An act to amend Sections 8877.4 and 8877.5 of, and to add Sections 8877.7, 8877.8, and 8877.9 to, the Government Code, relating to disaster preparedness.
AB 2385 updates California’s disaster recovery planning law by renaming existing pre-disaster plans as “disaster recovery plans” and expanding what those plans may contain. Local governments could prepare more detailed recovery frameworks covering short-, intermediate-, and long-term phases, including operational structure, leadership roles, recovery priorities, mitigation strategies, funding mechanisms, decisionmaking procedures, and coordination with state, local, nonprofit, and private-sector partners. If a city or county determines its general plan is inconsistent with its disaster recovery plan, the bill requires the general plan to be amended within a reasonable time.
The bill also directs the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, working with the Office of Emergency Services and other entities, to assess statewide recovery and rebuilding needs, develop model ordinance language, and issue guidance to help jurisdictions prepare disaster recovery plans. In addition, it authorizes local governments that adopt the required plan and ordinance to create a local reconstruction agency to coordinate post-disaster recovery in a defined local reconstruction area. These agencies could acquire property, contract, issue bonds, incur debt, provide loans or financial assistance, and use incremental property tax revenue and certain ad valorem tax revenues to finance recovery activities.
AB 2385 would change state law by adding new Government Code sections and revising existing definitions related to disaster recovery, local reconstruction areas, affected taxing entities, recovery, and reconstruction. It also imposes governance and transparency requirements on local reconstruction agencies: their boards must include representatives of participating taxing entities and members of the public, and the boards would be subject to the Brown Act, Public Records Act, and Political Reform Act. The bill further requires each agency to have a sunset date, with tax allocation ending no later than 45 years after a bond is issued or a loan is approved.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history is strongly supportive. The bill passed its recorded committee votes unanimously, including 6-0 and 10-0 votes, and was later reported out of committee 8-0. That pattern suggests broad agreement that California should give local governments more structured tools for disaster recovery and rebuilding.
The main area of potential contention is the scope of authority granted to local reconstruction agencies, especially their ability to issue bonds, incur debt, and capture incremental property tax revenue. Those financing powers resemble redevelopment-style tools, which can raise concerns about fiscal impacts on affected taxing entities, long-term tax diversion, and oversight. The bill appears to address some of those concerns by requiring public board members, open-meeting and public-records compliance, and a fixed termination date for the agency.
AB 2385 would amend the Government Code to expand and formalize local disaster recovery planning authority, create a new optional local reconstruction agency framework, and require state agencies to provide model ordinance language and guidance. It would affect cities, counties, and other local subdivisions that choose to adopt disaster recovery plans and establish reconstruction agencies, as well as affected taxing entities whose property tax revenues could be redirected under an approved ordinance. The bill also adds transparency, governance, and sunset provisions to the new local reconstruction agencies.
The bill appears to have received favorable, bipartisan or at least noncontroversial treatment in committee, with unanimous votes at each recorded step and no recorded opposition in the provided history. The discussion record provided does not include transcript excerpts, but the vote pattern indicates general support for strengthening disaster recovery planning and local rebuilding capacity.
The most notable policy tension is between disaster recovery flexibility and fiscal/governance safeguards. Supporters are likely to view the bill as giving local governments a clearer, more coordinated mechanism to rebuild after disasters, especially by allowing tax increment financing, bonding, and agency-level coordination. Potential critics may focus on the redevelopment-like financing structure, the diversion of incremental property tax revenues from other local taxing entities, and the breadth of powers granted to the new agencies. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring public representation on the board, subjecting the agency to open government laws, and limiting the agency’s life to a maximum of 45 years after financing is issued.