for injuries occurring on or after
January 1, 2027. (Based on 06/01/2026 text)
Location: 05/04/2026 - Assembly Insurance
SB 569 (Blakespear) Bikeways: reversions and modifications. (Amended 06/24/2026)
Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and
highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law
grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of
county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and
maintain county highways. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or local
agency to, among other things, establish bikeways, as defined and classified. Existing law requires
the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish
minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of each type of bikeway and of
roadways where bicycle travel is permitted, and requires all city, county, regional, and other local
agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle
travel is permitted to utilize the minimum safety design criteria. This bill would prohibit a bikeway
constructed, in whole or part, using moneys from the State General Fund allocated to any city,
county, regional, or other local agency from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or
modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, for a
minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, as documented in its
project design or local building or permit application materials, whichever is less. The bill would
require the modification of one of those bikeways to be consistent with an active transportation
use, as defined, and be subject to specified public meeting and hearing requirements, as provided.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide
concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter
cities. (Based on 06/24/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #118 A-THIRD READING FILE - SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/11/2026 - Assembly Third Reading
Position: Neutral
Notes1:
4/21/25: DC tagged as support. 4/21/25: CPPG sent draft letter to the City for review. 5/5/25: CS
testified in support in Senate Appropriations. 5.12.25 CPPG submitted letter. 5.15.25 CPPG sent
letter to delegation. 7/3/25: DC submitted to Asm Trans. 6/15/26: Bill gut and amended; EN
removed position. 6/22/26: EN sent draft oppose letter to the City for review. EN received final
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 72 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 58
letter, tagged as oppose, submitted to portal, and sent to delegation. 6/25/26: City moved to
neutral after amendments. Letter was submitted to portal, Dan Chia from Asm. Transportation, and
delegation.
SB 909 (Smallwood-Cuevas) Public works. (Amended 05/14/2026)
Existing law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages be paid to workers employed on public works and imposes misdemeanor penalties for a
willful violation of this requirement. Existing law defines “public works” for the purposes of
regulating public contracts as, among other things, construction, alteration, demolition,
installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for, in whole or in part, out of public funds.
Existing law generally requires a contractor or subcontractor to be registered with the Department
of Industrial Relations to be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or engage in the
performance of any public work contract. Existing law requires a contractor or subcontractor to
meet specific conditions to qualify for this registration, including that a contractor or subcontractor
pay an initial application fee and an annual renewal fee set by the Director of Industrial Relations.
Existing law authorizes the department to establish and adjust annual registration and renewal fees
up to $800 by publishing the fees on the department’s internet website. This bill would increase the
fee limit to $1,000. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 05/14/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Assembly Appr. Suspense File
SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways. (Amended
06/17/2026)
Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the
privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for an extralegal load unless the
local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1, 1989. This bill would expressly limit this
prohibition to charges based on weight. The bill would also explicitly state that a fee, charge,
surcharge, or component thereof imposed upon the provider of, or ratepayer for, public services by
or for a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs
associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to provide those public services is not a
tax, permit fee, or other charge that is prohibited by the provision described above. The bill would
provide that nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting this
fee, charge, or surcharge. The bill would delete obsolete references and make other technical
changes. The bill would make various findings and declarations. (Based on 06/17/2026 text)
Location: 05/26/2026 - Assembly Local Government
Notes1:
Cal Cities sponsored bill.
SB 1087 (Cabaldon) Transportation planning: sustainable communities strategies:
transportation funding programs. (Amended 06/25/2026)
Existing law requires certain transportation planning agencies to prepare and adopt regional
transportation plans directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation
system. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, a
sustainable communities strategy prepared by a metropolitan planning organization, an action
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 73 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 59
element, and a financial element, as provided. Existing law requires those transportation planning
agencies to adopt and submit every 4 years, except as provided, an updated regional
transportation plan to the California Transportation Commission and the Department of
Transportation. Existing law requires a sustainable communities strategy to achieve regional
targets set by the State Air Resources Board for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
the automobile and light truck sector in the region for 2020 and 2035, respectively, and requires the
state board to update those targets every 8 years, consistent with each metropolitan planning
organization’s timeframe for updating its regional transportation plan, as specified. Existing law
establishes certain procedural requirements for setting and updating those targets and authorizes
the state board to revise the targets every 4 years based on changes in specified factors. This bill
would instead require, commencing with the first or 2nd regional transportation plan prepared on
or after January 1, 2027, as determined by the applicable metropolitan planning organization, the
regional transportation plan to include an 8-year sustainable communities strategy prepared by the
metropolitan planning organization. Four years after the adoption of a sustainable communities
strategy, the bill would require the metropolitan planning organization to prepare a sustainable
communities strategy implementation progress report containing specified information, post the
report on its internet website, and submit the report to the Strategic Growth Council. The bill would
require the Strategic Growth Council to review the report at a public hearing. This bill contains
other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 06/25/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
SB 1167 (Blakespear) Vehicles: electric bicycles. (Amended 07/01/2026)
Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an
electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power. Existing law classifies electric bicycles into
3 classes with different restrictions for various purposes, and requires, among other things, a class
3 electric bicycle to be equipped with a speedometer. Existing law prohibits certain vehicles that do
not meet the definition of an electric bicycle from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled
as an electric bicycle, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would amend
the type of vehicles that are prohibited from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as
electric bicycles, including, among others, motor-driven cycles and mopeds. By expanding the
application of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 07/01/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Position: Support
Notes1:
3/22/26: SG sent draft support letter to the City for review. 3/26/26: KB added support. Still awaiting
letter. 04/01/26: KB submitted letter of support to delegation and Sen Transportation Committee.
04/07/26: KR testified at Senate Transportation Committee. 4/16/26: KB submitted letter of support
to portal. (Senate Transportation Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senate
Natural Resources and Water Committee) 6/23/26: KB submitted letter to portal.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 74 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 60
SB 1324 (Blakespear) Passenger and freight rail: LOSSAN Rail Corridor: working group report.
(Amended 03/23/2026)
Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation in the Transportation Agency. Existing
law authorizes the department, subject to approval of the Secretary of Transportation, to enter into
an interagency transfer agreement under which a joint powers board assumes responsibility for
administering state-funded intercity rail service in certain rail corridors, including the LOSSAN Rail
Corridor. Existing law defines the LOSSAN Rail Corridor as the intercity passenger rail corridor
between San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo. Pursuant to this authority, the department
entered into an interagency transfer agreement with the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency to
administer intercity passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. Existing law requires the
Secretary of Transportation to convene a working group composed of representatives of certain
types of entities, including, among others, representatives from county transportation
commissions and metropolitan planning organizations from specified counties. Existing law
requires the working group to submit consensus recommendations and feedback in a report to the
Legislature on or before February 1, 2026, on various topics relating to rail service in the LOSSAN
Rail Corridor. This bill would instead require the working group to submit this report to the
Legislature on or before February 1, 2027. By extending the duties of representatives of local
agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other existing
laws. (Based on 03/23/2026 text)
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Water and Wastewater
AB 2180 (Ward) Local government: Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act: proportional
cost of service. (Amended 05/22/2026)
The California Constitution specifies various requirements with respect to the levying of
assessments and property-related fees and charges by a local agency. As part of those
requirements, the California Constitution mandates that such fees or charges that are extended,
imposed, or increased satisfy certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the amount
of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership not
exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Existing law, known as the
Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (act), prescribes specific procedures and
parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with these requirements and, among other things,
authorizes an agency providing water, wastewater, sewer, or refuse collection services to adopt a
schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in
wholesale charges for water, sewage treatment, or wastewater treatment or adjustments for
inflation under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize a local government to demonstrate
the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel by any method that reasonably
allocates the ascertainable cost of providing service to all parcels, if substantiated as provided.
The bill would, however, provide that for water or sewer service fee or charge impositions, a local
government is not required to provide an exact measure of the cost of the service at each parcel
and may instead impose uniform or tiered rates to parcel or customer classes that are defined
based on common characteristics indicative of likely water or sewer use. The bill would provide
that the proportional cost of service within each tier of water service may be substantiated by using
any reasonable basis for allocating costs attributed to the tier, as described, and would provide a
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 75 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 61
local government discretion to determine the costs allocated to each tier as long as the rate for
each tier does not exceed the proportional cost of service reasonably allocated to parcels subject
to that tier. The bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to fees for water connections or
sewer connections, or capacity charges, as specified. (Based on 05/22/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #111 S-ASSEMBLY BILLS - THIRD READING FILE (Floor Mgr.- Arreguín)
Location: 06/11/2026 - Senate Third Reading
AB 2469 (Papan) Data centers: water use disclosures. (Amended 06/15/2026)
The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt
ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between
industry, businesses, residences, and open space, as specified. This bill would prohibit a city,
county, or city and county from approving a discretionary or ministerial permit or other entitlement
that would result in the construction, or an expansion that increases the maximum peak water use,
of a data center unless specified conditions are satisfied, including, among others, that the
applicant provides the city, county, or city and a county prescribed information. The bill would
include in this prescribed information a water scarcity plan, a water supply assessment, and a
water use assessment, each as provided. The bill would also include in the specified conditions
that the applicant assumes responsibility for the full cost of any required water conveyance,
treatment or storage, or distribution infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the project,
as determined by the Department of Water Resources or the applicable water supplier. By
expanding the duties of local agencies to administer these provisions, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing
laws. (Based on 06/15/2026 text)
Location: 07/01/2026 - Senate Appropriations
SB 1085 (Durazo) Water supply planning: housing developments. (Amended 06/17/2026)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to be
responsible for determining whether a project is exempt from CEQA and whether an environmental
impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required. Existing law
requires a city or county that determines a certain type of project is subject to the requirements of
CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request
those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment, as provided. This bill,
among other things, would instead require a city or county, upon receipt of a preliminary
application for a housing development project that meets certain conditions, or upon a
development application for certain projects being determined as complete or deemed complete,
to make that identification of public water systems. The bill would require a city or county, within
15 days of receiving an application that meets either of the above-mentioned criteria, to request
each identified public water system to determine whether the projected water demand associated
with the proposed project was included in the most recently adopted urban water management
plan. By imposing additional duties on a city or county, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/17/2026 text)
Location: 06/16/2026 - Assembly Local Government
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 76 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 62
Position: Oppose
Notes1:
6/9/26: City Council approved oppose position. 6/30/26: KB followed up with the City on the draft
letter.
Wildfire
AB 1642 (Harabedian) Wildfires: contamination standards. (Amended 06/22/2026)
Existing law establishes the Office of the State Fire Marshal in the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection and establishes the Deputy Director of Community Wildfire Preparedness and
Mitigation within the office. Existing law makes the deputy director responsible for fire
preparedness and mitigation missions of the department, as provided. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control regulates the handling and management of hazardous waste and hazardous
materials. This bill would establish a nonrebuttable presumption that a home, school, workplace,
or other structure is safe for human occupancy after a wildfire only if the levels of lead and TEM-
identified asbestos on an indoor surface meet specified conditions, as provided. The bill would
require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt, no later than July 1, 2027,
emergency regulations specifying the science-informed, health-based standards for investigation,
environmental testing, and clearance, to guide the removal of lead and asbestos inside and outside
of homes, schools, workplaces, and other structures in residential areas after a wildfire, as
provided. The bill would also require the department, in consultation with the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, to adopt regulations by July 1, 2028, specifying science-
informed, health-based standards for hazardous chemicals following a wildfire, and would require
those standards to be established at chemical levels to ensure safe reoccupancy and prevent new
cancer cases attributable to such fires, as provided. The bill would define terms for purposes of
these provisions, including “downward ash zone” and would require the department to determine
the downwind ash zone for each WUI fire using methodologies and data sources from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as provided. (Based on 06/22/2026 text)
Location: 06/10/2026 - Senate Environmental Quality
SB 1370 (Stern) Covered wildfire mitigation projects: consolidated and expedited review.
(Amended 06/11/2026)
Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, which is known as and may be referred to as CAL-FIRE. Existing law establishes in CAL-
FIRE the Office of the State Fire Marshal and requires that office to establish the Community
Wildfire Mitigation Assistance Program to coordinate regional and local efforts with state policies,
strategies, and programs for community wildfire mitigation in order to improve wildfire
preparedness and prevention, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable communities. This bill
would require that, notwithstanding any other law, any state-level environmental and resource
permits, approvals, consultations, and reviews required for a covered wildfire mitigation project, as
defined, be consolidated into a single coordinated review administered jointly by the consolidated
review agencies, defined as the Natural Resources Agency and the California Environmental
Protection Agency. The bill would require an applicant seeking authorization to undertake a
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 77 of 129
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 63
covered wildfire mitigation project to submit a single, consolidated application package to the
consolidated review agencies. The bill would require the consolidated review agencies to establish
timelines to complete their review and issue a determination on a complete application. The bill
would require the project to be approved within 60 calendar days of receipt, as provided, and
would authorize the applicant and the consolidated review agencies to agree to extend these
timelines if both parties agree more information is required. The bill would require the
determination to be in writing and to include specified information, including, among other things,
a description of the project and a list of permits, agreements, or authorizations covered by the
authorization. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based
on 06/11/2026 text)
Calendar: 07/02/26 #35 A-SECOND READING FILE -- SENATE BILLS
Location: 06/29/2026 - Assembly Appropriations
Notes1:
Supported by Cal Cities.
Total Measures: 114
Total Tracking Forms: 114
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 78 of 129
From:Kris Wright
To:Melanie Burkholder; Teresa Acosta; Jason Haber; KEITH BLACKBURN
Subject:ELUA letter of opposition for AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) to the Senate Local Government Committee
Date:Sunday, June 28, 2026 11:08:24 PM
Attachments:AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) 28-June 2026-Opposition.pdf
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to inform you that a call to action to oppose AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) hasoccurred among many state groups and individuals who are in favor of local control. This bill is one of many that would deeply affect our beloved City of Carlsbad andstrap it with even more unfunded mandates if passed.
I have been involved (as most of you know as a board member of ELUA) inevaluating State Housing bills that are opposed to Local Control and our statewideresearch group (from San Diego to San Francisco) meets once a week to update billsthat have been amended. Some of them have been gutted and have changedcompletely.
The cities of Newport Beach, Paramount, Murieta, Cupertino, Hemet, and othersincluding Cal Cities have written letters in opposition of AB 1751, and I am aware thatour City has formally opposed AB 1751 via the Legislative Subcommittee. I amthankful every day for the work of Councilmembers Acosta and Burkholder on thisSubcommittee and that the City has addressed Local control beyond our city limits.
I've attached our letter which may be of interest to all of you.
For your information,Regards,Kris-- Kris Wrightkriswrt222@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Exhibit 4
AMENDED 07-02-2026
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 79 of 129
Equitable Land Use Alliance (elua.us)
300 Carlsbad Village Dr, PMB 108A-79
Carlsbad, CA 92008
June 28. 2026
Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Chair
Senate Local Government Committee
The California State Capitol
1021 O Street, Room 407
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1751 (Quirk Silva) - Oppose
Dear Chair Durazo and Committee Members:
We respectfully urge you to Oppose AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva). Many current bills and laws address
the lack of housing affordability for the citizens of California by focusing on the low income
population. Typically what is being built are very small units that really don't address the typical
family with median incomes. Housing prices have escalated due to many factors: real estate
investors and speculators, the cost of labor and materials, and, in some cases, profiteering.
Thus, median income families, which includes teachers, safety professionals, labor and
healthcare workers and their families, to name a few, are unable to afford a family home.
The Starter Home Revitalization Act (SHRA) AB 803 and its amendments SB 684 and, most
recently, SB 1123 (Caballero), which took effect January 1, 2026, have attempted to streamline
the process to create more homes for families. Within these guidelines (laws) the subdivision of
a single parcel must follow the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, building and city
planning codes. These combined laws permit no more than 10 housing units and 10 parcels per
lot.
In addition, the residential units cannot exceed an average of 1750 sq ft, as defined by SB 1123.
Within multifamily zoned parcels, in general the newly created parcels must be at least 600 sq
ft, and single family parcels must be vacant (no permanent structure, unless abandoned and
uninhabitable).
We object to AB 1751 for many reasons. First, this bill reduces minimum lot sizes to 600 sq ft
from a 1200 sq ft minimum, thus allowing “as many units as you can fit” on an underutilized
single family parcel. This places a burden on not only infrastructure but fire access.
Second, SB 1123 (Caballero) has not been allowed to really take effect. Legislators should
postpone enacting newer bills aimed at further restriction of lot sizes to measure how our
current laws affect local governments and neighborhoods.
Equitable Land Use Alliance is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(4) nonprofit group based in Carlsbad, CA. We are
dedicated to educating, engaging, and empowering residents to take part in housing policy decisions. Our
mission is to support community self-determination and encourage thoughtful, sustainable development.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 80 of 129
Third, AB 1751 will crowd out the more reasonable SHRA homes that can actually incorporate
families.
Fourth, AB 1751 goes beyond streamlining by removing essential planning tools that consider
public liabilities for communities having high wildfire risk, flood zones, evacuation limitations and
environmental sensitivities. Although different from “By Right” and “Builder’s Remedy”
terminology, ministerial approval not only disallows public input (from community experts) but
relies on only one individual or small group within the City to qualify a development project.
Please consider allowing the current Housing laws (AB 803, SB 684 and SB 1121) to fully take
effect before introducing another bill that further undermines local governments. Our cities need
cooperation and teamwork WITH the state, not adversarial threats with no compromise.
AB 1751 also disenfranchises residents who work hard and have pride in their communities.
The State, local governments and residents need to work together to build sustainable and
affordable housing for ALL residents and to discourage predatory investors and developers who
leave cities to pay for infrastructure via unfunded mandates while gaining huge profits, leaving
architecturally decrepit buildings and slums. Current residents lose pride in their cities without
the ability for input in their own communities and will be strapped with likely future taxes that
they cannot afford due to the loss of city services. Without input from all of the above, (the State
of California, local governments, residents and even developers), successful and sustainable
cities and growth just cannot happen.
Thank you in advance for your NO vote on AB 1751,
Sincerely,
Kristine Wright
Board Member
ELUA
Equitable Land Use Alliance 2
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 81 of 129
From:Jason HaberTo:Liana Somepalli; Morgen Fry; Faviola Medina; Cindie McMahonSubject:FW: SB 569 letter from City of CarlsbadDate:Thursday, July 2, 2026 12:05:55 PMAttachments:ELUA-SB-569-letter-to-Assembly-Transportation-Committee.pdf
Please see correspondence received for the 7/7 Legislative Subcommittee meeting (Agenda Item 3)- attached and below.Thank you-__Jason HaberIntergovernmental Affairs Director
442-339-2958 | Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.govwww.carlsbadca.gov Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Flickr | Pinterest | Enews From: Diane Bedrosian <drdianeb@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 3:38 PMTo: Jason Haber <jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov>Cc: Kris Wright <kriswrt222@gmail.com>; Steve Linke <splinke@gmail.com>Subject: SB 569 letter from City of Carlsbad Hi Jason -CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA) had sent a letter of opposition to the state legislature, opposing SB 569. We had also requested that the Legislative Subcommittee review this bill at their next meeting. This bill is a “gut and amend” and it was initially about homeless encampments in 2025. City of Carlsbad (and many other cities, along with League of CA Cities)supported it then. But Blakespear did a “gut and amend” just a few weeks ago, and now the bill is instead titled “Bikeways: reversions and modifications”. We strongly oppose this bill.
The state’s websites are difficult to navigate, but when I looked at Digital Democracy, it shows that City of Carlsbad sent in a letter of support. It has the date of support as 6/26/2026. Did the City of Carlsbad send in a new letter, supporting this bill? If not, then Digital Democracy is incorrect. When I did a search, the only document I could find, from the City of Carlsbad, insupport of this bill, was dated 5/9/2025.
Can you please clarify if Carlsbad did send in a new letter as of 6/26/2026, or is the information on the Digital Democracy website incorrect? And will this bill be discussed at next week’s LS meeting?
ELUA strongly encourages a letter of opposition to this bill.
Thanks —
Diane BedrosianBoard Member
Equitable Land Use Alliance
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 82 of 129
Equitable Land Use Alliance
300 Carlsbad Village Dr, PMB 108A-79
June 15, 2026
Assembly Transportation Committee
1020 N Street, Suite 112
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB-569 (Blakespear) - Oppose
Chair Wilson and Members:
While presumably well-intentioned, this bill would actually endanger many cyclists and be an
inappropriate overreach of the state into the affairs of all local agencies over a subject that is not
a matter of statewide concern. Bikeway design and modification should be left to local
professionals based on policies established by the elected officials who are familiar with the
specific streets and local context.
Not a matter of statewide concern
There is no evidence that there is a statewide emergency arising from local agencies removing
or reducing physical bikeway separations. The bill author’s Fact Sheet claims that cities like her
hometown of Encinitas are planning to replace Class IV bikeways with Class II bike lanes for
anti-cycling reasons, but the reality is that they are doing this to protect cyclists. In many
contexts, buffered Class II bike lanes are far safer than Class IV bikeways, the latter of which
introduce physical crash hazards and can reduce awareness/visibility between cyclists and
motorists.
Real-world problems with physical separators
Class IV bikeways are not well-defined, and many designs are poor, such as being too narrow
due to lack of right-of-way or having the physical separation too close to intersections and/or
reducing visibility between cyclists and motorists. Many suffer from dangerous accumulation of
debris due to cleaning challenges based on reduced access by standard street sweepers.
Since their installation a few years ago, while the bill’s author was mayor of Encinitas, the
physical separators (i.e., plastic bollards, curb stops, parked vehicles, etc.) on several Class IV
bikeways in Encinitas have been the proximate cause of multiple fatalities and numerous severe
injuries—either due to cyclists directly crashing into the separators or to right-hook type crashes
with vehicles arising from reduced awareness of each other.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 83 of 129
Equitable Land Use Alliance 2
Similar fatalities and injuries have occurred in neighboring jurisdictions and around the country
in poorly conceived and/or poorly constructed Class IV bicycle facilities. For example, see the
attached before-after study on the Class IV bikeway installed on South Coast Highway in
Encinitas, which suffered a substantial increase in crashes and injury severity after installation
due to cyclists crashing into the separators.
The physical separators (plastic bollards) on another Encinitas street were cited in a lawsuit
against the city as the key cause of a fatal right-hook crash at an intersection. The city
subsequently paid a large settlement and removed segments of the bollards adjacent to
intersections to allow vehicles to more safely merge before turning. This bill would effectively
prohibit such safety improvements once physical separators are installed.
The neighboring community of Vista also installed Class IV physical separators on various
streets but later realized that they were interfering with the ability of buses to operate and trash
collection to occur (In addition to safety concerns similar to Encinitas). So, they ended up
removing physical separators from significant portions of multiple segments. This bill effectively
would have prohibited that.
Onerous requirements to allow removal of dangerous separators
The provisions in the bill would make it impossible to remove or reduce the physical separators
from a bikeway—or even on any “segment” of such a bikeway—regardless of local evidence
that the bikeway is creating safety or other problems like those described above. Instead, the bill
requires three findings to justify any removal: (1) “…postremoval corridor design is not predicted
to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of crashes,” (2) “…the removal does not
result in a net reduction in bicycle network connectivity at Level of Stress 2 or below,” and (3)
“alternative routes…do not present materially greater crash risk or traffic stress than the
bikeway or segment being removed…”
Predicted frequency/severity of crashes requirement
With regard to the requirement of showing no increase in the predicted frequency or severity of
crashes, this type of analysis is typically done by citing studies published on the Federal
Highway Administration’s Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse website. The bill
author’s Fact Sheet cites such a study (Dixon et al.), which claims a greater than 50% reduction
in crashes after physical separators (plastic bollards) are installed. However, that study is highly
flawed.
For example, Dixon et al. acknowledged that they had to remove from their analysis all crashes
with vehicles that occurred within 250 feet of intersections in order to make their crash reduction
predictions reach statistical significance. In addition, the study did not include any bicycle
crashes with the physical separators themselves or other fixed objects, debris, other bicyclists,
pedestrians, and related hazards. However, intersection crashes with vehicles (right-hooks) and
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 84 of 129
Equitable Land Use Alliance 3
crashes with non-vehicle objects are the exact types of crashes that are causing the fatalities
and other injuries in the Class IV facilities.
In addition, the very limited conclusion by Dixon et al. that physical separators reduced mid-
block crashes with vehicles really only worked in one of the several cities that were studied (San
Francisco). Every city (in fact, every individual street) has unique conditions (e.g., intersection
density) that can affect the performance of bikeways, and every bikeway has different designs
and constraints. Yet, some national organizations are now dangerously claiming that bikeways
with physical separators like bollards are appropriate in every context. Do not fall into this group-
think.
Some studies on the alleged safety of "separated bikeways" conflate bikeways that are
completely separated from streets (Class I), which have few or no intersections (the most
dangerous areas for crashes), with Class IV bikeways with plastic bollards. This also distorts the
alleged safety claims of Class IV facilities. For more details on the messy state of research into
the alleged safety of these facility types, see the attached “white paper” critiquing the Dixon et
al. and related studies.
Note also that there are thousands of CMF studies in the Clearinghouse, some of which are
completely contradictory to each other, so you can often get whatever result you want by citing
a different study. However, in general, the bill’s effective requirement to replace a Class IV
bikeway with something else that has a crash reduction of at least 50% (based on flawed
predictive research) would make it impossible to justify removing any physical separator. This
type of requirement has no business being in a state law.
Level of Stress requirement
With regard to the additional requirement that the Level of Stress be “2” or below, firstly, there
are many different algorithms to calculate Level of Stress, none of which has undergone
rigorous validation, so this also has no business being in a state law. Secondly, in order to
achieve a Level of Stress 2 or below, generally any bikeway on a street with a speed limit
greater than 30 mph would need to have physical separation, so there is typically going to be no
way to meet this requirement either.
Impossible requirements
In other words, both the predicted crash/injury severity and Level of Stress tests would make it
virtually impossible to ever remove any physical separator once installed, no matter how poorly
designed. Even in cases where actual fatalities and injuries are demonstrated to be the result of
a Class IV facility, the bill would make it impossible to remove any part of it, because the
requirements are based on studies from other cities that predict what should happen—not
based on real-world local experience or data. Local engineers familiar with their local streets
and local crash data should be allowed to use their professional experience with policy guidance
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 85 of 129
Equitable Land Use Alliance 4
from elected officials to manage bikeways—not one-size-fits-all mandates from the state
legislature.
Disincentive to keep existing, or create new, bikeways with physical separators
Given the effect of making any physical separators an irreversible decision, despite any
unintended consequences, this bill could trigger cities to quickly remove any questionable
bikeways before the law goes into effect and to resist creation of any new such bikeways after
the law goes into effect.
PLEASE VOTE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.
Sincerely,
Equitable Land Use Alliance Board of Directors
Steve Linke, PhD
Kris Wright
Diane Bedrosian, MD
Attachments:
“Case report showing elevated bicycle crashes and injuries in a separated bikeway in Encinitas,
California,” Steven P. Linke, PhD, Ron Medak, MD, and Serge Issakov
“Unproven separated bicycle lane safety: Overreaching conclusions and marketing by
transportation agencies,” Steven P. Linke, PhD
Equitable Land Use Alliance is a nonpartisan nonprofit group based in Carlsbad, CA. We are dedicated to
educating, engaging, and empowering residents to take part in housing policy decisions. Our mission is to
support community self-determination and encourage thoughtful, sustainable development.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 86 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
1
Case report showing elevated bicycle crashes and injuries in a separated
bikeway in Encinitas, California
Steven P. Linke, PhD (splinke.traffic@gmail.com), Ron Medak, MD, and Serge Issakov
ABSTRACT
There is substan�al inconclusive and contradictory informa�on published on the alleged safety of
separated bikeways. This report is an inves�ga�on of crashes on a South Coast Highway 101 corridor in
the southern part of Encinitas, California. A “before-a�er” analysis of police report and emergency
medical services data showed that crashes increased by 59% a�er conversion of a por�on of the
roadway to a separated bikeway configura�on, seemingly due mainly to the ver�cal components and
reduced space to maneuver. In contrast, no meaningful change in crash numbers occurred in an adjacent
control corridor during the same �me periods. Although no bicycle counts were collected by the city to
assess crash rates, data from adjacent areas indicated that the increased crashes were largely not
atributable to increased volumes. Addi�onal crash data collected using crowdsourcing during the
“a�er” �me period further highlighted separated bikeway hazards. The combined police report,
emergency medical services, and crowdsourced crash data included a fatality and numerous severe
injuries atributable to the separated bikeway infrastructure. In addi�on, the crash data showed that
reliance on police report data alone is likely to miss a majority of crashes, par�cularly in separated
bikeways. Although this report addresses only one separated bikeway and control corridor, when
considered in combina�on with other published observa�ons, it raises serious concerns about the actual
safety of separated bikeways.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past couple of decades, there has been an accelera�ng movement in transporta�on planning to
separate bicyclists from motorists by crea�ng bikeways with ver�cal components, such as flexible post
delineators, wheel stops, curbs/medians, parked cars, etc. In California, these are legally called “Class IV
separated bikeways,” but they also are known as “separated bicycle lanes,” “cycle tracks,” or “protected
bicycle lanes.” The ra�onale is that they may increase ridership due to an increased percep�on of safety,
and that they also may increase actual safety.1
Based largely on a 2023 self-published report,2,3 the Federal Highway Administra�on (FHWA) is now
claiming that such separated bikeways are established as “proven safety countermeasures” that “reduce
crashes by up to 53%.”4,5 In addi�on, the Na�onal Associa�on of City Transporta�on Officials (NACTO) is
now claiming that separated bikeways are “appropriate for all streets in all contexts.”6 However, there is
substan�al countervailing evidence that crashes are likely to increase with vehicles at intersec�ons on
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 87 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
2
separated bikeway corridors and with fixed objects, debris, other bicyclists, pedestrians, etc. throughout
such corridors, which could lead to net increases in crashes and injury severity.7
The 2023 FHWA report and other studies repor�ng separated bikeway safety tend to exhibit remarkable
limita�ons, including weak study designs, small sample sizes/lack of sta�s�cal significance, unreliable
bicycle counts, insufficient accoun�ng for confounding variables, exclusion of a majority of crashes (e.g.,
those that occur at and around intersec�ons and those not involving moving motor vehicles), etc. The
findings have been largely inconclusive or contradictory between studies.7
Over the past few years in the north coastal region of San Diego County, California, there have been at
least three widely reported fatal crashes in separated bikeways, and evidence indicates that the
separated bikeway components themselves (plas�c post delineators and wheel stops) were primary
causes.
1. On November 28, 2020, a bicyclist was killed in the westbound separated bikeway on Leucadia
Boulevard at Moonstone Court in Encinitas, when he struck the side of a right-turning truck
(right hook crash).8 The City of Encinitas eventually removed some of the plas�c posts in the area
and setled a lawsuit that alleged9:
[These] dangerous condi�ons created a trap that a reasonably careful person would not
no�ce or an�cipate as being dangerous, since the lack of dashed lines, and presence of
bollards/stanchions created a false sense of safety while opera�ng a bicycle in the
bikeway while at the same �me, depriving automobiles adequate opportunity to merge
into the bikeway to turn right onto Moonstone Court.
2. On March 17, 2024, a bicyclist was killed in the northbound separated bikeway near the 2800
block of South Coast Highway 101 in Encinitas.10,11 Official police records indicate that there was
no vehicle involvement, but that the bicyclist had collided with a fixed object (California Crash
Repor�ng System12 Collision ID 4622805). Images of the crash site show that it was adjacent to
plas�c post delineators and wheel stops.
3. On October 12, 2024, a bicyclist was killed in the northbound separated bikeway near the 1900
block of Jimmy Durante Parkway in Del Mar.13,14 The City of Del Mar eventually removed some of
the plas�c posts in the area, presumably because they were suspected of causing the crash.
Just since 2024, there have been several other reports of bicyclist fatali�es and severe injuries in
separated bikeways across North America, for example, two fatali�es in Cambridge, Massachusets,15 a
life-altering trauma�c brain injury in Seatle, Washington,16 and a hospitaliza�on in Montreal, Canada.17
In each of these cases, the ver�cal components (plas�c posts, curbs, and/or parked vehicles) appear to
have contributed to the vehicle drivers (typically in larger SUVs or trucks) being unaware of the bicyclists
traveling in the same direc�on (blind spot), and to the bicyclists being unaware that the right turns were
happening un�l it was too late—virtually iden�cal to the “right hook crash” on Leucadia Boulevard in
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 88 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
3
Encinitas. The Seatle crash also led to a lawsuit against the city for the dangerous separated bikeway
design,16 and the legal status is unknown in the other ci�es.
In the South Coast Highway 101 bikeway, along with the fatality described above, bicyclists have been
repor�ng many other crashes, which were either directly or indirectly caused by the ver�cal
components, and several have resulted in serious injuries. The intent of this case report is to assess the
crash history of this bikeway.
RESULTS
Street corridors
The “separated bikeway corridor,” which is the subject of this report is the approximately 1.3-mile
por�on of South Coast Highway 101 stretching from the southern city limit of Encinitas (at its border
with Solana Beach) up to and including the Chesterfield Drive intersec�on (Figure 1, orange line). The
ver�cal components include plas�c delineator posts and wheel stops. In addi�on, an approximately 1.4-
mile “control corridor” includes the por�on of South Coast Highway immediately north of the separated
bikeway corridor, stretching from north of Chesterfield Drive up to and including the K Street intersec�on
(Figure 1, yellow line).
Figure 1. Study corridors: Separated Bikeway Corridor (orange) and Control Corridor (yellow).
Official crash data
Official crash data were first collected from the online California Highway Patrol’s “California Crash
Repor�ng System” (CCRS) database, which compiles local police reports.12 However, it is well-known that
this under-reports bicycle crashes, par�cularly those that do not involve motor vehicles and/or that
occur off-roadway (separated bikeways are legally off-roadway).7 Therefore, addi�onal official crash data
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 89 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
4
were obtained from the Encinitas Fire & Marine Safety Department’s emergency medical service (EMS)
dispatch logs.
All crash data were filtered for loca�on on the corridors and to include only bicycle-involved incidents.
Some crashes were only present in the CCRS database, some were only present in the EMS database,
and some appeared in both. Table 1 demonstrates this in a subset of the analyzed crashes that occurred
in 2021 through 2022.
Table 1. Official crash data sample (2021 through 2022).
Longitudinal (before-a�er) approach
The wheel stops crea�ng the separated bikeway were installed by April 2020, and CCRS data was
available through December 2024. Therefore, equal 57-month analysis periods before (July 2015 through
March 2020) and a�er (April 2020 through December 2024) conversion to the separated bikeway were
compared. This “longitudinal” approach (crashes before and a�er on the same roadway) minimizes
contamina�on with poten�ally confounding variables rela�ve to a “cross-sec�onal” approach (crashes
on different roadways compared during the same �me period). Confounding variables in this context are
differences in roadways other than the bikeway separa�on that could contribute to crashes.
Large increase in crashes a�er separated bikeway conversion
Table 2 shows the “before” and “a�er” bicycle-involved crash numbers for both the separated bikeway
and control corridors. When only the police report-based crashes (CCRS database) are considered for the
separated bikeway corridor, there were only 7 crashes before conversion and 10 crashes a�er (litle
meaningful difference). However, the EMS dispatch logs add an addi�onal 27 crashes that did not
generate police reports. In total, there were 17 crashes in the separated bikeway corridor reported in
these official records before conversion, and 27 a�er conversion, represen�ng a 59% increase.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 90 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
5
In contrast, the control segment had 14 total crashes before and 13 a�er (no meaningful difference).
Unfortunately, the City of Encinitas did not collect any bicycle counts in these corridors either before or
a�er conversion of the bikeway. Therefore, it is impossible to compare crash “rates” that could have
accounted for possible changes in volume. However, the inclusion of the control corridor data helps
control for bicycle volumes and other factors that may have changed between the “before” and “a�er”
�me periods.
Table 2. Crash numbers before and a�er separated bikeway conversion. The numbers are split into
crashes that appeared only in the CCRS database, only in the EMS dispatch logs, or both.
EMS data demonstrates significant under-repor�ng of bicycle crashes in police reports
It is remarkable that 63% (45 of 72) of the total crashes in both corridors were recorded only in the EMS
dispatch logs—no police reports generated for them to appear in the CCRS database, despite the fact
that the injuries were severe enough to call for emergency assistance.
Bicycle volume data
Although the City of Encinitas has collected no bicycle counts in the separated bikeway corridor itself, the
San Diego County Associa�on of Governments (SANDAG) has a con�nuous automated bicycle counter
located in Solana Beach at the intersec�on of South Coast Highway 101 and Lomas Santa Fe Drive (about
0.7 miles south of the separated bikeway).
Apart from a modest temporary increase in 2020 during the pandemic, bicycle counts remained
rela�vely stable on South Coast Highway 101 over the course of the analysis period (Figure 2).
Cumula�ve bicycle traffic was about 7% higher in the a�er period rela�ve to the before period at the
SANDAG counter, which would not account for the 59% increase in crashes in the separated bikeway
corridor.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 91 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
6
Figure 2. Average daily bicycle counts: Counts obtained from the SANDAG “Coast Highway & Coastal Rail
Trail” con�nuous bicycle counter.
Exploratory analysis of crowdsourced crash data (101 Crash List)
Since conversion of the South Coast Highway 101 corridor to a separated bikeway, Serge Issakov has
maintained a “crowdsourced” crash list (101 Crash List) compiled from reports from vic�ms, family
members or friends of the vic�ms, or eyewitnesses.18 From April 2020 through May 2025, there were 37
crashes added to the list, 10 of which also appeared in the CCRS database and/or EMS dispatch logs.
Table 3 includes a sampling of the crashes from 2021 through 2022 side-by-side with the CCRS and EMS
crashes, giving credence to the crowdsourcing approach.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 92 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
7
Table 3. Crowdsourced “101 Crash List” sample (2021 through 2022).
101 Crash List crashes directly atributable to the bikeway
Through review of the 101 Crash List reports, it was determined that a minimum of 19 of the crashes on
the list could be directly atributed to the existence of the ver�cal components of the bikeway (e.g., solo
crashes from directly hi�ng a plas�c post or wheel stop, or as a result of the inability to conduct an
avoidance maneuver). Among these 19 crashes, 16 did not appear in either the CCRS or EMS crash lists,
and 10 of those resulted in visible or worse injuries, further demonstra�ng that even the combined CCRS
and EMS crash data does not fully capture all bicyclist injuries, let alone all bicyclist crashes.
Recent individual case reports (supplemental data)
It is also important to note that the crashes and injuries are happening to both experienced/vehicular
bicyclists, as well as more casual/recrea�onal bicyclists. Below are 8 example individual case reports.
On May 3rd, 2020, two different children under the age of 16 hit wheel stops, and one of them was
thrown into the #2 vehicle lane.
On May 26th, 2020, experienced randonneur “Len” hit a wheel stop trying to avoid surfers and suffered
fractures.
On March 13th, 2025, bicycle commuter “Annie” was forced to ride in the #2 vehicle lane, because there
were pedestrians in the cycle track. She was crowded by a close-passing car and atempted to re-enter
the cycle track, struck a wheel stop, and damaged her bike.
On May 11th, 2025, casual e-bicyclist “Priscilla” lost control in sand, swerved le�, and fell, hi�ng her
head on a wheel stop. She suffered a concussion, mul�ple scrapes, and EMS was dispatched and took
her to the hospital.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 93 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
8
On August 14th, 2023, experienced bicyclist “Fred” collided with a wheel stop, fell, and hit his head.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 94 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
9
On October 5th, 2024, experienced bicyclist “Ken,” ac�ng as sweeper for a local recrea�onal cycle club
ride, hit a plas�c post, crashed, and broke his clavicle and five ribs. He also had a concussion and brain
bleed and was taken to the hospital unconscious.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 95 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
10
On April 29th, 2025, experienced bicyclist “Herb” hit a plas�c post and wheel stop, crashed, and suffered
a concussion. EMS was dispatched and took him to the hospital.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 96 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
11
On March 17, 2024, USMC Captain “Ryan” was killed at the loca�on shown below near the northbound
entrance at the southern city limit.10 The police report determined the cause to be a collision with a fixed
object, presumably a wheel stop, a plas�c post, or the curb.12
DISCUSSION
The primary finding in this report was the 59% increase in crashes in the South Coast Highway 101
separated bikeway corridor in the 57-month period a�er its conversion compared to the 57-month
period before. This longitudinal (before-a�er) approach is superior to a cross-sec�onal approach to
minimize poten�al confounders. Another strength of this report is the inclusion of before-a�er data from
the con�guous, very similar, control corridor.
The main limita�on is the fact that this is a case report of a single separated bikeway corridor, so it is not
possible to make any broad sta�s�cal conclusions, although that was not a goal. Another limita�on is the
fact that the City of Encinitas did not collect any bicycle count (exposure) data to account for possible
changes in ridership. However, the stable bicycle counts observed directly south of the studied bikeway,
as well as the stable crash numbers observed in the control corridor directly north, are strongly
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 97 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
12
indica�ve that bicycle counts did not change considerably in the separated bikeway corridor in the
before vs. a�er �me periods—at least not enough to account for the 59% increase in crashes. In
addi�on, there is substan�al evidence that many of the crashes were directly or indirectly caused by the
ver�cal components themselves, which could not have occurred but for the conversion to a separated
bikeway.
Although the crowdsourced data was not available in the before �me period, and because it could not
be collected in a uniform manner for all crashes, it is considered exploratory. However, the data was
thoroughly documented and corroborated, and it provides valuable, complementary informa�on, as
described below.
A poten�al minor limita�on of this report is the fact that the construc�on of the separated bikeway
occurred over a few months, so a few crashes with ver�cal components occurred before all ver�cal
components had been installed. Also, a two-way cycle track was added to part of the control corridor in
2023, but the main roadway with its standard bicycle lanes, remained in opera�on, and there is not
enough data yet to assess the safety of the cycle track.
This report highlights the fact that police report crash data, while cri�cally important in any crash
report/study, is far from comprehensive. When considered in the context of EMS dispatch logs, the
police report data missed a majority of the crashes (63% of officially reported crashes appeared only in
the EMS data). Even the combina�on of these two official data sources was far from complete, though.
Crashes compiled through crowdsourcing overlapped to an extent with the official sources but also
included many unique crashes, typically solo incidents.
It is not surprising that solo bicycle crashes would not appear in police reports, because police reports
are heavily focused on motor vehicle-involved crashes. However, several of the solo events led to injuries
and did not appear in the EMS logs either. While minor (visible) injuries would not necessarily lead to an
EMS call, some were more severe, but the vic�ms used alterna�ve means to get medical aten�on, so
these injury crashes did not appear in either official source. Researchers in other studies have analyzed
records for emergency department visits and hospitaliza�ons, which could help capture these addi�onal
crashes without relying on crowdsourcing. That was beyond the scope of this report, but studies likely
need to include all of these sources to be comprehensive.
In conclusion, despite substan�al marke�ng on the alleged safety of separated bikeways, there seem to
be many contexts in which their installa�on makes condi�ons more hazardous for bicyclists, as
demonstrated in this report and discussed in detail elsewhere.7 Further, this report confirms the need to
assess crashes more comprehensively to reach safety conclusions. Police report data alone and data that
fails to account for solo bicyclist, off-road, or intersec�on crashes is not sufficient to make defini�ve
conclusions on safety. Future separated bikeway studies should focus on before-a�er results with
accurate and complete bicycle exposure and crash data, and local decision-makers should proceed with
extreme cau�on when considering installa�ons.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 98 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
13
DETAILED METHODS
Street corridor characteris�cs
Separated bikeway corridor. Generally, there are two vehicle drive-lanes going in each direc�on (outside
lane 11 feet wide, inside lane 10 feet wide) with single one-way bikeways on each side (7 feet of rideable
width with 3-foot buffers from vehicles), along with a 5-foot sidewalk on the far west side. In areas with
parking, there is also an 8-foot parking lane on the west side with a 2-foot buffer from the drive lane.
Black wheel stops with white strips and green plas�c delineator posts were installed in the 3-foot bicycle
buffer between about February and May 2020. The wheel stops are generally about 10 feet long with 10-
foot gaps between, and the plas�c delineators are generally installed in every other wheel stop gap.
Prior to conversion, generally, there were 5-foot unbuffered bicycle lanes.
Control corridor. Generally, there are one or two vehicle drive lanes going in each direc�on with 5-foot
unbuffered bicycle lanes. In 2023, a two-way cycle track was installed on the west side, but the main
configura�on remained. Insufficient �me has elapsed to assess its safety impacts.
Intersections. All intersec�ons within the corridors were included, and areas within 250 feet of the
bounding Chesterfield Drive and K Street intersec�ons were included, consistent with industry
standards.
Bicycle counts
Bicycle counts were obtained from the SANDAG Open Data Portal,19 based on an automated in-
pavement Eco Counter Zelt Evo at the “Coast Highway & Coastal Rail Trail” loca�on (near the intersec�on
of Coast Highway and Lomas Santa Fe Drive), about 0.7 miles south of the Cardiff cycle track.
Crash data
California Crash Reporting System (CCRS) database. The most recent ten years of crash records in the
State of California are publicly available from the California Highway Patrol’s California Crash Repor�ng
System (CCRS) through the California Open Data Portal.12 This database was formerly known as the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The years 2015 through 2024 were available for
download at the �me this study was conducted (March 2025), and there are three comma-separated
value (CSV) files for each year that can be linked with a “CollisionId” field common to each file: Crashes
(crash details), Par�es (par�es involved in the crashes), and InjuredWitnessPassengers (numbers and
severi�es of injuries). Note that data from 2023 and 2024 are considered “provisional.”
The Crash files were first filtered for “City Name” = “Encinitas” and combined into one master database
for all years. Second, the database was filtered for all collisions that occurred on Coast Highway 101 as
the “PrimaryRoad” (this was a manual process, because there were several spelling varia�ons. Third, the
specific loca�ons of the collisions along Coast Highway 101 were determined by using the block
numbers, or by using distance (“SecondaryDistance”) and direc�on (“SecondaryDistance”) from the
listed cross-streets (“SecondaryRoad”).
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 99 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
14
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) dispatch logs. EMS dispatch logs, filtered for loca�on and bicycle
involvement, were obtained from the Encinitas Fire & Marine Safety Department for both the main study
area and the control area for 2015 through 2024. Injuries for dispatches that resulted in transport to a
hospital were assumed to be severe, and all others were assumed to be non-severe. Note that one crash
was excluded, because a police report defini�vely established that it was a solo motor vehicle incident.
101 Crash List
The 101 Crash List is crowdsourced in chronological order based on informa�on about crashes provided
to Mr. Issakov by the vic�ms themselves, family members or friends of the vic�ms, or eyewitnesses. The
informa�on was transmited in person; via email, text or phone; or on social media (e.g,, Facebook).
Social media posts that could not be independently corroborated were excluded. Injury severity was
assessed by Dr. Medak based on the accounts as complaint of pain/probable, visible/minor, or
severe/serious.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Steven Linke, PhD (corresponding author is a re�red scien�st and former traffic commissioner for the
City of Carlsbad, California.
Dr. Ron Medak, MD, is a physician and traffic commissioner for the City of Encinitas, California.
Serge Issakov is a lifelong cyclist who has been ac�vely advoca�ng for more and safer cycling for more
than 20 years. He is a board member of the San Diego Bicycle Club, the San Diego County Bicycle
Coali�on and the California Associa�on of Bicycling Organiza�ons. He is also a League (of American
Bicyclists) Cer�fied Instructor, a ride leader, and a former member of the San Diego Mobility Board.
REFERENCES
(1) Winters, M.; Teschke, K. Route Preferences among Adults in the near Market for Bicycling: Findings
of the Cycling in Ci�es Study. Am. J. Health Promot. 2010, 25 (1), 40–47.
htps://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.081006-QUAN-236.
(2) Dixon, K.; Avelar-Moran, R.; Seyedeh, M. M. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Separated
Bicycle Lanes; FHWA-HRT-23-078; Federal Highway Administra�on, 2023.
htps://highways.dot.gov/media/33856 (accessed 2025-06-23).
(3) Federal Highway Administra�on. Office of Research, Development, and Technology. Developing
Crash Modification Factors for Separated Bicycle Lanes TechBrief; 2023.
htps://highways.dot.gov/sites/�wa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf (accessed 2025-06-23).
(4) Federal Highway Administra�on. Proven Safety Countermeasures: Bicycle Lanes; FHWA-SA-21-051;
Federal Highway Administra�on, Office of Safety Research and Development, McLean, Virginia,
2023. htps://highways.dot.gov/media/19726.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 100 of 129
7/17/2025 DRAFT v0.91
15
(5) Federal Highway Administra�on. Facebook: Separated Bike Lanes.
htps://www.facebook.com/FederalHighwayAdmin/posts/conver�ng-a-tradi�onal-bike-lane-to-a-
separated-lane-with-low-cost-flexible-de/842694937893039/ (accessed 2025-07-09).
(6) Na�onal Associa�on of City Transporta�on Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide: Protected Bike
Lanes. htps://nacto.org/latest/urban-bikeway-design-guide-protected-bike-lanes/ (accessed 2025-
06-23).
(7) Linke, S. P. Unproven Separated Bicycle Lane Safety: Overreaching Conclusions and Marketing;
Carlsbad, CA, 2025.
(8) The Coast News Group (staff). Cyclist’s death inspires bike safety advocates in Encinitas.
htps://thecoastnews.com/cyclists-death-inspires-bike-safety-advocates-in-encinitas/ (accessed
2025-07-09).
(9) The Coast News Group (Kaila Mellos). Settlement talks begin in lawsuit over cyclist’s death in
Encinitas. htps://thecoastnews.com/setlement-talks-begin-in-lawsuit-over-cyclists-death-in-
encinitas/ (accessed 2025-07-04).
(10) The Coast News Group (Jordan Ingram). Sheriff IDs cyclist found dead in apparent solo crash in
Encinitas. htps://thecoastnews.com/sheriff-ids-cyclist-found-dead-in-apparent-solo-crash-in-
encinitas/ (accessed 2025-07-09).
(11) NBC 7 San Diego (Omari Fleming). Cycling advocates want changes to protective bike path in North
County. htps://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/protec�ve-bike-path-north-county/3467315/
(accessed 2025-07-09).
(12) California Highway Patrol. California Crash Reporting System (CCRS) - Dataset - California Open Data.
htps://data.ca.gov/dataset/ccrs (accessed 2025-07-09).
(13) San Diego Union Tribune (Rob Nikolewski). Man dies in solo bicycle crash in Del Mar.
htps://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/10/12/man-dies-in-solo-bicycle-crash-in-del-mar/
(accessed 2025-07-09).
(14) Times of San Diego (Jennifer Vigil). Bicyclist Dies in Hospital After Del Mar Crash.
htps://�mesofsandiego.com/crime/2024/10/12/bicyclist-dies-in-hospital-a�er-del-mar-crash/
(accessed 2025-07-09).
(15) Streetsblog Massachusets. Truck Drivers Have Caused Two Deaths In Two Weeks In Cambridge -
Streetsblog Massachusetts. htps://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/06/24/truck-drivers-have-caused-
two-deaths-in-two-weeks-in-cambridge (accessed 2025-07-04).
(16) KOMO News, J. H. Cyclist sues Seattle over bike lane design after brain injury in Green Lake crash.
htps://komonews.com/news/local/cyclist-green-lake-neighborhood-king-county-superior-court-
aviv-litov-26-years-old-bike-lanes-life-altering-injuries-stritmater-firm-configura�on-tesla (accessed
2025-07-05).
(17) CTV News. Cyclist recovering after being run over by semi truck in Old Montreal.
htps://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/ar�cle/cyclist-recovering-a�er-being-run-over-by-semi-truck-in-
old-montreal/ (accessed 2025-07-12).
(18) Issakov, S. Cardiff 101 Crash List - Google Docs. htps://�nyurl.com/cardiff101crashlist (accessed
2025-07-16).
(19) SANDAG. SOC - Bike Counts (SANDAG) 2024 | SANDAG Open Data Portal.
htps://opendata.sandag.org/Transporta�on/SOC-Bike-Counts-SANDAG-2024/fcef-
avc6/data_preview (accessed 2025-07-10).
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 101 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
1
Unproven separated bicycle lane safety:
Overreaching conclusions and marketing by transportation agencies
Steven P. Linke, PhD, Carlsbad, CA (splinke.traffic@gmail.com)
A. Introduction/Purpose
In 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a report on separated bicycle lane (SBL)
safety,1–3 leading to a claim that SBLs are “proven safety countermeasures” that “reduce bicycle/vehicle
crashes by up to 53%” (Figures 1 and 2),4,5 and, as of 2025, the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) is claiming that SBLs are “appropriate for all streets in all contexts.”6
However, closer scrutiny the 2023 FHWA report and previous SBL safety studies reveal that the “up to
53% crash reduction” claim should, at a minimum, be accompanied by the following qualifications and
warnings:
• The claim applies only to crashes with moving vehicles in mid-block locations more than 250
feet away from intersections. Crashes with moving vehicles at and within 250 feet of
intersections had to be excluded from the study in order to make the crash reduction estimate
statistically significant, and other crash types (e.g., those with parked vehicles/fixed objects,
debris, other bicyclists, pedestrians, and related hazards) were not studied.2,7
• Other studies indicate that crashes with moving vehicles at intersections and with parked
vehicles/fixed objects, debris, other bicyclists, pedestrians, and related hazards are likely to
increase in SBL corridors, which could actually lead to net increases in injuries and fatalities in
SBLs.
• The claim was established for SBL designs with flexible post delineators only. Inclusion of other
physical separation (e.g., wheel stops, curbs, or parked cars) degraded safety relative to the
posts alone, and removal of these other physical separations is expected to decrease crashes by
40%.
• The claim may not generalize to cities other than San Francisco, California.
The FHWA and NACTO marketing of the SBL safety claims without disclosing these qualifications and
warnings is irresponsible and possibly dangerous. The marketing is frequently cited by state, regional,
and local policy-/decision-makers and their transportation staffs, as well as many bicycle advocacy
groups and enthusiastic constituents. This has led to a veritable movement in some communities,
including several in San Diego County, to install plastic posts, wheel stops, and other vertical elements
under the assumption that they will increase safety. Unfortunately, SBL projects seem too often done in
a rushed and indiscriminate manner, without assessing the appropriateness of either sites or designs,
and without collecting detailed before-after data on usage and crashes, as recommended in professional
guidance documents.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 102 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
2
Safety studies on the addition of conventional (painted) bicycle lanes on US roadways have been
relatively sparse–some showing reductions in crashes or injury severity, and many others showing no
reduction or an increase.8–17 US-based research has been even sparser for SBLs and has generated
similarly contradictory or inconclusive findings.2,11,15,18–23 The studies suffer from weak study designs,
small sample sizes/lack of statistical significance, unreliable bicycle counts, insufficient accounting for
confounding variables, exclusion of large numbers of crashes, ignorance of the crash types relevant to
the safety interventions, and other problems. There is stronger evidence in some European cities,
particularly in the Netherlands and Denmark, that SBLs may improve safety, but the cultural,
topographic, and overall infrastructural contexts are very different there, including the fact that about
one-third of trips are done by bicycle,22 as opposed to about 1% in the US.24
Experience over the last five years in the north coastal region of San Diego County has included at least
three fatalities in SBLs (representing most of the bicyclist fatalities in the affected communities, which
had no fatalities in the prior five-year period), as well as large increases in crashes and injuries in SBLs on
South Coast Highway in the Cardiff area of Encinitas.25 These fatalities and many of the injuries can be
directly attributed to the SBLs themselves. Also, the family of a San Diego city staffer, who has been a
longtime advocate of SBLs, is now suing the city alleging an SBL led to the injury and emotional
traumatization of their son.26 While anecdotal, these observations also beg caution.
One purpose of this paper is to detail the substantial limitations of the 2023 FHWA report conducted by
the Texas A&M Transportation Institute to those who may only be familiar with select headlines,
conclusions, and marketing statements. While the 2023 FHWA study seemingly set out to be (and is
being promoted as) a definitive safety model “development” and “validation” study, it was beset by
similar limitations described above for past bicycle lane studies. It also has substantial data transparency
issues. For example, the report does not reveal the identities of any of the streets studied or any crash
numbers/details, and the FHWA and authors’ institution have thus far refused to provide the study data
for independent analysis. Like the SBL safety studies that came before it, the 2023 FHWA report
contributes to a growing body of research, but it remains, at best, “exploratory,” and the level of
evidence it provides is not sufficient to set broad policy.
A second purpose of this paper is to highlight several factors that can make SBLs even more hazardous
than conventional bicycle lanes. These factors should be considered when designing future SBL studies
and when considering installation of SBLs.14 While carefully designed SBLs on some roadways may
provide enhanced safety, installation should be considered experimental and only done with caution.
The aggressive “every street in every context” marketing, and the resulting well-intentioned but
indiscriminate installations endorsed by SBL enthusiasts can have dangerous, even lethal, unintended
consequences.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 103 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
3
B. Executive summary (critique of the 2023 FHWA study)
• Key study design limitations:
o Very basic, but essential, information was inexplicably not disclosed in the 2023 FHWA
SBL study, including the numbers and locations of the studied street corridors, as well as
the numbers, types, and severity of the crashes.
o The authors stated that they were unable to determine the dates of installation of the
SBLs in their study, so, instead of using the typically more robust before-after study
design (comparing crashes on the same streets before and after SBL conversion), they
were forced to employ a cross-sectional study design (comparing crashes on different
SBL and non-SBL streets).
o Cross-sectional studies are more subject to contamination with “confounders”
(characteristics other than the SBLs that may account for observed differences in
crashes), and several potentially powerful confounders were not examined in the study,
including prevailing vehicle and bicycle speeds and driveway/alley density.
o The authors acknowledge that the number of crashes in the study was “very small,” that
many statistical safety models were explored, and that the safety model should only be
applied with caution to at least one other city (Denver), suggesting that the model may
be “overfit,” and that the safety claims may not apply generally to other cities.
o No evidence of independent peer review has been provided, and no records have been
produced in response to a 5/29/2025 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the
underlying datasets, so no independent assessment of the data can be done.
• Crash reporting gaps:
o Unfortunately, the 2023 FHWA study only appears to have included the subset of on-
road vehicle-bicycle crashes present in police reports, even though it is widely
acknowledged (including by the FHWA itself) that this approach vastly under-reports
bicycle crashes. The excluded crashes are ones that do not involve moving motor
vehicles (e.g., crashes with fixed objects, opened vehicle doors, debris, other bicyclists,
pedestrians, etc.) and/or that occur off legally defined roadways–the very types of
crashes that are amplified by SBLs. Large proportions of these unreported crashes result
in injuries leading to hospital visits/stays.
o This limited subset of crashes was then further constrained to only crashes that
occurred in the portions of mid-block street segments greater than 250 feet from all
intersections along the SBL corridors, because exclusion of intersection crashes was
necessary to achieve statistical significance to support the safety conclusion. This,
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 104 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
4
despite the fact that SBLs can reduce visibility of and increase crashes with bicyclists
around intersections.
o Bicyclists cannot avoid intersections when traveling on SBL corridors, meaning that any
alleged reduction in crashes could be largely or entirely the result of reduced reporting
and shifts to other crash types and locations that were excluded from analysis.
• Extrapolated bicycle volume data:
o Bicycle volume data (critical to calculate crash rates) was not collected as originally
planned due to the pandemic. Instead, statistical model-based extrapolation of limited
historical data was used, with inconsistent and sometimes counter-intuitive results.
o 2020–2021 volume data were excluded without showing the effects or providing a
detailed justification, undermining the reliability and transparency of the findings.
• Safety model inconsistencies/Lack of generalizability:
o Study results varied widely between cities; statistically significant improvements were
only found in one city (San Francisco), and the main finding of the study (that plastic
posts alone resulted in the largest crash reduction) was not supported in the city with
the largest number of studied segments (Seattle).
o Crash data from 2020–2021 and from segments with alleged zero traffic was excluded
from the study without showing the effects or providing a detailed justification.
o Validation of the model with data from Austin and Denver was only an assessment of
statistical equivalency, not evidence that SBLs actually reduced crashes in those cities,
and the authors cautioned about the applicability (generalizability) of the results to
Denver.
o The model may not be generalizable to cities beyond San Francisco and, perhaps,
Cambridge.
o The primary proposed safety benefit of SBLs is reduction of overtaking-type crashes with
vehicles. However, no data on crash types or injury severities is presented to assess this
alleged benefit.
• Policy implications:
o Bodies like FHWA and NACTO are using inconclusive/contradictory studies to promote
SBLs, which, given current evidence, should still be treated as experimental and used
with caution–not mandated as universal safety solutions in all contexts.
o Future studies of SBL safety intended to set national policy should: (1) focus on before-
after study designs that fully account for confounders, (2) be powered with sufficient
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 105 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
5
crash sample sizes to make statistical conclusions without model overfitting, (3) make
the underlying data available for independent confirmation, (4) more fully account for
bicycle crashes and injuries (e.g., by combining emergency/hospital data with police
reports), (5) account for safety through entire SBL corridors, including intersections, and
(6) accurately account for changes in bicycle counts.
C. Summary of hazards created by SBLs, plus design guidance
• For a good literature review of many of the following issues, see the Discussion in Cicchino et al.,
2020,18 and for examples of SBL design guidance, see the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition’s
Cycle Track Toolkit.27
• Rideable lane width is a key component that affects many of the risks described below, including
maneuverability within an SBL. NACTO “recommends” at least 7.5 feet.6 If that cannot be
achieved, painted bicycle lanes should be considered instead of SBLs. The safety of NACTO’s 5-
foot “minimum” rideable width is unproven.
• SBLs increase solo bicyclist crash risk due to the large number of fixed vertical objects
introduced into a constrained space, like plastic posts/bollards and wheel stops. Many of the
crashes in the South Coast Highway SBLs have involved such objects.25
• Unexpected transitions into SBLs can lead to solo bicyclist crashes with the vertical elements, so
they should be well-marked. At least one of the SBL-involved bicyclist fatalities in north coastal
San Diego County can be attributed to this.25
• SBLs can increase solo bicyclist crash risk due to debris accumulation arising from less cleaning,
combined with reduced maneuverability to avoid the debris.
• SBLs increase bicycle-bicycle crash risk due to speed differentials (e.g., recreational bicyclists,
experienced cyclists, and e-bicyclists) in the same constrained space.
• SBLs can increase bicyclist-pedestrian crashes due to pedestrians improperly using the SBL for
walking/jogging.
• SBLs tend to reduce visibility/awareness between vehicle operators, bicyclists, and pedestrians
at intersections, driveways, and alleys, leading to increased crash risk during vehicle right turns
(right hooks), particularly for trucks and other vehicles with larger blind spots. Numerous serious
injuries and fatalities related to right hooks have been reported across the US at SBL
intersections, including a fatality in Encinitas.25 If vehicle deceleration or mixing areas are not
possible or practical, consider painted bicycle lanes instead of SBLs.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 106 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
6
• Two-way SBLs are even more dangerous than one-way at intersections/driveways/alleys,
because pedestrians and turning motorists may not be aware of bicyclists traveling in both
directions (i.e., oncoming bicyclists are coming from an unexpected direction).
• Steep downhill grades that increase bicyclist speeds can further increase the risks described
here due to the lack of space/time for maneuvering in the constrained space.
• SBL vertical barriers can hinder emergency vehicle access and maneuvering of disabled vehicles.
D. Conventional vs. separated bicycle lanes
Conventional bicycle lanes are typically delineated only by painted lines, sometimes with striped buffers
between them and travel and/or parking lanes. There is currently a movement to promote construction
of SBLs, which add vertical elements in the boundaries between bicycle and vehicle lanes to “separate”
them (known in California as “Class IV separated bikeways,” and sometimes called “cycle tracks” or
“protected bicycle lanes”). The vertical elements can include:
• Flexible post delineators (sometimes called “plastic bollards” or “flexposts”)
• Wheel stops that create a non-continuous “curb” (similar to those in parking lots)
• Continuous curbs, medians, planters, parking lanes, or other barriers
The rationale for SBLs is that they may increase perceived safety and ridership due to “separation” from
vehicles.28 However, despite substantial marketing claims that they also increase actual safety, they may
only create the appearance of safety while making streets more hazardous.
E. FHWA and related SBL safety research
2015 FHWA SBL crash analysis report. In May 2015, the FHWA published a Separated Bicycle Lane
Planning and Design Guide,23 which included a “Crash Analysis Report” on 17 street corridors in 9
different cities. The report considered the SBL safety findings to be inconclusive:
An in-depth analysis of crash and ridership data from implemented separated bike lanes in the
U.S was completed to evaluate safety outcomes and inform the recommendations of this guide.
While the bicycle collision and volume data that exist for most implemented projects is not yet
sufficient to draw broad-based conclusions concerning the overall safety of separated bike
lanes, the analysis did uncover useful insights to build upon in future analyses.
Crash Modification Factors. The 2015 FHWA report went on to call for additional safety studies,
including the establishment of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) for SBLs, emphasizing how it was
imperative that future studies use more robust data collection and study design methods, which were
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 107 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
7
outlined in an evaluation checklist and data collection section. Recommended methods for the
development of CMFs have been published by multiple transportation organizations, as well.29,30
Note that a CMF is a number that, when multiplied by expected crashes under current conditions
(typically derived from historical crashes), is intended to estimate a change in future crashes when a
certain modification is made to a roadway. A CMF less than 1.0 predicts a reduction in crashes, while a
CMF greater than 1.0 predicts an increase. For example, a CMF of 0.47 would theoretically predict a 53%
reduction in crashes.
2023 FHWA study. The study includes the 0.47 CMF for conversion of a generic bicycle lane into an SBL
with plastic delineator posts. It includes data from an unspecified number of street corridors in five
different cities, although the statistical model that produced the CMFs only included three of the cities
(San Francisco, CA, Cambridge, MA, and Seattle, WA) due to limited sample sizes in the other two
(Austin, TX and Denver, CO).
It is evident from the published material that the study did not go as originally planned due to profound
challenges in collecting the data, as well as inconsistencies in the data. The authors clearly did a lot of
work (in fact, a lot more creative statistical work than they likely originally planned), and they seemingly
did the best they could under the circumstances to support their premise that SBLs improve safety.
However, as detailed below, this new study has many limitations and failed to meet the more robust
data collection and evaluation standards considered imperative in the 2015 report.
SANDAG on SBLs. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for San Diego County, has apparently partnered with FHWA and NACTO to some extent on
SBLs (based on webinar comments). SANDAG recently released its draft 2025 Regional Plan,31 which says
they will follow the “NACTO Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways" that
includes SBLs or other separated paths on all streets with speed limits >25 mph (Figure 3). This appears
to create an inappropriate mandate for local jurisdictions to construct SBLs on all streets other than
local neighborhood streets in order to receive or compete for SANDAG funding, which could
unintentionally make conditions more hazardous for people of all ages and abilities.
F. Challenges to design reliable safety studies
Study basics and confounding factors. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve deeply into the
designs of roadway safety studies. Generally, though, safety “outcome” data (e.g., numbers or rates of
crashes, injuries, and/or injury severities) is compared for streets based upon the presence or absence
of a safety “countermeasure” (in this case SBLs). Most studies will either compare the same streets
before and after SBLs were installed (before-after/longitudinal study), or they will compare different
streets with and without SBLs during a single time period (cross-sectional study).
Every comparison will include some potential “confounding factors”—differences between the streets
other than the absence or presence of SBLs—which could explain part or all of any differences in safety
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 108 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
8
outcomes independent of the SBLs. Therefore, to establish a clear cause-effect of the SBLs, it is critical to
control for potential confounders, such as:
• Traffic volumes (vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian)
• Different types of vertical SBL elements
• Bicycle lane/buffer widths, presence of green paint, etc.
• Population density/land use
• Vehicle speeds
• Bicycle speeds
• Corridor length
• Grades
• Intersection/driveway/alley numbers and spacing
• Length of vehicle/bicycle mixing zones at intersections
• Vehicle turning frequency
• Intersection control types
• One-way vs. two-way vehicle lanes
• Through- and turn-lane numbers and configurations
• Parking lanes and/or medians
• Lighting
• Crash reporting method changes
Before-after (longitudinal) studies. Studies that compare the same streets before and after installation
of an SBL are the strongly preferred and most robust study type to estimate CMFs, because there tend
to be far fewer known or potentially unknown confounding variables.30,32,33 The physical characteristics
tend to stay the same, except the ones that arise from the SBL installation under study. Factors that vary
over time, such as traffic volumes, and perhaps changes in crash reporting, might be examples of the
limited variables that need to be controlled.
Cross-sectional studies. Before-after studies typically require several years of data both before and after
SBL installation, which requires the existence and collection of more data. A less data-intensive design is
a cross-sectional study, in which several different streets are analyzed during the same time period—
some with SBLs and some without. However, it is difficult to identify sets of comparable control streets
to assess whether differences in crashes are due solely to the SBLs, or whether they are due to one or
more of the numerous other confounding variable differences, such as those listed above and, for
example, why SBLs were installed on certain streets and not others.
Examples of weak study designs. A 2013 study of 19 US SBLs (Lusk et al., Bicycle Guidelines and Crash
Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States) concluded that SBLs have lower vehicle/bicycle crash rates
than a national average crash rate.34 However, comparing crash rates to an alleged national average is
an extremely weak cross-sectional study design that does not account for any confounding variables. In
fact, it was subsequently pointed out that the observed crash rate differences were more correlated to
intersection density than the presence of SBLs, among other weaknesses. The streets with higher
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 109 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
9
intersection densities had crash rates much higher than the national average and the streets with lower
densities had lower crash rates—all independent of the presence of SBLs.35
Another widely publicized 2019 study of crashes in 12 large US cities over a 13-year period (Marshall
and Ferenchak, Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users) proclaimed that the
presence of SBLs in the cities was associated with better safety outcomes.21 Although this study was
presented as having a very large sample size, its conclusions are specious due to several methodological
flaws. For example, the study appears to have included 1,300 miles of off-street trails in its definition of
SBLs with only 12.5 miles of actual SBLs, and it failed to account for key confounding variables including
population densities and traffic volumes/speeds, among several other statistical problems.36
Selection bias. Another factor that affects all studies is potential “selection bias.” This arises from the
fact that interventions, such as SBL conversions, that do not perform well (and perhaps even removed)
are less likely to be included in safety studies, biasing results to locations where they tend to work
better.
FHWA study critique:
Study design. The 2015 FHWA report used the more robust and preferred before-after study design on a
limited set of sites, but, given an inconsistent mix of findings, the SBL safety results were ultimately
considered inconclusive. The report stated:
…[I]t is imperative…to collect bicycle and motor vehicle crash and volume data for a sufficient
period of time before and after separated bike lane installation. This will improve understanding
of safety benefits and design considerations…
The 2023 FHWA study was an opportunity to conduct a before-after analysis on a larger set of sites with
more robust data. However, the authors used the less robust cross-sectional approach, because, as they
describe in the study, they were unable to determine the dates of conversion to SBLs for the sites they
were studying.
As described above, cross-sectional studies are more subject to bias from confounding variables when
comparing SBL and non-SBL facilities. Adding to that concern, the authors lamented that the 2020
pandemic limited their data collection to pre-existing databases. Further, the authors did not identify
any of the specific streets studied as SBL vs. non-SBL. They only identified the cities, preventing any
independent comparison.
Confounders. The 2023 study employed a statistical method called “propensity score weighting” (PSW)
to help reduce potential confounding variable bias, but PSW can only estimate the effects of variables
that are chosen to be included. For example, the authors do not appear to have included vehicle speeds,
bicycle speeds, and driveway/alley density, among other variables, in their modeling, all of which have
been shown to affect crash frequencies.22,35,37 And there could be other unknown differences between
the undisclosed streets that bias the results.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 110 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
10
The study also does not account for variations in the individual SBLs beyond the presence of flexible
posts or “other” elements. These potential confounders include variations in lane widths or the types of
other elements (e.g., wheel stops vs. planters vs. parking lanes), which are likely to have very different
effects on safety.
Lack of transparency. Beyond just the design, the study has a noteworthy lack of transparency in that
very basic, but absolutely essential information, like the numbers and identities of the studied street
corridors, as well as the numbers, types, and severity of the crashes, are not disclosed. In addition,
bicycle volume and crash data from 2020–2021 and street segments with alleged zero traffic were
excluded from the study without showing the effects or providing a detailed justification.
Lack of peer review and inability to confirm results independently. In addition, there is no evidence
that the study has undergone any sort of formal peer review (particularly from a statistical modeling
standpoint); instead, it was just published directly by the FHWA. FOIA requests were submitted to the
FHWA for the raw study data (Control Number 2025-0509) and CMF Clearinghouse reviews (Control
Number 2025-0559), and a Public Information Request was submitted to the Texas A&M Transportation
Institute for the raw study data (Reference Number K002829-080125). However, no responsive records
or information has been provided. Without peer review or the ability to independently assess the data,
any findings should be treated with great skepticism.
While cross-sectional studies can be acceptable to help establish CMFs, several other limitations in the
2023 FHWA study further compromised it, as described below.
G. Challenges in measuring overall safety throughout street corridors
The ultimate goal of decision-makers should be to improve overall safety throughout a bicycling
corridor. Safety is typically measured by the number or rate of bicycle crashes and injury severity types.
However, these measurements are challenging for any bicycle study, particularly for SBLs.
G.1. Under-reporting of bicycle crashes and injuries in police reports
State motor vehicle department crash data is derived from police reports, and a crash is generally
defined as "an accident that involved a motor vehicle that occurred on a public highway or road in the
U.S. and that resulted in property damage or personal injury."38 Ironically, while the vast majority of
bicycle crash studies have relied almost exclusively on such data, most bicycle crashes and injuries do
not involve motor vehicles and/or occur off the legal “roadway.” This includes crashes caused by fixed
objects like vertical components adjacent to the bikeway, opened vehicle doors, debris, other bicyclists,
pedestrians, animals, etc.--the very types of crashes that are amplified by SBLs–and the SBLs themselves
are typically legally considered to be “off-roadway.”
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 111 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
11
• Fixed objects. SBLs add significant numbers of new vertical elements to the roadway, such as
the flexible posts and curbs, and concurrently reduce the space to maneuver. This factor directly
increases the likelihood that bicyclists will crash into fixed objects.
• Debris. Vehicles tend to push road debris to the edges of streets, where SBLs are usually
located. The vertical elements of SBLs often amplify debris-related crash risk, because they tend
to create lanes that are not accessible by conventional street cleaning equipment. Rain and
snow also can differentially affect SBLs due to drainage and plowing issues.
• Other bicyclists. The limited widths of most SBLs prevents safe passing. So, with the speed
differentials of recreational cyclists, experienced cyclists, and ebikes, there is a higher likelihood
of crashes with other bicyclists, or with SBL infrastructure in attempts to leave the SBL to pass.
• Pedestrians. Walkers and/or joggers often end up in bikeways for a variety of reasons. For
example, some joggers prefer the asphalt of a bikeway to the concrete of a sidewalk. In
addition, lack of right-of-way width may mean that an SBL installation reduces or eliminates
pedestrian areas. These increase the likelihood of bicycle/pedestrian conflicts and crashes.
References demonstrating crash under-reporting
• 1999: The FHWA published a comprehensive literature review of studies comparing police
report-based crashes with emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations.39 Their
conclusion was that police reports/crash statistics fail to include about 40-50% of ED visits (up to
82% in one jurisdiction) and 25-40% of hospitalizations of injured bicyclists.
• 2016: Based on data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston police
reports miss 76% of bicyclist ED visits and 60% of hospital admissions.40
• 2018: A University of California, Berkeley SafeTREC group published a more recent literature
review, concluding that 54-93% of hospital visits were not linked to police reports.41
• 2021: A study in Orlando, Florida showed that 73% of ED visits and 57% of hospital admissions of
bicyclists arose from crashes that did not involve motor vehicles, and, thereby, likely would not
be reflected in police reports.37
• 2024: A study of bicyclist crashes/injuries in Toronto showed that 92% of bicyclist visits to EDs
were not reflected in police reports.42
• 2025: In a report on the Cardiff-area Coast Highway SBL in Encinitas, CA, over 60% of emergency
vehicle dispatches for bicycle-related crashes did not have a corresponding police report.25
The references cited above also discuss under-reporting of bicycle crashes from other studies too
numerous to cite or detail here. The discordances in crash numbers between police reports and other
sources varied greatly among the studies, but the common themes are: (1) most bicycle crashes do not
appear in police reports or motor vehicle department statistics, because they do not involve moving
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 112 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
12
motor vehicles and/or occur off-roadway, and (2) substantial percentages of these crashes result in ED
visits and hospitalizations. Accordingly, the authors emphasize the need to assess records related to
hospital visits, in addition to police reports, to avoid under-reporting of bicycle crashes and to avoid
erroneous conclusions about the benefits of proposed safety countermeasures.
FHWA study critique:
The 2015 FHWA report acknowledged that their “[c]rash data includes only reported crashes involving a
bicycle and a motor vehicle.” In its call for development of CMFs for SBLs and other future studies, it
went on to recommend comprehensive collection of crash and injury severity data. Unfortunately, the
2023 FHWA study provides very little information on the source of its crash data, but it, too, included
only moving vehicle-bicycle crashes, with the authors stating:
Possibly, other bicycle crashes may have occurred and were not reported. The research team
was unable to incorporate these unreported crashes into the scope of this study.
A study comparing bicyclist visits to San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) and police crash reports
showed that: (1) 41.5% of injuries were bicyclist-only (did not involve a motor vehicle), (2) bicyclist-only
injuries were four times more likely to require hospital admission than vehicle-bicycle injuries, and (3)
there was no police report associated with 54.5% of all bicyclist injuries.43 SFGH is the only Level I
trauma center serving San Francisco, which is the primary city contributing crash data in the 2023 FHWA
study. This under-reporting raises direct questions about the conclusion that SBLs reduce crashes,
including those leading to severe injuries.
In summary, the 2023 FHWA study and the vast majority of other SBL safety studies do not account for
any of the above-described non-vehicle-involved crashes or vehicle-involved crashes at intersections,
which tend to be the majority of bicycle-involved crashes, particularly in SBLs. Therefore, any alleged
reduction in crashes could be largely or entirely the result of reduced reporting and shifts to other crash
types and locations that were excluded from analyses.
G.2. Unreliability of bicycle exposure data/aggregation bias
When assessing bicycle safety, absolute numbers of crashes can be misleading, because a change to a
street such as installation of an SBL may change “exposure” (usage), as defined, for example, by trip
numbers or mileage. The previous section described how systematic under-reporting of bicycle crash
numbers, particularly in SBLs, has the potential to skew safety results. Using guesses at bicycle exposure
rather than actual measurements can further skew the results.
FHWA study critique:
The 2015 FHWA report emphasizes the importance of collecting accurate bicycle exposure data when
developing CMFs.23 For the 2023 FHWA study, the original intent was to collect such data at the study
sites in the Spring of 2020 to produce the SBL CMFs, but the authors apparently canceled that due to
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 113 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
13
travel restrictions arising from the pandemic. Instead, they had to rely on limited historical bicycle
counts from various areas in the cities from which they attempted to develop predictive statistical
models to extrapolate counts at the actual sites. Also, many of the bicycle counts appear to be based
primarily on extrapolation from vehicle traffic adjusted for variables like the presence of bicycle lanes,
population density, land use, etc., which is an even wilder guess. AASHTO/FHWA guidance on CMF-
development protocols points out the likelihood of bias due to data aggregation, averaging, and/or
incompleteness.30
For the three cities used to produce the SBL CMFs, two of them used different methods, and multiple
variables had opposite (and sometimes counter-intuitive) effects, while a statistical model could not
even be developed for the third. For San Francisco, a Poisson mixed–effect model was produced to
predict the bicycle counts, with higher counts being predicted for streets with more bicycle lanes and
higher population density (Table 34). In contrast, for Seattle, a Gaussian mixed-effect model was
produced, with lower counts counter-intuitively being predicted for streets with bicycle lanes and higher
population density (Table 42). For Cambridge, the authors stated: “Although the research team made
several attempts to statistically develop a nested mixed-effect negative binomial model, they were
unable to identify any models that converged.”
The San Francisco model also had the seemingly counter-intuitive observation that bicycle counts were
higher in commercial and industrial areas relative to residential, public, and mixed-use areas. Also,
essentially two different models had to be produced for Seattle (one for data from 2016-2018, and
another for data from 2014-2015 plus 2019), because the results were so different in these sets of years.
Further, the authors excluded all bicycle exposure data from 2020 and 2021 for all cities, which they
justified by citing the different travel patterns in those years due to the pandemic. However, no
quantitative assessments were presented, so it is impossible to determine the impacts on the
conclusions, or whether the exclusion was justified.
The authors stated:
Ideally, this assessment should have included known bicycle exposure volumes…However, the
implementation of SBLs in the United States is in its infancy, and multiyear bicycle counts are
limited. In addition, the recent COVID-19 pandemic created challenges for research team
members to travel to locations and conduct additional counts. Ultimately, the bicycle exposure
variable…was estimated based on a variety of bicycle count types that included short-term
bicycle counts, periodic counts that occurred regularly (usually every 2 yr), and a few permanent
bicycle count stations.
…[T]he team allowed some variability for how much bicycle count data could be used and
potentially extrapolated to surrounding facilities.
In summary, despite the critical importance of accurate bicycle exposure data to determine crash rates,
the authors of the 2023 FHWA study were unable to collect such data and, instead, had to rely upon
guesses from statistical models that included multiple counter-intuitive variables and were different for
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 114 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
14
each city and different time periods. This was not consistent with standards called for by
AASHTO/FHWA.
G.3. Crashes at and within 250 feet of intersections had to be excluded to achieve statistical
significance
SBLs are typically installed on street “corridors” that are comprised of “intersections” linked by the
street “segments” between them (as opposed to being installed on single, isolated segments with no
intersections). Even setting aside the crash number and bicycle exposure data limitations described
above, most SBL safety studies, including the 2023 FHWA study, only report safety improvements within
individual segments—not when intersections or complete corridors are included in the analyses.
Obviously, though, it is not possible for bicyclists to skip the intersections, where a majority of
vehicle/bicycle crashes occur.22,44 Ironically, the vertical elements of SBLs, particularly parked cars or
large vegetation, tend to make motorists and bicyclists less aware of and/or less visible to each other,
which increases vehicle/bicycle crash risks during turning movements at intersections.
In many cases, the vertical elements of an SBL are installed right up to the turning area, so right-turning
vehicles must remain in the through lane (often with through-traveling vehicles behind them) until the
last second, then suddenly turn right—across the SBL with potentially less visible cyclists. This is in
contrast to the more traditional dashed mixing areas, where the bicycle lane becomes a shared right-
turn lane for vehicles, or where vehicles move right across the bike lane into a dedicated right-turn lane.
Although these mixing areas are potential vehicle/bicycle conflict points, they are designed to be long
enough to allow safe mixing, rather than last-second, potentially unexpected turns across the bike area.
Several fatalities and serious injuries have been reported arising from vehicles making right turns across
SBLs. For example, in 2020, a bicyclist was killed in the westbound SBL on Leucadia Boulevard at
Moonstone Court in Encinitas, CA when he struck the side of a right-turning truck.45 Plastic post
delineators had been installed all the way up to the turning area at the intersection, eliminating any
mixing zone. The City of Encinitas eventually settled a lawsuit46 that alleged: “[These] dangerous
conditions created a trap that a reasonably careful person would not notice or anticipate as being
dangerous, since the lack of dashed lines, and presence of bollards/stanchions created a false sense of
safety while operating a bicycle in the bikeway while at the same time, depriving automobiles adequate
opportunity to merge into the bikeway to turn right onto Moonstone Court.” Several of the SBL plastic
posts leading up to the intersection were removed after the fatality to create a mixing area.
In 2024, two bicyclist fatalities occurred at intersections in SBLs in Cambridge, Massachusetts under
virtually identical circumstances to the fatality in Encinitas.47 Also in 2024, a life-altering traumatic brain
injury occurred in Seattle when an SUV made a right turn across an SBL at a driveway (neighbors have
reported frequent yelling there due to other close calls).48 That incident also led to a lawsuit against the
city for its dangerous design and insufficient sight distance. In July 2025, a bicyclist riding in an SBL in
Montreal struck the side of a right-turning truck (dashcam video available in the linked news story).49 In
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 115 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
15
each of these cases, the vertical elements (plastic posts or curbs) were installed right up to the
intersections, the motorists appear to have been unaware of the bicyclists traveling in the same
direction (blind spot), and the bicyclists were unaware that the right turns were happening until it was
too late.
In San Francisco, the Market Street/Octavia Boulevard intersection has been considered one of the most
dangerous to bicyclists due to vehicles turning right across an SBL there.50. Note that this is not an
exhaustive list of right hook crashes in SBLs–just a few recent incidents that include the cities in the
2023 FHWA study (San Francisco, Cambridge, and Seattle).
FHWA study critique:
The 2015 FHWA report observed:
Increases in bicycle crashes after separated bike lanes were built were especially pronounced at
intersections…
It appears that the introduction of separated bike lanes may result in increased challenges at
intersections, relative to separated or protected midblock locations. All six of the sites where the
analysis included consideration of intersection vs. midblock crashes saw an increase in the
percentage of crashes that occurred at an intersection relative to crashes at midblock. This was
true for bicycle crashes as well as those not involving a bicycle.
The 2023 FHWA study reported:
Initially, the research team hoped to develop CMFs for segments and intersections, but their
attempts to model intersections and/or entire corridors were unsuccessful. Consequently, the
team focused on developing robust CMFs for segments. Future work may be to conduct
research that estimates the safety effect of the various types of SBL-to-intersection transitions…
The research team assessed the prospect of using intersection-only and corridor-type models
but found that for the available dataset, these two options did not yield statistically viable
results.
First, it is particularly bizarre that none of the actual street names/locations of the SBLs were ever
revealed for any of the cities in the 2023 FHWA study. Second, the fact that intersection crashes had to
be excluded in order to achieve statistical significance is a critical flaw in the safety claim. In fact, all of
the SBL intersection-based fatalities and serious injuries described above would have been excluded
from the crash analysis.
In addition to excluding all crashes at the intersections themselves, the 2023 FHWA study also excluded
crashes that occurred within 200 to 250 feet on both sides, which was not disclosed in the report itself
but was described by the primary author in a webinar describing the results.7 Although those distances
are commonly accepted as being within an intersection’s “area of influence,” it means that the entire
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 116 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
16
study was based only on crashes that happened in the middles of the “blocks” extracted from the full
SBL corridors.
Also, block lengths can vary significantly between cities and different parts of the same city, which is not
addressed in the study. There is no indication of what proportions of the corridors were actually
included in the analysis.
In summary, while the 2023 FHWA study sought to demonstrate the corridor-level safety of SBLs, the
inclusion of crashes that happened within 250 feet of both sides of intersections clearly caused the
statistical models to fail. In the absence of quantitative assessments of all of the excluded data, or
shared access to the underlying datasets to allow independent analysis, it is impossible to determine the
overall safety impacts of the SBLs.
G.4. Vehicle safety, emergency vehicle response times
There also are safety concerns with SBLs independent of bicycle crashes. The barriers do not allow
disabled vehicles to go to the edge of the street, and they reduce the ability of vehicles to yield to the
edge when emergency response vehicles need to pass—requiring them to remain in active through-
lanes. This is particularly true of streets with few through-lanes. This could negatively affect emergency
vehicle response times and/or put drivers of disabled vehicles at risk.
H. Crash modification factor modeling
FHWA study critique:
The statistical modeling of the crash data to produce the CMFs also was quite muddled in the 2023
FHWA study. Table 1 (below) contains a summary of segment numbers and CMFs for “flexible posts”
compared to “traditional or flush buffered bicycle lanes.” Although numerous other comparisons were
described in the study, this was the main reported finding, so this critique will focus on that area
(although it applies to the other comparisons as well).
Table 1
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 117 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
17
*Either one-way SBLs on both sides of a roadway or a two-way SBL on one side.
Statistical model overfitting. In statistical modeling, when sample/event (in this case, crash) numbers
are small, but large numbers of variables and possible models are explored, there is a high risk of
something called “overfitting.” This could mean that, while an apparently very good model can describe
crashes in the specific data being analyzed, the model does not reflect reality and will not “generalize”
to accurately predict crashes in other data/cities.30 In this regard, the authors stated:
The research team found the number of bicycle crashes [events] to be very small…
The research team developed several regression models for Cambridge, San Francisco, and
Seattle (both independently and with a merged dataset).
The actual numbers of crashes in each city/corridor are never revealed in the study, and many variables
(some counter-intuitive) and models seem to have been tested in many different combinations, raising
concerns about potential overfitting.
Lack of statistical significance in individual cities. San Francisco was the only individual city for which a
statistically significant CMF could be developed (0.338, p = 0.0026). It is curious that the addition of
Cambridge, which had a worse and not statistically significant CMF as its best model (0.592, p = 0.4836),
to San Francisco produced a better CMF than San Francisco alone (0.316, p = 0.0006). And although
Seattle had the largest sample sizes (by far) of both non-SBL and SBL segments, the authors also were
unable to develop a statistically significant CMF, and the best case model there showed an increase in
crashes in SBLs vs. non-SBL segments (CMF = 1.178, p = 0.853). Note that Austin and Denver were
completely excluded from CMF development, presumably due to low sample sizes of segments and/or
crashes.
Disparate Seattle safety element results. The optimal statistical model developed on the Seattle data
(although not statistically significant) suggested that SBLs with only flexible posts essentially imparted no
safety improvement, while SBLs with flexible posts plus other vertical elements imparted a small safety
improvement. This is in contradiction with the overall finding in the model developed from the
combined Seattle/San Francisco/Cambridge data that flexible posts alone impart a large safety
improvement that is degraded when combined with other vertical elements.
Significant differences between cities. In the final model developed from the combined Seattle/San
Francisco/Cambridge data, the city locations themselves showed up as the most impactful coefficients,
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 118 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
18
indicating that the crash rates were substantially different in each city and raising questions about the
generalizability of the calculated CMFs to cities other than San Francisco and, perhaps, Cambridge.
Insufficiently characterized data exclusions. For the three-city final model, it appears that the authors
removed all segments for which their estimate of average daily vehicle traffic (ADT) or annual average
daily bicycles (AADB) was zero. It is unclear why some street segments would have had zero traffic.
More importantly, it is unclear how many segments were removed, because the table with the results
(Table 592) claims that all 1,223 segments from the three cities were analyzed.
The authors discounted this as a “housekeeping issue.” However, there was no explanation of what
effect inclusion of those segments would have had on the model, and there was no mention of
excluding segments with zero estimated traffic in the separate statistical modeling done on the San
Francisco and Cambridge data.
On a related matter, similar to the situation described above for bicycle exposure data, the authors
excluded crash data from 2020 and 2021 for all cities, stating in the Tech Brief (and not the main paper):
Note that data for 2020 and 2021 were excluded from the CMF development efforts because
those data were atypical.
However, no further justification was made for the exclusion of this data, beyond the claim that it was
“atypical.” In the absence of quantitative assessments of all of the excluded data, or shared access to
the underlying datasets to allow independent analysis, it is impossible to determine the overall safety
impacts of the SBLs.
Inconclusive validations. The so-called “exploratory validation” of the model with the Austin and Denver
data was only an assessment of statistical equivalency—without any evidence that SBLs actually reduced
crashes in those cities. In addition, while the equivalency test appeared to work for Austin, the Denver
findings were quite different, and the authors rationalized this as follows in the Tech Brief with no
further justification:
…[T]he CMF for Denver conditions should be applied cautiously. The team was not completely
sure about why these data differed, but Colorado has different weather patterns (particularly in
the winter) and has a greater elevation than the other study sites.
This further amplifies the concern that the model may not be generalizable to cities beyond San
Francisco and, perhaps, Cambridge.
Lack of crash type or injury severity data. The primary proposed safety benefit of SBLs is reduction of
overtaking-type crashes with vehicles, which are the ones that occur mid-block.2 However, the study
includes no data on crash types or injury severities to assess this alleged benefit, which could have
helped support the safety conclusions. Further, mid-block vehicle overtaking crashes tend to be a small
minority (<10%) of overall bicycle crashes,37 so the study and its crash reduction conclusion ignore the
vast majority of bicycle crashes, including the many bicycle crash types that can increase substantially in
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 119 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
19
SBLs (e.g., intersection hooks, crosses, and T-bones, as well as fixed objects, debris, other
bicyclists/pedestrians, etc.).
I. Inconsistencies in findings between studies
Flexible posts (bollards) alone vs. bollards plus other elements. It is not uncommon for different
studies by different researchers to reach somewhat different conclusions or, for example, suggest some
differences in the magnitude of safety benefits. However, when it comes to research on SBL safety, the
inconsistencies in the findings within individual studies and between studies tends to be quite large. This
indicates the need for larger, better-controlled studies.
One example is the alleged impact of different vertical elements on crashes. The 2015 FHWA report
concluded:
Plastic bollards applied in conjunction with other characteristics…were associated with a
decrease in average annual total crashes while plastic bollards applied on their own were
associated with an increase.
In stark contrast, the main finding of the 2023 FHWA study is that plastic bollards (flexible posts) alone
had a CMF of 0.468 relative to conventional bicycle lanes (predicting a 53.2% reduction in crashes51)--see
the red box in Table 60 of the study below. However, when other vertical elements were added to the
bollards, crashes increased relative to the bollards alone, and the results were no longer statistically
significant (orange box in the table).
In fact, the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse reports a CMF of 0.605 for “Convert Blended vertical element Bike
Lane to Flexible Delineator Post Bike Lane” based on the 2023 FHWA study.52 In other words, for an SBL
that includes both plastic posts and wheel stop curbs, removal of the wheel stops (leaving only the
plastic posts) would be expected to nonsensically reduce vehicle-bicycle crashes by 39.5%.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 120 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
20
Mixing zones. Another area of controversy is the safety of so-called “mixing zones,” where vehicles and
bicycles conflict at intersections. The 2015 FHWA report stated:
Mixing zones in combination with other treatments was associated with a decrease in average
annual total crashes.
However, FHWA and NACTO guidance recommend minimizing the use of mixing zones, because they
allegedly increase the lengths of conflict areas.1,6
Glossary of abbreviations and terms in the context of transportation safety
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials): A national
transportation standards-setting organization that publishes guidelines for highway design.
Bollard: A vertical pillar-like object used for traffic control. In the context of SBLs, they are typically
flexible plastic posts. In other cases, they can be rigid/crash-resistant for security.
Before-after (longitudinal) study: A study comparing data collected from the same set of sites both
before and after safety modifications like SBLs are installed. Less subject to confounders than cross-
section studies.
Class I, II, II, and IV bikeways: California classifications. Class I “bike paths” are off-roadway. Class II
“conventional bike lanes” are on-roadway with only paint striping. Class III “bike routes” are on-roadway
lanes shared with vehicles (sharrows). Class IV “separated bikeways” are on-roadway but separated
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 121 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
21
from vehicle lanes with vertical elements (same as cycle tracks, separated bike lanes, or protected bike
lanes).
CMF (Crash Modification Factor): A number that is multiplied by the future estimated crashes without
treatment to estimate expected future crashes with a modification is made to a roadway. A CMF less
than 1.0 predicts a reduction in crashes, while a CMF >1.0 predicts an increase. For example, a CMF of
0.47 would theoretically predict a 53% reduction in crashes.
Confounder (confounding factor): When assessing cause and effect of a safety modification,
confounders may prevent accurate assessment of the actual effect of the modification, because the
confounder(s) are responsible for part or all of the effect.
Cross-sectional study: A study comparing data collected from different sites during the same period of
time—more subject to confounding factors than a longitudinal (before-after) study.
Cycle track: Same as Class IV bikeways, separated bike lanes, or protected bike lanes.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration): US Department of Transportation division that sponsors
roadway safety programs, among many other functions.
Flex post: A type of flexible plastic bollard frequently used for SBLs.
Longitudinal study: Same as before-after study.
NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials): Coalition of Departments of
Transportation in North American cities that publishes roadway design standards.
Overfitting: While an overfit statistical model can predict safety outcomes in the data from which it was
created, it fails to generalize to predict outcomes in other data, because it was based on ”noise.”
Overfitting is a particular problem when many complex models are explored in small datasets.
Rideable width: The usable width of a bikeway for riding, excluding any shy distance, gutter pans,
vertical SBL elements, or other unrideable areas.
SBL (separated bike lane): Same as Class IV bikeway, cycle track, or protected bike lane (PBL).
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments): An association of local governments that serves as
the Metropolitan Planning Organization for San Diego County.
Selection bias: Failure to analyze a truly random sample for statistical analysis. For example, in SBL
research, unsafe SBLs that have been removed cannot be analyzed, and SBLs that have better safety
records may be more likely to be selected for analysis, thereby exaggerating their overall safety.
Wheel stop: Short section of “curb” or “berm” similar to those in individual stalls in parking lots that can
serve as vertical elements in SBLs. They can be made of concrete, asphalt, or other materials, and glued
or poured in-place.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 122 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
22
Figure 1. Images from the FHWA website regarding SBLs.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 123 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
23
Figure 2. Additional FHWA marketing regarding SBLs posted on Facebook and
elsewhere.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 124 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
24
Figure 3. Figure K.4 from the SANDAG draft 2025 Regional Plan.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 125 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
25
About the author
The author has a PhD in Biology from the University of California, San Diego. He is a retired researcher
who conducted basic science and clinical studies for the development and validation of cancer
diagnostics. He is a former traffic commissioner from the City of Carlsbad, CA, who has dealt with
transportation issues in San Diego County for over 14 years.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to John Allen, Karl Rudnick, Mighk Wilson, and Ron Medak for critical review of the manuscript.
References
(1) An Overview of FHWA’s Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways: A Toolkit and Guide;
2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_pGo-FULk (accessed 2025-06-23).
(2) Dixon, K.; Avelar-Moran, R.; Seyedeh, M. M. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Separated
Bicycle Lanes; FHWA-HRT-23-078; Federal Highway Administration, 2023.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/33856 (accessed 2025-06-23).
(3) Federal Highway Administration. Office of Research, Development, and Technology. Developing
Crash Modification Factors for Separated Bicycle Lanes TechBrief; 2023.
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf (accessed 2025-06-23).
(4) Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures: Bicycle Lanes; FHWA-SA-21-051;
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety Research and Development, McLean, Virginia,
2023. https://highways.dot.gov/media/19726.
(5) Federal Highway Administration. Facebook: Separated Bike Lanes.
https://www.facebook.com/FederalHighwayAdmin/posts/converting-a-traditional-bike-lane-to-a-
separated-lane-with-low-cost-flexible-de/842694937893039/ (accessed 2025-07-09).
(6) National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide: Protected Bike
Lanes. https://nacto.org/latest/urban-bikeway-design-guide-protected-bike-lanes/ (accessed 2025-
06-23).
(7) Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways; 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydtftZqjV0o (accessed 2025-06-23).
(8) Avelar, R.; Dixon, K.; Ashraf, S.; Jhamb, A.; Dadashova, B.; Texas A&M University: Texas
Transportation Institute. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Bicycle-Lane Additions While
Reducing Lane and Shoulder Widths; Federal Highway Administration: Office of Safety Research and
Development, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21949/1521657.
(9) Park, J.; Abdel-Aty, M.; Lee, J.; Lee, C. Developing Crash Modification Functions to Assess Safety
Effects of Adding Bike Lanes for Urban Arterials with Different Roadway and Socio-Economic
Characteristics. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 74, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.024.
(10) Park, J.; Abdel-Aty, M. Evaluation of Safety Effectiveness of Multiple Cross Sectional Features on
Urban Arterials. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 92, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.017.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 126 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
26
(11) Avelar, R.; Kutela, B.; Li, X. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Bicycle Treatments at
Intersections; FHWA-HRT-23-020; U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway
Administration., 2023. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-020.pdf.
(12) Hamann, C.; Peek-Asa, C. On-Road Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Crashes in Iowa, 2007–2010. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 2013, 56, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.031.
(13) Pulugurtha, S. S.; Thakur, V. Evaluating the Effectiveness of On-Street Bicycle Lane and Assessing
Risk to Bicyclists in Charlotte, North Carolina. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 76, 34–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.12.020.
(14) Teschke, K.; Harris, M. A.; Reynolds, C. C. O.; Winters, M.; Babul, S.; Chipman, M.; Cusimano, M. D.;
Brubacher, J. R.; Hunte, G.; Friedman, S. M.; Monro, M.; Shen, H.; Vernich, L.; Cripton, P. A. Route
Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study. Am. J. Public Health
2012, 102 (12), 2336–2343. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762.
(15) Wall, S.; Lee, D.; Frangos, S.; Sethi, M.; Heyer, J.; Ayoung-Chee, P.; DiMaggio, C. The Effect of
Sharrows, Painted Bicycle Lanes and Physically Protected Paths on the Severity of Bicycle Injuries
Caused by Motor Vehicles. Safety 2016, 2 (4), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety2040026.
(16) Raihan, M. A.; Alluri, P.; Wu, W.; Gan, A. Estimation of Bicycle Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) on
Urban Facilities Using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial Models. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 123, 303–
313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.12.009.
(17) Kondo, M. C.; Morrison, C.; Guerra, E.; Kaufman, E. J.; Wiebe, D. J. Where Do Bike Lanes Work Best?
A Bayesian Spatial Model of Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Crashes. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 225–233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.002.
(18) Cicchino, J. B.; McCarthy, M. L.; Newgard, C. D.; Wall, S. P.; DiMaggio, C. J.; Kulie, P. E.; Arnold, B. N.;
Zuby, D. S. Not All Protected Bike Lanes Are the Same: Infrastructure and Risk of Cyclist Collisions
and Falls Leading to Emergency Department Visits in Three U.S. Cities. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 141,
105490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105490.
(19) Goodno, M.; McNeil, N.; Parks, J.; Dock, S. Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities in Washington,
D.C.: Pennsylvania Avenue Median Lanes and 15th Street Cycle Track. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp.
Res. Board 2013, 2387 (1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-16.
(20) Sundstrom, C. A.; Quinn, S. M.; Weld, R. Bicyclist Crash Comparison of Mixing Zone and Fully Split
Phase Signal Treatments at Intersections with Protected Bicycle Lanes in New York City. Transp. Res.
Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673 (12), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119859301.
(21) Marshall, W. E.; Ferenchak, N. N. Why Cities with High Bicycling Rates Are Safer for All Road Users. J.
Transp. Health 2019, 13, 100539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.03.004.
(22) National Transportation Safety Board. Bicyclist Safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and
Countermeasures; NTSB/SS-19/01; 2019. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-
studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf (accessed 2025-06-23).
(23) Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide; FHWA-HEP-15-
025; 2015.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/
page00.cfm.
(24) The League of American Bicyclists. National: Rates Of Biking & Walking - Benchmarking Report By
the League of American Bicyclists. https://data.bikeleague.org/data/national-rates-of-biking-and-
walking/ (accessed 2025-06-23).
(25) Linke, S. P.; Medak, R.; Issakov, S. Case Report Showing Elevated Crashes and Injuries in a Separated
Bicycle Lane in Encinitas, California; In preparation, 2025.
(26) CBS8 (Brian White). North Park bike lane collision spurs legal action.
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/legal-action-against-city-after-bike-lane-crash-north-
park/509-3b2fcb17-8350-43a4-9bb4-3adb6fb68f0d (accessed 2025-06-27).
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 127 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
27
(27) San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. Designing Cycle Tracks for Success: A Cycle Track Toolkit; 2022.
https://app.box.com/s/7o7swkm35tavd138ntdkzo4skbe6698p (accessed 2025-06-24).
(28) Winters, M.; Teschke, K. Route Preferences among Adults in the near Market for Bicycling: Findings
of the Cycling in Cities Study. Am. J. Health Promot. 2010, 25 (1), 40–47.
https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.081006-QUAN-236.
(29) Carter, D. L.; Srinivasan, R.; Gross, F.; Himes, S.; Le, T.; Persaud, B.; Lyon, C.; Bonneson, J. Guidelines
for the Development and Application of Crash Modification Factors; Transportation Research Board:
Washington, DC, 2022. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26408/chapter/1.
(30) Carter, D.; Srinivasan, R.; Gross, F.; Council, F. Recommended Protocols for Developing Crash
Modification Factors; NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 314; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2012.
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/collateral/CMF_Protocols.pdf.
(31) San Diego County Association of Governments. SANDAG - 2025 Regional Plan.
https://www.sandag.org/~/link.aspx?_id=D02CF20C6F2A4325BE67260747338FBC&_z=z (accessed
2025-06-24).
(32) Al-Marafi, M. N.; Somasundaraswaran, K. A Review of the State-of-the-Art Methods in Estimating
Crash Modification Factor (CMF). Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2023, 20, 100839.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100839.
(33) Grembeck, O.; Griswold, J. Development of Crash Reduction Factors for Bicycle-Related Safety
Countermeasures; CA19-3180; California Department of Transportation, 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/final-
reports/ca19-3180-finalreport-a11y.pdf.
(34) Lusk, A. C.; Morency, P.; Miranda-Moreno, L. F.; Willett, W. C.; Dennerlein, J. T. Bicycle Guidelines
and Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103 (7), 1240–1248.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301043.
(35) Schimek, P. Cycle Track Safety Remains Unproven. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103 (10), e6–e7.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301476.
(36) Schimek, P. Comment on Why Cities with High Bicycling Rates Are Safer for All Road Users. J. Transp.
Health 2020, 16, 100676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100676.
(37) Wilson, M. Bicycling Facilities, Crash Types & Bicyclist Risk; Metroplan Orlando, 2021.
https://metroplanorlando.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bicyclist-Crash-Types-and-Risk-White-Paper-
July-2021.pdf.
(38) Feldman, R.; Gross, M. Transportation Expressions 1996; DOT-VNTSC-BTS-96-2; U.S. DOT, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics: Washington, DC, 1996; p 264.
https://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/usdot/1996-transportation-expressions.pdf.
(39) Stutts, J. C.; Hunter, W. W. Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital
Emergency Department Data; FHWA-RD-99-078; Office of Safety Research, Development, and
Technology Federal Highway Administration: McLean, VA, 1999.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/99078/index.cfm.
(40) Schimek, P. Boston Bicyclist Injury Report – Bicycle Driving. https://bicycledriving.com/law/boston-
bicyclist-injury-report (accessed 2025-07-17).
(41) Doggett, S.; Ragland, D. R.; Felschundneff, G. Evaluating Research on Data Linkage to Assess
Underreporting of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injury in Police Crash Data, 2018.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0jq5h6f5 (accessed 2025-07-04).
(42) Macpherson, A. K.; Zagorski, B.; Saskin, R.; Howard, A. W.; Harris, M. A.; Namin, S.; Rothman, L.
Comparison of the Number of Pedestrian and Cyclist Injuries Captured in Police Data Compared with
Health Service Utilisation Data in Toronto, Canada 2016–2021. Inj. Prev. 2024, 30 (2), 161–166.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-044974.
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 128 of 129
8/7/2025 DRAFT v0.92
28
(43) Lopez, D. S.; Sunjaya, D. B.; Chan, S.; Dobbins, S.; Dicker, R. A. Using Trauma Center Data to Identify
Missed Bicycle Injuries and Their Associated Costs. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012, 73 (6), 1602–
1606. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318265fc04.
(44) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022 Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report; DOT HS 813
656; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2025.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813656.
(45) The Coast News Group (staff). Cyclist’s death inspires bike safety advocates in Encinitas.
https://thecoastnews.com/cyclists-death-inspires-bike-safety-advocates-in-encinitas/ (accessed
2025-07-09).
(46) The Coast News Group (Kaila Mellos). Settlement talks begin in lawsuit over cyclist’s death in
Encinitas. https://thecoastnews.com/settlement-talks-begin-in-lawsuit-over-cyclists-death-in-
encinitas/ (accessed 2025-07-04).
(47) Streetsblog Massachusetts. Truck Drivers Have Caused Two Deaths In Two Weeks In Cambridge -
Streetsblog Massachusetts. https://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/06/24/truck-drivers-have-caused-
two-deaths-in-two-weeks-in-cambridge (accessed 2025-07-04).
(48) KOMO News, J. H. Cyclist sues Seattle over bike lane design after brain injury in Green Lake crash.
https://komonews.com/news/local/cyclist-green-lake-neighborhood-king-county-superior-court-
aviv-litov-26-years-old-bike-lanes-life-altering-injuries-strittmatter-firm-configuration-tesla
(accessed 2025-07-05).
(49) CTV News. Cyclist recovering after being run over by semi truck in Old Montreal.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/cyclist-recovering-after-being-run-over-by-semi-truck-in-
old-montreal/ (accessed 2025-07-12).
(50) Miner, C. San Francisco Bike Accidents Rise Faster than the Rate of Cycling; Bay Citizen Maps Crash
Data | Transportation Nation | WNYC. WNYC, New York Public Radio. February 8, 2011.
https://www.wnyc.org/story/285480-san-francisco-bike-accidents-rise-faster-than-the-rate-of-
cycling-bay-citizen-maps-crash-data/ (accessed 2025-07-05).
(51) CMF Clearinghouse. CMF ID 11296: Convert Traditional of Flush Buffered Bike Lane to SBL with Flexi-
Posts. https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=11296 (accessed 2025-07-08).
(52) CMF Clearinghouse. CMF ID 11300: Convert Blended Vertical Element Bike Lane to Flexible
Delineator Post Bike Lane. https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=11300
(accessed 2025-07-08).
July 7, 2026 Item #3 Page 129 of 129
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP •PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
City of Carlsbad
Legislative Subcommittee Meeting
July 7, 2026
Ethan Nagler, Associate Lobbyist, California Public Policy Group
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
2026 Legislative Calendar
•January 1: All legislation signed into law in 2025, unless otherwise stated, goes into effect
•January 5: The Legislature reconvenes for the 2026 legislative session
•January 10: The Governor releases fiscal year 2026-27 budget proposal
•January 31: Last day for two-year bills to advance out of their house of origin
•February 20: Last day for the Legislature to introduce bills
•March 25: Spring Recess begins upon adjournment
•April 6: Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess
•Mid-May: Governor releases the May revision of the state budget
•May 29: Last day for the Legislature to pass bills out of their house of origin
•June 15: Legislature must pass the primary budget bill
•June 30: Governor must sign the primary budget bill
•July 2: Summer Recess begins upon adjournment
•August 3: Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess
•August 31: Last day for the Legislature to pass bills; end of the 2026 session
•September 30: Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Sponsored and Positioned Bills
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
City Sponsored Bills
AB 2179 (Patel) Workplace violence: restraining orders.
This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2027, allow any party or witness to a petition for a restraining order to
appear remotely at a hearing and would prohibit any fee for appearing remotely.
Status: Senate Floor
AB 2453 (Rodriguez, Michelle)Vehicles: off-highway motor vehicles.
This bill would authorize first responders to operate off-highway motor vehicles in an emergency response
situation. The bill would also authorize peace officers and first responders to operate off-highway motor
vehicles upon a highway, at a distance not to exceed 5 miles, for the purpose of accessing off-highway
recreational areas or locations of patrol, within jurisdictions that have adopted a policy or plan for the
operation of those off-highway motor vehicles pursuant to the provisions as specified.
Status:Senate Appropriations
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Positioned Legislation: Special Update
Bill Bill Name Location Original
Position
New
Position
AB 1294
(Haney)
Real property tax: welfare exemption: moderate-
income housing.
(Formerly: Planning and zoning: housing
development: standardized application form)
Senate Revenue and
Taxation
Oppose No position
SB 1085
(Durazo)
Water supply planning: housing developments.Assembly Appropriations Oppose Under review
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Positioned Legislation
Bill Bill Name Location Position
AB 35 (Alvarez)Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought
Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024:
Administrative Procedure Act: exemption: program
guidelines and selection criteria.
Enrollment Support
AB 748
(Harabedian)
Single-family and multifamily housing units:
preapproved plans.
Senate Appropriations Oppose
AB 956 (Quirk-
Silva)
Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling
units.
Senate Appropriations Oppose
AB 1337 (Ward)Information Practices Act of 1977.Dead Oppose
AB 1569 (Davies)Pupil safety: electric bicycle: safety and training
program.
Senate Appropriations Support
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Positioned Legislation
Bill Bill Name Location Position
AB 1614 (Dixon)Vehicles: bicycles.Chaptered Support
AB 1621 (Wilson)Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase
permits: Housing Accountability Act.
Senate Appropriations Oppose
AB 1821 (Pacheco)California Public Records Act: agency response time.Senate Appropriations Support
AB 2296 (Papan)Planning and zoning: housing element: regional
housing needs allocation.
Senate Appropriations Support
AB 2346 (Wilson)Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits.Senate Appropriations Support
AB 2433 (Alvarez)Housing development: density bonus.Senate Appropriations Oppose Unless
Amended
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Positioned Legislation
Bill Bill Name Location Position
SB 490 (Umberg)Alcohol and drug programs.Assembly
Appropriations
Support
SB 722 (Wahab)Transit-oriented housing development: excluded
parcels and sites.
Senate Enrollment Support
SB 741
(Blakespear)
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program.Assembly
Appropriations
Support
SB 758 (Umberg)Public health: nitrous oxide.Assembly
Appropriations
Support
SB 936
(Blakespear)
Nitrous oxide: sales.Assembly
Appropriations
Support
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Positioned Legislation
Bill Bill Name Location Position
SB 1014 (Grayson)Development projects: preliminary estimate of
required improvements: onsite and offsite
improvements.
Assembly Appropriations Oppose
SB 1036 (Grayson)Mitigation Fee Act.Chaptered Watch
SB 1159
(Cabaldon)
Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.Assembly Floor Support
SB 1167
(Blakespear)
Vehicles: electric bicycles.Assembly Appropriations Support
SJR 12 (Laird)Proposed 2026–2031 National Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program: opposition.
Assembly Floor Support
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Legislative Update
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Legislative Update: Since Last Committee
SB 569 (Blakespear) Bikeways: reversions and modifications.
This bill prohibits bikeways constructed using State General Fund moneys allocated to local agencies from
being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces safety, accessibility, or
mobility for nonmotorized users for a minimum of 20 years from the date of allocation or the bikeway's actual
useful life, whichever is less.
Status: Assembly Floor
Position: Neutral
SB 866 (Blakespear) Planning and zoning: annual report: emergency shelter.
This bill, beginning with the first annual report submitted after the due date for the 7th cycle housing element
revision, requires cities and counties to include in their annual report to the Department of Housing and
Community Development specified information regarding the special housing needs of families and persons
in need of emergency shelter.
Status: Assembly Appropriations
Position: Neutral
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Legislative Update: Housing and Land Use
AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act.
This bill authorizes development proponents to submit applications for townhome housing development
projects subject to a ministerial approval process if the development meets specified objective planning
standards, and requires local agencies to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing,
parcel maps and tentative and final maps for qualifying townhome projects resulting in parcels no smaller
than 600 square feet.
Status: Senate Appropriations
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Legislative Update: Environment and Climate
AB 1436 (Ávila Farías) State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets: exception.
This bill prohibits the State Air Resources Board from enforcing any regulation that directly or indirectly
compels compliance by private fleets until the state has obtained the required waiver or authorization under
the federal Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed to pass Senate Environmental Quality
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Legislative Update: Elections
SB 1164 (Cervantes) Elections.
This bill repeals and replaces the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 with the California Voting Rights Act of
2026, which prohibits political subdivisions and state agencies from implementing any election policy or
practice that results in, or is likely to result in, voter suppression by causing a material disparity in voter
participation or impairing the equal opportunity of members of a protected class to participate in the political
process, unless the jurisdiction demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the policy is necessary to
further a compelling governmental interest with no reasonable alternative.
Status: Assembly Appropriations
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Budget Update
•On June 29, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the primary budget bill, along with a series of budget trailer bills
•$375 million for Proposition 36 implementation.
•$700 million for affordable housing programs, including the Multifamily Housing Program and the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit program.
•Budget defers action on the $250 million legislative discretionary allocation within the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund.
•135.5 million in one-time funding for medium- and heavy-duty ZEV incentives through the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP), $135.5 million in one-time funding for light-duty ZEV incentives, and $17 million annually for
five years for the Clean Cars 4 All program.
•Part of budget deal was the passage of SB 417, a $11.25B affordable housing bond to appear on November ballot.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM
Questions/Discussion
Thank You!
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM