Implementation Overview of SB 707 (Durazo): The Brown Act Modernization Act

Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 3, 2025, Senate Bill 707 (Durazo) represents the most significant modernization of the Brown Act in decades.

This article, authored by TPA Director Eric O’Donnell and Deputy Director Carlin Shelby, provides an overview of SB 707’s legislative background, key statutory changes, and implementation considerations for local agencies.

SUMMARY

On October 3, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 707 (Durazo) into law, enacting the most comprehensive set of amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act in decades. The legislation restructures and expands the already complex statutory framework governing public access and remote participation in local government meetings. Members of the legislative body, agency staff, and the public are all impacted.

SB 707 establishes two distinct implementation tracks that separately address accessibility requirements and teleconferencing flexibility. The first track imposes new open-meeting and language-access standards on “eligible legislative bodies”, requiring two-way remote public participation, real-time captioning, and translation of meeting agendas into applicable languages beginning July 1, 2026. These provisions are intended to strengthen inclusion and expand participation among residents with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or other barriers to in-person attendance.

The second track revises and extends the Brown Act’s alternative teleconferencing provisions through January 1, 2030, consolidating several temporary statutes adopted during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. It establishes a unified framework for remote participation under “just cause” and “emergency circumstances,” sets new operating rules for subsidiary and multijurisdictional bodies, and codifies updated accessibility and procedural safeguards for hybrid meeting formats.

This memorandum provides a technical overview of SB 707’s legislative background, key statutory changes, and anticipated implementation considerations for local agencies. While the bill advances the state’s goals of transparency and equitable participation, it also presents substantial administrative and technological challenges, leaving many agencies with as many questions as new compliance obligations.

BACKGROUND

The Legislature advanced SB 707 (Durazo) in 2025 to address the impending expiration of several pandemic-era statutes that temporarily expanded local agency teleconferencing authority under the Ralph M. Brown Act. These emergency provisions—originally enacted to preserve public access during COVID-19—were scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2026, creating an urgent need for a unified and durable framework governing remote participation and hybrid meeting practices.

Earlier in the session, multiple bills sought to extend or modify specific portions of these expiring authorities. AB 259 (Rubio) would have extended “just cause” and “emergency circumstance” teleconferencing flexibility through 2030; AB 409 (Arambula) would have continued teleconferencing provisions for community college organizations; AB 467 (Fong) would have extended flexibility for Los Angeles neighborhood councils; and SB 239 (Arreguín) proposed to authorize subsidiary bodies of local agencies to teleconference without publicly noticing each physical location.

Over the course of the legislative year, SB 707 underwent multiple rounds of negotiation and amendment between local government representatives, open-government and language-access advocates, and disability-rights stakeholders. In the final days of the legislative session, the author expressed hesitation to advance the measure amid ongoing stakeholder concerns—particularly around automated translation allowances and the potential for inconsistent implementation among local agencies. To resolve these issues, Senator Durazo placed a non-binding letter in the Senate Journal committing to pursue additional technical and policy clean-up legislation in 2026 to refine and clarify portions of the new statutory scheme.

By consolidating the expiring teleconferencing authorities into a single statute and pairing them with enhanced public access and translation requirements, SB 707 establishes the foundation for a modernized, post-pandemic Brown Act framework while signaling that further legislative adjustments will be necessary in the coming year.

KEY STATUTORY CHANGES

1. New Obligations for “Eligible Legislative Bodies” (i.e., certain cities, counties, and special districts)

Beginning July 1, 2026, a broad range of cities, counties, and special districts will be required to comply with SB 707’s new public access, translation, and community-outreach standards. The law applies specifically to what it defines as “eligible legislative bodies,” a category that includes select small cities, medium and large cities, larger counties, and certain high-capacity special districts.

Under the statute, city councils are considered eligible if the city has a population of 30,000 or more residents. Likewise, county boards of supervisors in any county—or city and county—with a population of 30,000 or more are also covered. The law extends even further to capture smaller cities located within large counties: any city council within a county of 600,000 or more residents is subject to these new requirements, regardless of the city’s own population. This provision ensures that smaller municipalities within major metropolitan areas—such as those in Los Angeles, Orange, or Alameda Counties—are held to the same open-meeting and accessibility standards as their larger neighbors.

The legislation also brings certain special districts under the new framework, recognizing that some operate at a scale comparable to medium-sized cities. To qualify, a district must maintain an active public website and meet at least one of the following thresholds: it encompasses an entire county of 600,000 or more residents and employs over 200 full-time staff; it employs more than 1,000 full-time staff regardless of county size; or it has annual revenues exceeding $400 million, adjusted annually for inflation after 2027, while employing at least 200 full-time staff.

In effect, the new rules apply to most general-purpose governments in California and to special districts with significant operational capacity or fiscal size. Smaller cities and districts that do not meet these criteria are not considered an “eligible legislative body” and are therefore exempt but may choose to comply voluntarily to enhance accessibility and public participation.

2. Providing two-way remote access with captioning and call-in options

SB 707 requires two-way public participation via telephonic or audiovisual platforms at all open meetings. If an audiovisual platform is used, a call-in option must also be offered, and the platform must include active captioning functionality.

• Adopted Policy Requirement. Beginning July 1 2026, every eligible body must maintain a broadcast restoration policy describing (1) the steps to be taken if the audio, video, or call-in platform fails; (2) the responsible personnel or unit authorized to initiate corrective measures; and (3) the procedure for notifying the public and resuming the meeting once service is restored. The statute requires “good-faith efforts consistent with that policy,” rather than uninterrupted connectivity, thereby acknowledging practical limits while codifying a duty of prompt mitigation.
• One-Hour Recess Requirement During Access Disruptions: Beginning July 1, 2026, if a disruption to the required two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform prevents the public from attending (i.e., hearing/seeing the meeting or offering remote comment), the body must recess open session and attempt to restore service for at least one hour, under a policy adopted in open session. Statute frames this as a good-faith efforts obligation tied to a written “disruption/restoration” policy. The statute requires at least one hour of good-faith restoration attempts; after that, the body may either continue the affected items to a time and place certain (announce on the record and post a brief notice), adjourn and re-notice the remaining agenda, or make specific findings on the record to allow for a continuance of the public meeting referencing public interest.

3. Translating agendas into specified languages

Beginning July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies must provide translated agendas for all open and public meetings if the “applicable languages” provision applies.

• Applicable Languages: The bill defines “applicable languages” as languages spoken jointly by 20 percent or more of the applicable population, provided that 20 percent or more of the speakers of that language speak English less than “very well.” If more than three languages satisfy that threshold, the body limits “applicable languages” to the three languages spoken by the largest percentages of the population (excluding English). An eligible legislative body may adopt a different data source than the suggested American Community Survey framework if it makes a finding—supported by substantial evidence—that the alternate source is equally or more reliable for its jurisdiction.
• Translation Materials/Posting Requirements: The agenda itself (not the entire agenda packet) must be translated into all applicable languages and posted concurrently with the English version under the Brown Act’s agenda-posting deadlines. Each translation of the agenda must also include instructions, in that language, for how to join the meeting via telephonic or internet-based service, including any registration requirements for public comment. Further, each eligible legislative body must maintain a publicly accessible location near where its official agenda is posted for the purpose of allowing members of the public to post additional translations of the agenda. Publicly posted agenda translations are not required to adhere to posting timelines or contiguous display requirements as they are for the public agency.
• Automated Translations/Liability Protections: The bill explicitly states that the agency is not responsible for the content, accuracy, or legality of any such public-posted translations, nor for digital or machine translations that members of the public generate. Further, the bill states that no cause of action may be brought against an agency for inaccuracies in any translation—whether produced by the agency, a digital service, or the public.

4. Enhanced Community and Media Outreach Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies must make reasonable efforts to invite participation from groups that historically do not take part in public meetings.

• Outreach Defined: Local agencies are expected to make outreach efforts that may include—but are not limited to—contacts with: media organizations providing news coverage within the jurisdiction, including ethnic and language-specific outlets serving non-English-speaking communities; and good-government, civil-rights, civic-engagement, neighborhood, and community-based organizations, particularly those active in or serving multilingual or historically marginalized communities.
• Discretion and Legal Safe Harbor: The statute provides that legislative bodies have “broad discretion” in determining what constitutes “reasonable efforts.” No cause of action may be brought against an agency for failing to contact any specific organization. This converts the outreach mandate into a good-faith, process-oriented obligation, not a requirement.

Summary Table: New Requirements for “Eligible Legislative Bodies”

Legislative Body Type	Population / Criteria	Two-Way A/V Required	Agenda Translation Required	Effective Dates	Notes
City Council (Full Legislative Body)	≥ 30,000	Yes	Yes	July 1, 2026 – January 1, 2030	“Eligible legislative body.” Must provide two-way telephonic or audiovisual participation, with real-time captioning.
	< 30,000	No	Yes	—	May voluntarily comply; still subject to general Brown Act notice and access standards.
	Any size, but located in county ≥ 600,000	Yes	Yes	July 1, 2026 – January 1, 2030	Automatically deemed eligible under population criteria.
County Board of Supervisors (Full Legislative Body)	≥ 30,000 county population	Yes	Yes	July 1, 2026 – January 1, 2030	Applies to all counties meeting eligibility threshold.
	< 30,000 county population	No	Yes	—	May opt in voluntarily.
Special District Board (Full Legislative Body)	Has an internet website and meets ≥ 1 of the following: (i) District boundaries include an entire county ≥ 600,000 and district has > 200 Full time employees (FTE); or (ii) District has > 1,000 FTE; or (iii) District has annual revenues > $400M and > 200 FTE	Yes	Yes	July 1, 2026 – January 1, 2030	Excludes smaller or non-web-enabled districts.
	< 200,000 or no website	No	No	—	Not “eligible”; standard Brown Act continues to apply.

 

5. New Teleconferencing Flexibility Provisions for Subsidiary Bodies, Multijurisdictional Bodies, and Members of a Body with Qualifying Disabilities

SB 707 reorganizes and extends several temporary statutes enacted during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., AB 2449, AB 361), creating a single, standardized framework for remote participation by members of legislative bodies. These flexibility provisions, unlike the new standardized meeting requirements applied to all eligible legislative bodies, are applicable beginning January 1, 2026, and are subject to expiration on January 1, 2030. These flexibilities are applied to all Brown Act Subject bodies, upon election of use.

6. Disability Accommodation Flexibility

• Effective Date: January 1, 2026 (no sunset tied to AB 2449 usage caps).
• Scope: Beginning January 1, 2026, SB 707 establishes a permanent framework allowing members of legislative bodies to participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a qualifying disability. This flexibility—rooted in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Government Code §11135—recognizes that physical or mental health limitations may impede in-person attendance, yet should not preclude full and equal participation in public decision-making. The new provision applies to all Brown Act legislative bodies, including city councils, boards of supervisors, special district boards, commissions, and multijurisdictional or subsidiary entities.
• Procedural Requirements: Under this framework, an agency must adopt written procedures for processing accommodation requests and designate a responsible official, typically the city clerk or ADA coordinator, to evaluate and document them. Requests must be handled confidentially, and agencies may require only the minimal verification necessary to determine eligibility. Once an accommodation is granted, the member’s remote participation counts toward quorum at the in-person meeting site. The member must maintain both audio and visual presence throughout the meeting, except where an ADA-related limitation makes such participation infeasible. Importantly, this accommodation is not discretionary—once approved, it constitutes a civil-rights obligation. Unlike the “just cause” or “emergency circumstance” pathways, there are no restrictions on the number of meetings a member may attend remotely, no geographic limits on participation, and no loss of compensation or stipend eligibility. Members participating remotely under an ADA accommodation are entitled to the same compensation as those attending in person.

7. Multijurisdictional Body Flexibility

• Effective Date: January 1, 2026 (operative through January 1, 2030).
• Scope: SB 707 incorporates new language that creates a standardized framework for regional or intergovernmental legislative bodies — such as councils of governments (COGs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), or joint powers authorities (JPAs) — whose members reside and meet across multiple local jurisdictions.
• Procedural Requirements: Each multijurisdictional body must identify a primary in-person meeting location that is open and accessible to the public and located within the jurisdictional boundaries of at least one constituent agency. The agenda must list each physical site within the collective jurisdiction where the public may attend and provide full telephonic and internet-based participation instructions, including any access codes and comment procedures. A quorum of members must participate from publicly accessible locations within the combined jurisdiction, with the minutes clearly noting which members participated remotely. Remote members must maintain simultaneous audio and video presence throughout deliberations. Additionally, SB 707 establishes annual numeric caps on how often a member of a multijurisdictional body may participate remotely. If the body meets once per month or less, a member may attend remotely for up to two meetings per calendar year. If it meets twice per month, the cap increases to five; and if it meets three or more times per month, the cap rises to seven. All meetings held on the same calendar day count as one meeting for purposes of this limit.
• Numeric Limits on Remote Attendance: SB 707 codifies fixed annual caps, consistent with the structure used for AB 2449 “just-cause” teleconferencing:

Meeting Frequency	Maximum Remote Attendances per Calendar Year
Meets once per month or less	2 meetings per year
Meets twice per month	5 meetings per year
Meets three or more times per month	7 meetings per year

Multiple meetings held on the same calendar day count as one meeting for these limits.

• Geographic and Compensation Restrictions: The statute also introduces geographic and compensation restrictions. A member may participate remotely only if located more than 20 miles each way from the nearest publicly noticed meeting location. If a member participates from outside the body’s jurisdictional boundaries, they are ineligible to receive any meeting stipend, per diem, or attendance compensation for that session, unless the participation occurs under an ADA accommodation or a verified emergency circumstance. Remote participants must join from a publicly accessible location unless an exception applies.

8. Subsidiary Body Flexibility

• Effective Date: January 1, 2026 (operative through January 1, 2030).
• Scope: SB 707 further standardizes teleconferencing procedures for subsidiary or advisory bodies—such as, oversight committees, and appointed boards—that serve in an advisory capacity to a legislative body.  A subsidiary body is defined as one created by formal action of a legislative body that operates exclusively in an advisory capacity, cannot take final legislative or fiscal action, and does not oversee elections, budgets, taxes, policing, privacy, or library access.
• Procedural Requirements: Before a subsidiary body may use teleconferencing, the parent legislative body must first formally authorize it by resolution or policy. An eligible subsidiary body must designate one physical meeting location within the jurisdiction (open to the public) and have at least one staff member present there, but the statute does not require a quorum of members to be physically present. Members participating remotely must maintain real-time, two-way communication for the duration of the meeting, unless the member has a physical or mental condition meeting ADA disability criteria that results in a need to participate off camera. Further, the bill removes the prior requirement to publicly notice each remote location—one of the most cumbersome elements of pre-pandemic law. SB 707 requires each subsidiary body to reauthorize its use of teleconferencing every six months by majority vote, confirming that the practice continues to serve the public interest.

Summary Table: Teleconferencing Flexibilities under SB 707

Flexibility Type	Effective Date	Eligible Bodies	Key Requirements	Limits / Conditions	Sunset
Disability Accommodation	Jan 1, 2026	Any Brown Act legislative body member with qualifying ADA disability	Written ADA policy; confidential handling; counts toward quorum; audio/video exceptions granted	No frequency or distance limits; same compensation as in-person	None (permanent)
Multijurisdictional Body	Jan 1, 2026	COGs, JPAs, regional boards	Quorum in jurisdiction; remote A/V; agenda access instructions	2/5/7 per-year cap; >20-mile rule; no pay if outside jurisdiction	Jan 1, 2030
Subsidiary Body	Jan 1, 2026	Advisory or subordinate committees	Authorized by parent body; one in-person site; camera-on; six-month reauthorization	No numeric cap; No in person quorum requirement	Jan 1, 2030

 

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The passage of SB 707 marks the most significant modernization of the Brown Act in decades. Its provisions—ranging from expanded public access and language requirements to restructured teleconferencing rules—require coordinated implementation across policy, technology, and administrative systems. To comply with the new mandates, agencies should begin preparation in early 2026, ahead of the law’s phased effective dates: January 1, 2026 for teleconferencing flexibilities and July 1, 2026 for accessibility and language-access standards.

1. Policy Integration

Each local agency should review and consolidate its existing Brown Act and teleconferencing policies into a single modernization framework that distinguishes between:

• New general meeting requirements for eligible legislative bodies, including public-access and language-access requirements (captioning, two-way participation, translations, outreach); and
• Expanded and updated remote-participation rules for members (disability, just cause, emergency, subsidiary, and multijurisdictional).

Municipal clerks or board secretaries should be designated as the compliance officers responsible for meeting postings, translation, and tracking of remote participation. Outdated resolutions referencing AB 2449 or prior emergency provisions should be repealed and replaced by mid-2026.

2. Technology and Accessibility

Eligible agencies must ensure that meeting platforms provide two-way participation, real-time captioning, and call-in options. IT and municipal clerk staff should test broadcast-restoration protocols, including the required one-hour recess in case of service failure. A centralized public-meetings webpage should host agendas, participation links, translated materials, captioning instructions, and notices of disruptions.

3. Language Access and Outreach

Beginning July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies must translate agendas into languages spoken by at least 20 percent of residents with limited English proficiency, up to three languages, and post them concurrently with the English version. Agencies should contract translation services and/or designate translation software, establish workflow timelines, and designate a posting area where community members may provide voluntary translations. New outreach obligations also require good-faith engagement with local media and community organizations serving non-English-speaking and underrepresented groups. Documentation of outreach efforts will demonstrate compliance.

4. Teleconferencing Framework

Starting January 1, 2026, agencies must operationalize the new teleconferencing tracks:

• Disability accommodations: Integrate ADA-based remote participation into existing proceduFinres, maintaining confidentiality and treating participation as a civil-rights obligation.
• Just cause and emergency circumstances: Adopt written rules defining eligible situations, notice procedures, and annual numeric limits (2/5/7 meetings per year depending on frequency).
• Subsidiary bodies: Authorize teleconferencing by resolution, require one in-person site, reauthorize use every six months, and document participation by roll call.
• Multijurisdictional bodies: Establish policies codifying attendance caps, the 20-mile distance rule, and compensation restrictions for out-of-jurisdiction remote attendance.

 CONCLUSION

Ultimately, SB 707 implementation will require agencies to modernize meeting technology, strengthen accessibility systems, and institutionalize remote-participation controls. Early integration of policy, technology, and legal functions will minimize risk and transform compliance into a broader investment in open and inclusive local governance.

Local agencies are encouraged to coordinate and consult their city attorneys, municipal clerks, and technology staff to review and implement SB 707 provisions. Additional compliance assistance will likely be provided from municipal law firms, and organizations such as the California Municipal Clerks Association, League of California Cities, California Special Districts Association, and California State Association of Counties.