Greg Murphy, Elena Gerli, and Chad Herrington are partners at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP. Justin Tamayo and Alexandra Mulhall are associate attorneys at the firm. For more information, please contact Greg Murphy at gmurphy@bwslaw.com or (213) 236-2835.

The state Legislature has been busy again, modifying and tweaking ethics and transparency rules for local government officials and staff. These range from some good news-bad news tweaks to recusals to changes that impact new housing developments. Here are some insights into the practical effects of some of those key changes.

Good news and bad news for recusals

SB 1243 (Dodd, 2024) and SB 1181 (Glazer, 2024), which have far-reaching provisions specific to agency legal counsel, went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. The two measures raised the Levine Act campaign contribution limits from $250 to $500. The bills also extended how long an elected official has to cure a violation to within 30 days of accepting, soliciting, or directing the contribution — whichever is the latest.

This is welcome news for local officials, as the previous limits and cure period were so onerous that many worried that widespread recusals would negatively impact land use decisions. But there is less-welcome news, too: The prohibition against an agent to a party or participant making a contribution now starts when the proceeding is “pending” and lasts 12 months after the final decision. A proceeding is “pending” if it is on a public meeting agenda or if the official knows about the proceeding and it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will come before the official. 

On the “good news-bad news” front, SB 1111 (Min, 2024) will add a new provision to the definition of “remote interest” for Government Code 1090/1091 starting Jan. 1 of next year. If a public official’s child has a leadership role or an ownership interest of 10% or more in a party to a contract, that will qualify as a “remote interest” for the officer. A remote interest is a financial interest that creates a conflict for the individual official but not for the agency as a whole. 

This is good because the new qualification as a “remote interest” means that the child’s interest will not create an unavoidable conflict that would bar the agency from entering a contract. Rather, it creates another instance in which the official must announce the conflict and recuse themselves or face potential personal liability. Make sure you talk with your children about their work and understand where the pitfalls may lie.

Public records and privacy relief

This year brought some welcome news for city clerks and other public records managers. AB 1785 (Pacheco, 2024) amended the Public Records Act as of Jan. 1 of this year. The bill specifies that state or local agencies cannot publicly post certain information, such as the home address, of an elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining their written permission. More protection for the privacy of elected and appointed officials is welcome, and city clerks should proceed cautiously when attempting to comply with this very technical provision.

While not a legislative act, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Desolina Di Lauro v. City of Burbank, suggesting that class action claims are essentially unavailable under the Public Records Act. The court determined that a class action under the act would not further this right of access to records, absent some sign that a public agency “is consistently and erroneously claiming that some category of records is exempt from disclosure.” This is good news for city clerks and records custodians who can continue to work with individual requestors without the fear of large-scale litigation.

Public notice and fee changes

This year also saw two changes for land use decisions go into effect. AB 2904 (Quirk-Silva, 2024) requires planning commissions to give at least 20 days’ public notice before holding a public hearing on an ordinance affecting the permitted uses of real estate. The bill reinforces the importance of transparency and public participation in zoning decisions, ensuring that residents and property owners have enough time to get involved in the planning process.

AB 1820 (Schiavo, 2024) requires local jurisdictions to provide a “good faith estimate” of the total fees and exactions that apply to a housing development project within 30 days of the project’s final approval. This seems perfectly reasonable. However, the new section also requires cities to provide preliminary fee and exaction estimates within 30 business days of receipt of a preliminary application for a housing project upon the developer’s request. This portion may be more onerous and could result in challenges to later-imposed fees.

Conclusion

As is often the case, recent legal developments place greater burdens on local agencies and agency officials and employees. But we are happy to note that in 2025, at least some of the changes have made legal compliance just a little bit easier.