SB 707: The Brown Act’s Biggest Transformation in Decades – What California Public Agencies Must Know

On October 3, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 707 (Durazo) into law, implementing one of the most comprehensive overhauls of the Ralph M. Brown Act since its enactment in 1953. In the first months of 2026, California’s public agencies have begun to grapple with significant new requirements designed to modernize open meeting practices, expand public access, and address the technological realities of a post-pandemic world.

For public agencies throughout California, SB 707 marks a fundamental shift in how local government meetings must be conducted, who can participate, and how transparency is achieved in an increasingly digital age.

Understanding SB 707’s Structure: A Two-Track Approach

SB 707 establishes two distinct implementation tracks that public agencies must understand:

Track One: Universal Changes (Effective January 1, 2026)

These provisions apply to all legislative bodies subject to the Brown Act, regardless of size or type:

• Mandatory distribution of the Brown Act to all board members
• Codification of disability accommodations for remote participation
• Permanent extension of social media communication rules
• Expanded oral reporting requirements for executive compensation
• Reorganized and extended “just cause” teleconferencing provisions
• Enhanced authority to address disruptive conduct in remote meetings
• Modified emergency teleconferencing rules

Track Two: Enhanced Requirements for “Eligible Legislative Bodies” (Effective July 1, 2026)

These more stringent provisions apply only to larger public agencies meeting specific criteria:

• Mandatory two-way remote public participation
• Real-time captioning requirements
• Agenda translation into applicable languages
• Community outreach obligations
• Technology disruption protocols
• Multilingual webpage requirements

The key to compliance is first determining whether your agency is an “eligible legislative body” subject to Track Two requirements.

Who is an “Eligible Legislative Body”?

This new designation is critical, as it triggers substantially more demanding requirements. An “eligible legislative body” includes:

1. City Councils

• Any city with a population of 30,000 or more
• Any city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more (regardless of the city’s own population)

2. County Boards of Supervisors

• Any county or city-and-county with a population of 30,000 or more

3. Large Special Districts

Special districts that maintain a website and meet any of the following thresholds:

• Geographic scope: Includes the entirety of a county with 600,000+ population AND has 200+ full-time equivalent employees
• Size: Has 1,000+ full-time equivalent employees
• Revenue: Has 200+ full-time equivalent employees AND annual revenues exceeding $400 million (adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2027)

What’s NOT Included

Notably, the “eligible legislative body” definition does not include:

• School districts
• Community college districts
• Charter schools
• Smaller cities and special districts below the thresholds
• Advisory committees (though subsidiary bodies have their own provisions)

For agencies that are not “eligible legislative bodies,” compliance is significantly simpler—they need only implement the Track One universal changes.

Track One: Universal Changes for All Agencies

Let’s examine the changes that affect every public agency subject to the Brown Act, starting January 1, 2026.

1. Mandatory Brown Act Distribution

Every local agency must provide a copy of the Brown Act to any person elected or appointed to serve as a member of its legislative body.

Practical Implementation:

• Email distribution is sufficient
• Include in all new board member orientation materials
• Consider annual refresher distribution
• Maintain documentation that distribution occurred

2. Disability Accommodations for Remote Participation

SB 707 codifies that board members may participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a disability, clarifying a practice that was previously based on Attorney General guidance.

Requirements for Remote Disability Accommodation:

• Must participate using both audio and video technology (unless the disability requires off-camera participation)
• Must disclose before any action is taken whether any adults are present in the room and their general relationship
• Participation is deemed equivalent to in-person attendance for quorum purposes
• The agency need not meet traditional teleconferencing requirements (like posting the remote location)

3. Social Media Rules Made Permanent

AB 992 (2020) created temporary rules allowing board members to use social media while prohibiting certain interactions that could constitute serial meetings. These rules were set to expire January 1, 2026.

SB 707 removes the sunset date, making these social media provisions permanent.

The Rules: Board members may use social media platforms to engage with the public on matters within the legislative body’s jurisdiction, provided that:

• A majority of members do not use the platform to discuss among themselves specific business matters
• Members do not respond to, react to (like, love, retweet), or repost another member’s content about agency business
• Members do not facilitate a series of communications among a majority of the body

4. Expanded Executive Compensation Reporting

What Changed: The Brown Act previously required oral reports before taking action on compensation for “local agency executives.” SB 707 expands this to include department heads and similar administrative officers.

New Requirement: Before taking final action on compensation for executives, department heads, or other similar administrative officers, the legislative body must orally report a summary of the recommendation in open session.

What Must Be Reported:

• Salary
• Benefits
• Bonuses
• Incentive payments
• Other forms of compensation

5. Enhanced Authority Over Disruptive Conduct

What Changed: SB 707 adds new Section 54957.96, explicitly confirming that legislative bodies may remove or limit participation by individuals engaging in disruptive behavior during teleconferenced or hybrid meetings.

Significance: This codifies what many agencies had been doing during remote meetings but clarifies the legal authority to do so.

Practical Implementation:

• Establish clear rules of decorum for both in-person and remote participants
• Post rules prominently on meeting webpages and in virtual meeting platforms
• Train the presiding officer on procedures for addressing disruptions
• Implement warnings before removing participants
• Document disruptions and removal decisions
• Consider technology solutions (mute functions, waiting rooms, etc.)

Best Practice: Balance maintaining order with protecting First Amendment rights. Develop objective standards for what constitutes disruptive behavior, apply them consistently, and focus on conduct rather than content of speech.

Track Two: Enhanced Requirements for Eligible Legislative Bodies

Beginning July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies face substantially more requirements designed to maximize public accessibility and participation. These provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2030, though they may be extended or modified by future legislation.

1. Mandatory Two-Way Remote Public Participation

The Core Requirement: All open and public meetings must include the ability for members of the public to attend via either:

• A two-way telephonic service, OR
• A two-way audiovisual platform (with a call-in option)

What “Two-Way” Means: The public must be able both to observe/listen to the meeting AND to participate (including making public comments) remotely.

Platform Requirements: If using an audiovisual platform (like Zoom):

• Must include active captioning functionality
• Must also provide a call-in telephone option for those without internet access or visual technology
• Must enable remote participants to provide public comment

Exemptions: Remote participation is not required for:

• Off-site tours or meetings
• Meetings where technology is not available at the location
• Other narrow exceptions specified in the statute

2. Technology Disruption Protocol

The Requirement: By July 1, 2026, every eligible legislative body must adopt, at a noticed public meeting in open session, a written policy addressing disruptions to telephonic or internet services during meetings.

What the Policy Must Include:

• Steps to be taken if audio, video, or call-in platforms fail
• Identification of responsible personnel authorized to initiate corrective measures
• Procedures for resuming the meeting after service is restored

Mandatory Disruption Response: When a disruption occurs that substantially impairs public access:

• Must recess the open session for at least one hour
• Must make a good faith attempt to restore service during the recess
• May only resume if service is restored; otherwise must adjourn and reschedule

3. Agenda Translation Requirements

This is perhaps the most operationally significant—and potentially expensive—requirement for many agencies.

The Requirement: Agendas for regular meetings must be translated into all “applicable languages” and posted at least 72 hours before the meeting.

What Are “Applicable Languages”? Languages spoken jointly by 20% or more of the applicable population that also speaks English less than “very well,” according to the most recent American Community Survey data.

What Must Be Translated:

• The full meeting agenda
• Instructions (in the applicable language) describing how to:
  • Join the meeting by phone or internet
  • Register for public comment
  • Access interpretation services

Where Translations Must Be Posted:

• At a physical location freely accessible to the public (where the English agenda is posted)
• On the agency’s internet webpage for meetings
• With clear instructions in the applicable language on how to access and use them

4. Multilingual Meeting Webpage

The Requirement: Create and maintain a dedicated webpage that explains the agency’s public meeting process in all applicable languages.

What the Webpage Must Include:

• Public comment procedures
• How to request materials in accessible formats
• How to request interpretation services
• Meeting calendar
• Archive of past agendas and materials
• Instructions for remote participation

Accessibility Requirements:

• Must comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA
• Must be mobile-friendly
• Must be available in all applicable languages

Best Practice: Many agencies are already working toward these accessibility standards. If your website doesn’t currently meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, begin that upgrade process now. The Americans with Disabilities Act already requires accessible websites for public entities, so this is an important priority regardless of SB 707.

5. Interpretation Services

The Requirement: Eligible legislative bodies must provide reasonable interpretation services for members of the public during meetings.

What This May Include:

• Simultaneous interpretation services
• Allowing individuals to bring their own interpreters
• Allowing extra time for interpretation
• Permitting individuals to bring translation equipment
• Other reasonable accommodations

How to Request: Agencies must publish instructions on how to request interpretation services, including any advance notice requirements.

6. Community Outreach Obligations

The Requirement: Eligible legislative bodies must take reasonable steps to encourage participation by residents who have not traditionally engaged in public meetings.

Specific Obligations:

• Conduct outreach to community-based organizations
• Conduct outreach to non-English-speaking organizations
• Ensure requests for agendas and documents can be made electronically
• Invite news media serving underrepresented communities
• Create pathways for ongoing engagement

What “Reasonable Steps” Means: SB 707 deliberately leaves this somewhat vague, recognizing that effective outreach varies by community. However, agencies should document their outreach efforts.

Changes to Public Comment Rights

SB 707 also modifies when agencies can bypass public comment for items previously considered by a committee—an important change that applies to all legislative bodies, not just eligible ones.

Previous Rule

An agency could skip public comment on an item if it had already been considered by a committee composed exclusively of legislative body members.

New Rule (Effective January 1, 2026)

Public comment cannot be bypassed if the committee has primary jurisdiction over certain sensitive areas:

Mandatory Public Comment Topics:

• Elections
• Budgets
• Police oversight
• Privacy issues
• Limiting access to public library materials
• Taxes or related spending proposals

Additional Requirements: To bypass comment on other items, the agency must ensure:

• The item has not been substantially changed since committee consideration
• The committee meeting had a physical, in-person quorum
• The committee does not have primary jurisdiction over the sensitive areas listed above

Practical Implementation:

• Identify which committees have jurisdiction over mandatory comment topics
• Never bypass public comment for these items, regardless of committee review
• Document committee recommendations and any changes made to items
• Train staff and board members on the new requirements

Need Assistance with SB 707 Compliance?

DPMC Law has extensive experience advising California public entities on Brown Act compliance, and we’re helping our clients navigate SB 707’s new requirements. Whether you need help determining your agency’s obligations, developing required policies, training board members and staff, or ensuring ongoing compliance, our team is here to assist.

Contact Christina C. Mihelich or call 619-354-5030 to discuss your agency’s SB 707 compliance needs.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is general in nature and may not apply to your specific situation. SB 707 contains numerous nuances and exceptions not fully detailed in this article. For advice regarding your particular circumstances and agency, please consult with a qualified attorney experienced in California public entity law.

By Christina C. Mihelich | February 17, 2026

About the Author:

Christina C. Mihelich is an attorney at Devaney Pate Morris & Cameron specializing in municipal law and Brown Act compliance. She regularly advises California public agencies on open meeting requirements, transparency obligations, and governance matters. Christina provides practical guidance to cities, counties, and special districts navigating complex regulatory requirements while maintaining effective public participation. She can be reached at cmihelich@dpmclaw.com.