By: @Jeff Hoskinson and @Nicolle Falcis, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 707 (Durazo) into law on October 3, 2025, with most provisions set to go in effect on January 1, 2026. SB 707 makes extensive updates to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.), the primary open meeting law governing local agency legislative bodies. The legislation both restores and restructures various provisions set to expire in 2026, makes permanent certain transparency-related reforms, and establishes new requirements to expand public access and participation in local government proceedings.
The Brown Act generally requires all meetings of a legislative body (e.g., the board of directors) of a local agency to be open and public, and it prohibits the body’s members from taking action outside an authorized meeting. SB 707 significantly revises these provisions to take into consideration technological and accessibility evolutions since the enactment of the Brown Act in 1953.
Social Media Communication
Among many technical changes, SB 707 repeals the expiration date in Government Code section 54952.2, thereby permanently allowing members of a legislative body to use internet-based social media platforms to engage with the public on matters within their jurisdiction, so long as they do not deliberate or discuss business among themselves on such platforms.
Providing Board Members with a Copy of the Brown Act
Government Code section 54952.7 now also mandates the local agency to provide a copy of the Brown Act provisions to any serving members on the legislative body of the local agency.
Meeting Decorum and Disruptions
SB 707 updates the enforcement provisions relating to meeting decorum and disruptions. Through new Sections 54957.95 and 54957.96, the legislation expressly affirms that local agencies may remove or restrict participation by individuals engaging in disruptive behavior during teleconferenced or hybrid meetings, ensuring that the orderly conduct of public meetings is maintained even in virtual settings.
Accessibility Accommodations
The legislation permanently amends the traditional teleconferencing statute, Government Code section 54953, to codify accessibility accommodations and expand teleconferencing options. Members of a legislative body with disabilities may now participate in meetings remotely as a reasonable accommodation. These members must participate using both audio and video technology unless their disability requires an exception. They must also disclose whether any other individuals over the age of eighteen are present in the room in their remote location and the general nature of their relationship to those individuals. Participation by members under these circumstances is deemed equivalent to in-person attendance for all legal purposes, including the quorum requirements.
This amendment to Section 54953 appears to codify the California Attorney General’s 2024 opinion, 107 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 107.
Board Member Remote Meeting Participation Options
SB 707 also substantially reorganizes and expands the Brown Act’s teleconferencing framework through new Sections 54953.8 through 54953.8.7. These provisions create a unified structure of remote participation and teleconferencing as an alternative and in addition to the traditional teleconferencing provision under section 54953. For clarity, the teleconference framework through the new Sections 54953.8 through 54953.8.7 are available for legislative bodies of any local agency to employ and are not limited to “eligible legislative bodies” described below, which must meet additional requirements.
Teleconferencing under Section 54953, sometimes referred to as the “Traditional Teleconferencing Rules,” remains available for members of a legislative body. Under Section 54953, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must be present within the jurisdictional boundaries of the local agency during a teleconference meeting. Any teleconferencing location is also required to be accessible to the public, with teleconference meeting locations identified in the meeting agenda.
In contrast to the “traditional teleconferencing rules,” SB 707 restructures alternative teleconferencing provisions, found at section 54953.8, to authorize teleconferencing under limited and specific circumstances (as described in Sections 54953.8.1 to 54953.8.7), without the traditional quorum and location requirements. However, the legislative body must comply with various other requirements including: providing a means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body; complying with a process in the event of a disruption to the meeting broadcast; establishing a list of locations available for use by legislative bodies to conduct their meetings; and more. Depending on the type of local agency and the circumstances in which teleconferencing is being used pursuant to Sections 54953.8.1 through 54953.8.7, different quorum, location, and public accessibility requirements may be imposed. In Section 54953.8.3, the legislation also revised the list of “just cause” that permits members to participate remotely for reasons including, but not limited to, childcare responsibilities, illness, family medical emergencies, or military service.
In particular, any special district that is a multijurisdictional body (as defined in 54953.8.7) or that has any “eligible subsidiary bodies” (as defined in 54953.8.6), should review the provisions applicable to them added by SB 707 to use alternative teleconferencing procedures.
Enhanced Requirements for Eligible Legislative Bodies (Including the Largest Special Districts)
Perhaps the most significant addition in SB 707 is the new Government Code section 54953.4, which imposes broad new requirements on “eligible legislative bodies” (a newly defined term) to promote public accessibility, language equity, and community outreach in local governance. Eligible legislative bodies include city councils and county boards of supervisors in jurisdictions with populations of 30,000 or more, as well as large special districts meeting certain thresholds regarding full-time equivalent employees and annual revenues.
Operative starting on July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies must provide the public with the ability to attend all open and public meetings via a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform (e.g., Zoom). Prior to that July date, each eligible legislative body must also adopt, at a noticed public meeting, a written policy for responding to disruptions in the telephonic or internet service that prevent public members from attending or observing the meeting. In the event of such a disruption, the body must recess its open session and engage in a good faith attempt to restore service. The session must stay in recess for at least an hour or until the disruption has been addressed and remedied, whichever is earlier.
The new Section 54953.4 further requires the translation of meeting agendas and public meeting webpages into all “applicable languages,” which is generally defined as languages spoken jointly by 20 percent or more of the relevant population provided that 20 percent or more of the population that speaks that language speaks English less than “very well,” as determined by data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census).
Furthermore, under Section 54953.4, eligible legislative bodies must also take reasonable steps to encourage participation by residents who have not traditionally engaged in public meetings, including outreach to community-based and non-English-speaking organizations, and ensuring that requests for agendas and documents can be made electronically. Eligible legislative bodies must also create and maintain an accessible internet webpage dedicated to public meetings that includes, or provides a link to specified information.
In recognition of these stringent requirements imposed by this new section, the legislation affords local agencies some protection by prohibiting any actions to be commenced against a local agency regarding the content or accuracy of any translation or the purported failure to engage in community outreach under Section 54953.4.
Implementation Dates for Provisions of SB 707 (Durazo)
- SB 707 provisions generally applicable to all special districts come into effect January 1, 2026
- SB 707 provisions exclusively applicable to “eligible legislative bodies” come into effect July 1, 2026 †
† “Eligible legislative bodies” must enact a resolution related to disruption protocols on or before July 1, 2026.
Chart produced by the California Special Districts Association for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice.
Conclusion
SB 707 represents a significant modernization of California’s open meeting laws. The legislation seeks to balance technological flexibility with transparency and public access. Given the nuanced technical changes, this article is not intended to be exhaustive of all changes or amendments in SB 707. It is strongly recommended that any local agencies subject to the Brown Act consult with legal counsel to ensure future compliance and readiness with the Act’s expanded requirements.
This article was contributed by Jeff Hoskinson and Nicolle Falcis from Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR), a CSDA Business Affiliate. CSDA Members can contact AALRR at aalrr.com, or through the CSDA Buyer’s Guide at csda.net.
This communication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these communications.
Take a look back at previous parts of the 2026 New Laws Series in CSDA eNews for more in-depth overviews of new laws affecting special districts:
Missed Part 4? Read it now: Clarifying Timing for Collection of Development Related Fees (SB 499)
Missed Part 3? Read it now: Certified Payroll Records Requests on Prevailing Wage Public Works Projects (AB 538)
Missed Part 2? Read it now: Additional CEQA Exemptions and Reforms
Missed Part 1? Read it now: CA Supreme Court Denies Elected Officials Right to Sue as “Employees” Under Whistleblower Statute
#AdvocacyNews
#FeatureNews
#Ethics
#Governance
#IndependentContractors
#Mandates