To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Christopher Diaz, Interim City Attorney and Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
Prepared By: Christopher Diaz, Interim City Attorney and Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
TITLE:
Title
Review of SB 707 Implementation Requirements and Adoption of Meeting Disruption Policy
LABEL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Recommendation
1. Receive a report from staff regarding Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) amending the Ralph M. Brown Act; and
2. Adopt a resolution adopting a Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Meetings Policy in Accordance with Senate Bill 707
Body
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND:
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.) imposes open meeting requirements on local legislative bodies. In 2025, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 707 (“SB 707”), which reorganizes, clarifies, and updates various Brown Act provisions, including those governing teleconferencing, remote public participation, meeting procedures, and enhanced accessibility for members of the public.
SB 707 applies to all legislative bodies, but certain special provisions apply only to “eligible legislative bodies,” as defined. The Napa City Council (but not other boards, commissions, or committees of the City) qualifies as an “eligible legislative body” because the City Council is the governing body of a City with a population of 30,000 or more. See, Cal. Gov. Code 54953.4(e)(2)(A)(defining “eligible legislative body” to include a city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more).
Among other things, starting July 1, 2026, SB 707 requires Brown Act meetings for “eligible legislative bodies” (in this case, the City Council only) to follow specific requirements for providing remote access to public participants via two-way audiovisual platforms or two-way telephonic services; captioning when using audiovisual platforms; and expanded accessibility and translation for notices and websites. In short, state law now requires that the City allow the public to attend and comment at Council meetings via Zoom or a similar platform.
ANALYSIS:
Requirement to Adopt a Policy for Service Disruptions for Remote Meeting Participants
A key aspect of SB 707 is that eligible legislative bodies are required, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt a policy governing disruption of telephonic and internet service for remote participants. Such a policy must be adopted by a separate majority vote (i.e. not on the consent calendar) of the eligible legislative body in an open session.
SB 707 sets specific requirements that must be contained within that policy. It must contain procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of disruption. It must also specify the efforts that the eligible legislative body shall make to attempt to restore the service for persons participating remotely in the meeting.
These requirements include recessing the open session and making a good faith attempt to restore the service if a disruption of telephonic or internet services occurs that prevents the public from attending or observing the meeting. The policy must also prohibit the legislative body from reconvening the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier.
Additionally, if telephonic or internet service cannot be restored, the eligible legislative body may reconvene the open session provided it adopts a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with its SB 707 policy and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.
These requirements do not apply to certain specified types of meetings, including meetings held offsite or for inspection purposes, or in emergency situations. The attached policy lists those exemptions and incorporates all of the required provisions noted here.
Disruptions Caused by Participants
While not required under SB 707, the attached Policy on Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Services also includes a section with guidance to the City Council and Staff in the event of an intentional disruption to a meeting caused by a remote public participant or group of participants.
While the City can respond when participants actually disrupt a public meeting, the First Amendment and Brown Act rights of public participants must also be respected, even if that speech is offensive. Therefore, it is beneficial for local legislative bodies to have written guidance about how and when to respond. Written guidance can empower the Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff to address such disruptions in an effective and lawful manner.
Recognizing the core First Amendment right to petition the government, City Council meetings are considered “limited public forums.” In these situations, the government can only impose reasonable time, place and manner regulations that are (i) content neutral; (ii) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and (iii) leave open alternative channels of communication. Examples of permissible regulations would be (1) requirements that public comment be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council (i.e., not criticizing federal foreign policy) or (2) time limitations on speakers. However, other restrictions on the content of speech are not permitted. This would include prohibiting profane or even slanderous comments. (Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 2010) 629 F.3d 966 [city cannot prohibit Nazi salute at public meeting]; see also Gov. Code, § 54594.3(c) [Board cannot “prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services” of the City or City Council].)
These broad free speech protections do have limits. Speakers cannot use public comment to actually disrupt the meeting or otherwise interfere with the conduct of City business. Based on this, the key to regulating speech at public meetings is to regulate disruptive behavior rather than the content of the speech.
The attached policy provides that in the event of an actual disruption, after a first verbal warning from the Mayor or the City Clerk, a disruptive remote public participant may have their microphone muted, have their video switched off, or be removed entirely from the meeting either as a last resort or because stopping the video or muting the participant is not available on the service being used. The policy also defines an actual disruption in accordance with relevant laws, so that the Presiding Officer and Staff can distinguish between protected First Amendment speech and a disruption.
City Council Policy Resolution No. 19
Staff recently reviewed City Council Policy Resolution No. 19 (Resolution R2016-9) to ensure it contains enough controls to manage public comment and aid in any intentional disruption of the meeting. The Brown Act generally indicates that the legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations for managing public comment including imposing time limits on speakers, limiting the total time allocated for a particular topic, and/or adopting requirements that limit public comments to those topics within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council.
City Council Policy Resolution No. 19 includes reasonable regulations available to the Council and Mayor as follows:
• Section 6.1.4 allows the Mayor to increase or decrease time for any public comment so long as the Mayor increases or decreases time based on factors that can be equitably applied to all speakers. This section would allow the Mayor to reduce time, limit the total amount of time for public comment, etc. in the event of a large volume of speakers.
• Section 6.1.5. allows the Mayor to determine that a speaker is out of order. The basis to determine that a speaker is out of order may include if they are commenting on a topic outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council or commenting on a topic outside of the actual agenda item. An additional helpful basis is if the speaker continues to speak after the allotted time or if they are otherwise disruptive.
Enhanced Public Engagement
In addition to the above requirements, SB 707 establishes several measures intended to enhance public engagement and accessibility. These requirements include translation of meeting agendas, provision of interpretation and translation services, creation of a dedicated public meeting webpage, establishment of additional agenda posting locations, and expanded public outreach efforts.
Staff will provide an overview of these additional requirements during the presentation.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The City Council’s adoption of this policy is anticipated to have a minimal financial impact on the City mostly related to staff’s time in preparing and implementing the policy. Any additional budgetary needs related to compliance of SB 707 will be addressed as part of the standard budget process.
CEQA:
The City Council’s adoption of this policy is not anticipated to have any environmental effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline 15378 as this is more akin to the adoption of policies and procedures that is not anticipated to cause any change in the environment.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
ATCH 1 - Resolution with Exhibit A
NOTIFICATION:
None.