California Senate Bill SB1388

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 4/29/26
• Engrossed: 5/7/26
• Refer: 5/18/26

Caption

An act to add Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 50899.15) to Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to housing developers.

Summary

SB 1388 would amend Government Code Section 50060.5 governing local habitat maintenance districts. The bill keeps the existing authority for a local agency to create a district, levy assessments for up to 30 years, and implement a long-term natural habitat maintenance plan approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, but it expands the list of entities a local agency may contract with to carry out those functions. Specifically, it would add a joint powers authority to the entities already authorized for contracts, alongside the state, another local agency, and a special district. The bill is narrow in scope and does not create a new program or funding source. It mainly clarifies and broadens administrative flexibility for local agencies that are already authorized to form habitat maintenance districts and assess property owners to fund approved conservation plans. It also leaves intact the existing rules that assessments must follow an approved natural habitat conservation plan and that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act does not apply to these districts.

Impact

SB 1388 would make a targeted change to local government law by expressly allowing local agencies to contract with a joint powers authority to perform natural habitat improvement or maintenance functions. This would affect local agencies, joint powers authorities, special districts, and property owners subject to assessments within habitat maintenance districts. The bill does not alter the basic assessment authority, the 30-year limit, or the requirement for Department of Fish and Wildlife approval, but it would broaden the range of public entities that can help implement these conservation plans.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill has generally been received favorably. It received a unanimous 7-0 vote to do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar in one committee, and the later committee action was also positive, with a 10-1 vote to do pass as amended and re-refer to Appropriations. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public controversy or support beyond the votes themselves.

Contention

The bill appears to be low-conflict, but any potential concern would likely center on the expansion of contracting authority to joint powers authorities and the continued use of assessments to fund long-term habitat maintenance. Opponents, if any, might question whether this adds another layer of local governance or broadens implementation authority too far, while supporters would likely view it as a practical administrative update that gives local agencies more options to manage conservation projects. The bill text itself does not indicate any major policy dispute.