The California High-Speed Rail Act creates the High-Speed Rail Authority (authority) to develop and implement a high-speed rail system in the state, with specified powers and duties, including the power to enter into contracts, relocate highways and utilities, and enter into cooperative or joint development agreements with local governments or private entities, as specified. The act establishes legal procedures for the relocation of publicly and privately owned utility facilities, as defined, when the authority requires any utility to remove any utility facility lawfully maintained in the right-of-way of any high-speed rail property to a location entirely outside the high-speed rail property right-of-way subject to specified conditions. The act authorizes the authority and any utility to enter into a specified agreement or contract to remove or relocate any utility facility that provides for, among other things, the respective amounts of the cost to be borne by each party or that apportions the obligations and costs of each party.

Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority Office of the Inspector General (office) and authorizes the High-Speed Rail Authority Inspector General (inspector general) to initiate an audit or review regarding oversight related to delivery of the high-speed rail project undertaken by the authority and the selection and oversight of contractors related to that project. Existing law requires the inspector general to submit annual reports to the Legislature and Governor regarding its findings.

This bill would require the authority, on or before January July 1, 2026, to develop and adopt regulations setting forth requirements governing third-party local agency permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the high-speed rail project. The bill would require the authority to ensure that the regulations, among other things, identify the circumstances under which the authority would be required to seek to enter into a cooperative agreement with a third party, which the bill would define as a local agency or utility, that that, where relevant, identifies who is responsible for specific utility relocations and the costs associated with those relocations. The actions, as specified.

This bill would require the authority to consult with specified entities in developing the internal rules and regulations and would require the authority to hold at least 2 public hearings regarding the proposed internal rules and regulations.

This bill would prohibit the authority from implementing these regulations unless it completes delay the operation of these internal rules and regulations until the office determines that the authority has completed the development and implementation of a process to review third-party agreements in a timely manner as recommended by the office, as specified. The bill would require the office, beginning one year after the operative date of the internal rules and regulations, to conduct a review of the effectiveness of those rules and regulations and to make recommendations for their improvement. The bill would require the office, when it determines that the high-speed rail project is complete, to submit a report to the Legislature informing the Legislature of that fact. The bill would make the requirement to adopt these internal rules and regulations inoperative on the date that the office submits that report to the Legislature.

This bill would declare its provisions to be severable.

To the extent this bill imposes additional duties on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to improve and maintain the states highways. Existing law authorizes the department to issue encroachment permits and requires the department to either approve or deny an application from an applicant for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application, as provided. Existing law also requires the department, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

This bill would instead require the department to develop and adopt the above-described project intake, evaluation, and encroachment review process on or before February 1, 2027. The bill would also state the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, sets forth various requirements relating to the review of development project permit applications and the issuance of development permits for specified classes of development projects.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA, until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements certain transportation-related projects if specified requirements are met. CEQA includes within these exempt transportation-related projects a public project for the institution or increase of bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail service, which will be exclusively used by low-emission or zero-emission vehicles, on existing public rights-of-way or existing highway rights-of-way.

This bill would require a lead agency to provide a written notice with specified information to a third-party entity, defined by the bill to mean a local agency, electrical corporation, or private telecommunications provider, regarding its need to use, relocate, alter, change, or otherwise improve facilities, publicly owned and managed utilities, public spaces, or other publicly or privately owned facilities under the third-party entitys jurisdiction or ownership for the implementation of a sustainable transportation project. This bill would define sustainable transportation project to mean a project where the lead agency is a state agency, operator, or local agency that proposes the construction or modification of facilities meeting at least one of several specified criteria, including that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above-described provisions. The bill would define large sustainable transportation project to mean a sustainable transportation project that, based on the project engineers cost estimate at the time the lead agency completes environmental review, costs more than $25,000,000, and meets other specified criteria.

This bill would require a lead agency to provide a written notice with specified information to a third-party entity regarding its need to use, relocate, alter, change, or otherwise improve facilities, publicly owned and managed utilities, public spaces, or other publicly or privately owned facilities under the third-party entitys jurisdiction or ownership for the implementation of a sustainable transportation project. Within 30 calendar days of receiving that notice, the bill would require the third-party entity to provide a written response to the lead agency, as provided, and, within 30 calendar days of determining the notice is complete, would require the third-party entity to take certain actions, including providing as-built plans to the lead agency for all third-party entity facilities that will be impacted by the work described in the written notice. The bill would also prohibit a third-party entity from requiring, among other things, as a condition for issuance of certain permits, conformance with or the performance of any conditions, except under certain circumstances.

This bill would require a lead agency responsible for a large sustainable transportation project to seek to enter into a cooperative agreement with each third-party entity through which the project passes. The bill would also require the lead agency to provide a written notice with specified information to the third-party entity of its intent to enter into a cooperative agreement with the third-party entity. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the notice, the bill would require the third-party entity to provide a written response to the lead agency, as provided, and within 60 calendar days of determining the notice is complete, would require the third-party entity to enter into a cooperative agreement with the lead agency that contains certain provisions, including that it meets applicable federal requirements, standards, or guidelines. The bill would also prohibit a third-party entity from requiring, among other things, as a condition to the issuance of certain permits, conformance with or the performance of any conditions that the third-party entity could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the design or construction of the project after the process described above is completed.

By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: August 20, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 445

Author:(Wiener) – As Amended Ver:July 17, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill directs the High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), in consultation with specified entities, to develop both internal rules governing HSRA’s engagement of specified utilities to ensure coordination and cooperation in relocating utility infrastructure and regulations governing local agency permits and approvals.

Among other things, the bill:

1. Defines utilities, for purposes of this bill, as electrical and gas corporations (IOUs), local publicly owned utilities (POUs) and private telecommunications providers.
2. As part of its development of internal rules, requires the HSRA to identify, in coordination with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), existing processes within the CPUC that may provide a similar process and outcome for disputes with utilities regulated by the CPUC instead of processes HSRA may develop pursuant to this bill.
3. Requires HSRA to hold at least two public hearings regarding the internal rules and the regulations before adopting either.
4. Makes the internal rules and the regulations inoperative until the HSRA Office of the Inspector General (HSRA-OIG) determines the HSRA has completed development and implementation of a process to review third-party agreements in a timely manner.
5. Directs the HSRA-OIG, beginning one year from the operative date of the internal rules and the regulations, to evaluate the extent to which the HSRA is meeting its review deadlines and other requirements and to determine the extent to which the internal rules and the regulations have been effective in limiting delays associated with third-party agreements.
6. Requires the HSRA and the specified utilities, by December 1, 2026, to identify existing barriers and agree to preferred solutions to ensure utility relocations do not result in unnecessary or foreseeable project delays, including agreeing to a definition of “betterments” that prohibits requirements or conditions unrelated to health, reliability and safety standards.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill will require HSRA to undertake significant analytical and regulatory efforts, with resulting costs likely in the millions of dollars (special fund). HSRA estimates costs in the low millions of dollars and describes the associated work as drafting and adopting regulations and related policies and documents, conducting research and engaging external stakeholders. HSRA assumes a 12-month timeline to complete this work and that it will need to contract with outside experts to do so.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author views the high-speed rail projects as “essential for an abundant, affordable, zero-emission future” and contends it is “imperative to help the project cut through permitting and approval-related red tape in order to prevent project cost increases and accelerate project delivery.” To that end, the author intends this bill to place in code recommendations of the HSRA-OIG that, the author asserts, will “cut red tape, streamline the project delivery process, curtail veto-points, and reduce and contain project costs.”
2. Background. Statute in 1996 created the HSRA to plan and construct a high-speed rail system that would link the state’s major population centers. In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, which authorized the state to sell $10 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund the system, as well as related projects.

Over the years, the project has faced challenges, including inadequate funding (despite more than $14 billion in expenditures) and delays caused by right of way acquisition and utility relocations. To date, no high-speed train operates on the line.

In 2022, the Legislature created the HSRA-OIG. The Legislature provided the HSRA-OIG with broad oversight authority and assigned to it several specific duties, among them: (a) conduct independent fiscal estimates and reviews of HSRA’s plans and estimates for project advancement and make findings of their reasonableness, (b) conduct audits and investigations, (c) identify best practices and recommend policies to HSRA and (d) review HSARA’s contracts and contracting practices to determine whether they are executed consistent with state and federal laws and policies and are conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, providing the state with valued services at reasonable cost.

In February of this year, the HSRA-OIG released a report (“Report 25-R-01”) on its review of the HSRA’s progress on the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment of the high-speed rail corridor and the likelihood HSRA would complete the segment by the target set by HSRA, 2033. The HSRA-OIG warned of “the potential for significant uncertainty and risk” and concluded “staying within the 2033 schedule envelope is unlikely.” In a subsequent report published that same month (“Report 25-R-02”), the HSRA-OIG found HSRA “lacks leverage to help ensure that third parties do not themselves needlessly delay negotiations” and recommended HSRA work with the Legislature “to implement changes to state law to improve its ability to resolve third-party delays in a timely manner.”

1. Support and Opposition. The author gutted-and-amended this bill after it left the Senate, and it then was heard by three Assembly policy committees—Transportation, Utilities and Energy, and Local Government. Several sources have indicated the author plans substantial amendments to the bill. This committee does not know how any such amendments, should they occur, would affect the position of various organizations. The following reflects support for and opposition to the bill when it was heard by the Assembly policy committees the second week of July.

This bill was supported by Streets for All and California YIMBY, the latter of which writes:

The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the state, making the need for clean, sustainable transportation projects critical. However, these projects are often plagued by delays as lead agencies…navigate a balkanized post-environmental permitting and construction process. Permitting and other delays – such as utility relocations – result in increased project costs, and less transit being built at a greater cost.

SB 445 addresses these delays by imposing timelines on 3rd-party permit or other project construction activity permissions or approvals, and empowers lead agencies to be self-permitting and advance work should the timelines not be met.

In contrast, the bill was opposed by a long list of local governments and related associations, which described the bill as “leading to the near-total erosion of local authority to manage public infrastructure/assets.” In addition, USTelecom—The Broadband Association and the California Broadband & Video Association (CalBroadband) together described the bill as “confusing and complex,” “a solution in search of a problem” and “an ideal candidate to become a two-year bill, which will allow for more thoughtful analysis.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 16, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 445

Author:(Wiener) – As Amended Ver:July 9, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 34-1

SUBJECT: High-speed rail: third-party permits and approvals: regulations

SUMMARY: Requires the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to develop and adopt regulations for governing third-party permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the project. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CHSRA, by January 1, 2026, to develop and adopt regulations for governing third-party permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the high-speed rail project and ensure that the regulations do all of the following:
   1. Require early engagement between third parties and CHSRA.
   2. Identify the circumstances under which CHSRA shall seek to enter into a cooperative agreement with each applicable third party that serves as the framework for all future project interactions and, where relevant, identifies who is responsible for specific utility relocations and the associated costs.
   3. Require regular meetings with third parties during the planning, design, and construction phases.
   4. Require CHSRA to establish cost estimates with conservative contingency budgets for each utility relocation and to not oversimplify the utility costs and potential risks by bundling those costs into a single item.
   5. Require regular communication and documentation of contracting terms, conditions, and decisions during construction.
   6. Define options that can govern a third-party review process for permits and approvals.
   7. Consider ways to reduce permitting and approval delays.
   8. Establish a binding dispute resolution process.
   9. Exempt gas corporations and electrical corporations that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates from the dispute resolution process.
   10. Prohibit third-party entities from insisting on exactions or betterments from CHSRA that are unrelated to ensuring that health and safety standards are met, unless otherwise stipulated by a cooperative agreement, as a condition for permits and approvals.

• 1. Consider reimbursement of third-party staff time and third-party time and materials to relocate the utility.

• 1. Define the terms “betterment” and “cooperative agreement” for purposes of the regulation.

1. Requires CHSRA to consult with all of the following entities when developing the regulations: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); CPUC; local government stakeholders; local publicly owned utilities (POUs), gas corporations, and electrical corporations; water districts; telecommunications companies; passenger and freight railroads; and any other relevant entities with expertise in transportation infrastructure project delivery.
2. Requires CHSRA to hold at least two public hearings regarding the proposed regulations before adopting them.
3. Requires CHSRA to post a public notice on its website when it adopts the regulations and not enter into a third-party agreement until 30 days after the public notice is posted.
4. Prohibits CHSRA from implementing these regulations until it completes the development and implementation of a process to review third-party agreements in a timely manner as recommended by the High-Speed Rail Authority Office of the Inspector General (OIG-HSR) in Recommendation 25-R-02-02.
5. Contains a number of definitions, including that “third party” means a local agency or utility, including, but not limited to, an electrical corporation, gas corporation, local POU, or private telecommunications provider.
6. Includes a severability clause.
7. Contains findings and declarations regarding its purpose.
8. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates CHSRA in the California State Transportation Agency with 11 members: five appointed by the Governor, two appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, two appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and one each ex-officio member appointed by the Senate and Assembly. (Public Utilities Code (PUC) §185020)
2. Requires CHSRA to direct the development and implementation of an intercity high-speed rail service. (PUC § 185030)
3. Requires CHSRA to reimburse utilities for relocation costs under specified circumstances. It also requires the utility “to move its facilities as soon as reasonable possible so as not to delay high-speed rail construction” under specified circumstances. (PUC § 185505)
4. Requires Caltrans to specify for a utility relocation a reasonable time within which the work of relocation shall commence. (Streets and Highways Code (SHC) § 680)
5. Establishes special provisions and requirements for Caltrans when relocating utilities within and outside freeways. (SHC §§ 700-707.5)
6. Creates the OIG-HSR to initiate an audit or review regarding oversight related to delivery of the high-speed rail project undertaken by CHSRA, and the selection and oversight of contractors related to the project. (PUC § 187000, et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill requires CHSRA to develop and adopt regulations for governing third-party permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the high-speed rail project, with specified objectives, by January 1, 2026.

CHSRA must consult with all of the following entities when developing the regulations: Caltrans; CPUC; local government stakeholders; local publicly owned utilities, gas corporations, and electrical corporations; water districts; telecommunications companies; passenger and freight railroads; and any other relevant entities with expertise in transportation infrastructure project delivery.

CHSRA must hold at least two public hearings regarding the proposed regulations before adopting them, and must post a public notice on its website when it adopts the regulations and not enter into a third-party agreement until 30 days after the public notice is posted.

This bill prohibits CHSRA from implementing the regulations until it completes the development and implementation of a process to review third-party agreements in a timely manner as recommended by OIG-HSR in Recommendation 25-R-02-02.

This bill is sponsored by Streets for All.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “California High-Speed Rail is critical for our state’s future. The project is already combating climate change, fostering transit-oriented developing, and creating thousands of good-paying union jobs. The project is essential for an abundant, affordable, zero-emission future. It is imperative to help the project cut through permitting and approval-related red tape in order to prevent project cost increases and accelerate project delivery. It shouldn’t be this hard to go through design review and approvals or to relocate utilities. There shouldn’t be so many veto-points that empower project skeptics or opponents to stall the delivery – particularly after the voters approved funding for the project and design and construction are underway. SB 445 implements a High-Speed Rail inspector general recommendation to cut red tape, streamline the project delivery process, curtail veto-points, and reduce and contain project costs. The bill will result in improved and more cost-effective delivery of California High-Speed Rail, ensuring that public dollars are wisely spent on the project.”
2. Background. Utility relocation poses risks to the scope, schedule, and cost of transit and rail projects. A wide variety of private, public, or cooperatively-owned utilities for water, natural gas, fuel, chemical feeds, stormwater, wastewater, electrical power, telephone, cable/TV/Internet fiber, street lighting, and traffic signaling are built under, on or over city streets and other rights-of-way. Some of these require special care such as fiber optic given the practice of threading the fiber through older, abandoned utilities such as gas lines. Projects with alignments near federal buildings such as court houses, or near public or law enforcement agencies may encounter communications lines or other infrastructure that are not readily identified. These buildings and their utilities require special handling.

Transit and rail projects often involve modification to existing underground and overhead infrastructure. The need to relocate or remove existing utilities on transit and rail project sets up encounters with known, unknown, unmarked, or abandoned utilities. The design of utility relocations must accommodate track slabs, rail-tie-ballast track roadbed, catenary poles, signal masts, gravity flow stormwater drainage, station platforms, signage, lighting, signaling, communications lines, power lines, bridge abutments and piers, earth retaining walls, noise walls, streetscaping, landscaping, and other new infrastructure. Relocation of utilities under intersections and sidewalks is even more complicated and overhead contact systems must consider the potential for electrical interference between the traction power wires and other overhead, non-transit, high voltage lines.

Pre-construction activities for transportation infrastructure projects—often referred to as early works— generally includes project sponsors negotiating agreements with various third parties, such as utility owners, railroad companies, and local jurisdictions, before initiating construction. Project sponsors must work with various third parties to acquire right of way and relocate utilities located in the system’s path, and manage betterments. A betterment is an improvement that occurs to the utility during the relocation process that increases capacity and is not otherwise required in order to successfully relocate the utility as a result of the project.

1. Local Permitting. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority.

Cities and counties enforce their land use authority through zoning regulations and their control of the entitlement process, which is the process by which a city or county grants permission for a proposed development to be built (most often in the context of a housing project). Zoning and entitlement can both involve the process of issuing various types of permits, such as use permits, variances, encroachment permits, building permits, and so forth. Locally-owned utilities, also called POUs, frequently become involved in the process of issuing permits when a permit requires approvals for electric, water or other utility services or the approval of a utility to move or “relocate” any of its infrastructure.

1. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Best Practices. The FTA Project Management Oversight Program, Utility Relocation - Challenges and Proposed Solutions report of March 2022 identified best practices to address utility relocation challenges. These include active, on-going implementation of mitigations such as meetings, tracking, following-up on action items to maintain accountability, schedule workarounds, communication, cost negotiations, enforcement of compliance with federal regulations, and dedicated attention throughout the project.

The FTA’s best practices for utility relocations include:

• 1. Preplanning: early in a project, all project stakeholders draft and agree to the terms of a Third-Party Utility Relocation Agreement. This agreement serves as the groundwork for all future project interactions between and among the stakeholders and identifies who is responsible for specific utility relocations and the costs associated with those relocations.
  2. Meet regularly: Hold regular (weekly) meetings with utility companies during the planning, design, and construction phases.
  3. Cost estimates: Project Sponsors should establish cost estimates with conservative contingency budgets for each utility relocation and not oversimplify the utility costs and potential risks by “bundling” them into a single item.
  4. Partnering sessions: Define roles and responsibilities of the partners and clarify lines of communication so the decision-making process is understood.
  5. Segments: For above ground transit and rail projects costs, break the project into segments so that as a segment is cleared of existing utilities new construction can begin.
  6. Continue regular communication and documentation of contracting terms, conditions, and decisions during construction.

1. CHSRA. SB 1420 (Kopp), Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996, established CHSRA to plan and construct a high speed rail system that would link the state’s major population centers. In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, which authorized the state to sell $10 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund the system, as well as related projects. Proposition 1A also specified certain criteria and conditions that the system must ultimately achieve. For example, the measure requires that the system be designed to be capable of specified travel times along certain routes, such as nonstop travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles within two hours and forty minutes.

Over the years, the project has faced many challenges largely stemming from a lack of adequate funding to complete even a segment of the project, and delays caused by right of way acquisition and utility relocations. As of May 31, 2025, $14.4 billion has been spent on the project, mostly on work between Merced and Bakersfield.

1. OIG-HSR. SB 198 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 71, Statutes of 2022, established the OIG-HSR. Since its inception, OIG-HSR has completed six reviews of the high-speed rail project. In its February 21, 2025 review of “Preconstruction Activities for the Merced to Bakersfield Extensions” the OIG-HSR recommended that the Legislature authorize CHSRA to promulgate regulations governing third-party review and approval timeframes for agreements and designs.

The OIG-HSR found that “…procedures do not fundamentally improve the Authority’s ability to get third parties to engage in what can be a time-consuming process. As a potential result, early works on the Merced and Bakersfield extensions have been hindered by delays in executing utility-owner reimbursement agreements, which are generally necessary for utility owners to review and approve utility relocation designs before the Authority can begin construction. In fact, some negotiations have been ongoing for nearly two years without reaching agreement. The Authority’s often time-consuming internal review process, disagreement over contract terms, and little incentive for utility owners to engage in the process in a timely manner have caused the delays. Consequently, the Authority is currently proceeding with utility relocation designs without owner approval, which could lead to more redesigns later.”

The OIG-HSR also found, “During our review, Authority staff described what they believe are some causes of challenges in negotiating timely agreements with third parties. Authority staff responsible for working with third parties and overseeing design of the extensions indicated to us that delays result, in part, from third parties’ lack of incentive to engage in the process, which requires work on their part that they wouldn’t otherwise perform. Further, Authority staff overseeing the Central Valley region of the system explained to us that because utility owners, for example, are not under any particular time pressure, there is a resulting imbalance in these negotiations and the Authority’s other interactions with third parties.

“Additionally, Authority staff explained that, in the past, the Authority sometimes agreed to terms that put it in a disadvantageous position—for example, agreeing to compensate third parties for their attorney costs or agreeing to overly tight timelines for construction related to relocating individual utilities. We saw documentation of this type of issue in the example described in the previous section concerning attorney fee reimbursement. Authority staff also indicated that the lack of uniform agreement terms more generally increases difficulties in efficiently reaching and executing agreements. Authority staff expressed that, although the Authority has learned from and is now trying to avoid past mistakes, the legacy of those older agreements means that some third parties expect to receive the same terms as before, making current negotiations challenging.”

1. Internal Processes at CHSRA. In its February 2025 review, the OIG-HSR found that third-party-related delays are partially attributable to CHRSA and its project management procedures being inadequate. The OIG-HSR found that CHSRA lacks defined negotiation timeframes, and “communicating those timeframes to third parties, would be helpful in making the process more efficient.”

The OIG-HSR recommended that “…by May 2025, the third-party agreements branch and the contracts and procurement branch should develop procedures with defined timeframes for their internal review processes. These should include defined timeframes for how long staff at each level should attempt to resolve an issue before escalating it.” OIG-HSR also recommended that CHSRA improve internal tracking tools and hire additional legal staff if needed by May 2025. CHSRA agreed with these recommendations.

1. Policy Considerations. This bill was substantially amended on July 9, 2025, which provided very little time for stakeholders to update their positions on the current version of the bill. Concerns could include:
   1. Which “third-party entities” should be subject to regulations? Should regulations apply to all local agencies, or only to POUs? Should regulations apply to all utilities, or only to investor-owned utilities or POUs?
   2. Which permits or approvals should be subject to regulations? What does the evidence indicate regarding the types of permits or approvals that are actually or potentially delaying the high-speed rail project?
   3. Who is regulating? Should CHSRA or a different entity adopt regulations for the high-speed rail project?
   4. Should there be parameters around binding arbitration? Should this bill provide more details regarding what the binding arbitration process entails, who will administer it, and if it would include any appeals process?
   5. Who pays for utility relocations? Should this bill clarify who is responsible for the costs of utility relocations?
   6. What about reliability of service? Should this bill provide more specificity regarding the ability for a utility to continue delivering services reliably in the process of a utility relocation?

These and other debates could arise from the recent amendments to this bill. The Committee may wish to consider the extent to which additional amendments should be adopted moving forward to address any questions, concerns or opposition raised regarding the bill in print.

1. Arguments in Support. Streets for All, sponsor of this bill, writes, “SB 445 requires the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and adopt regulations that outline requirements for third party permits and approvals necessary for the project. In doing so, the bill helps the project get built faster and on budget, effectively spending public funds.

“The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the state, and the high-speed rail project will drastically reduce these emissions by an estimated 84 to 102 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the first 50 years of operation. In order for the project to be built on schedule and on budget, it is imperative that it not be held up by thousands of individual veto points after the decision has been made to fund, design, and construct the project.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The current version of this bill, amended July 9, 2025, substantially amended the bill. All opposition letters address the prior version of this bill, and it is unclear if opposition arguments remain relevant.
2. Triple-Referral. This bill is triple-referred to the Transportation Committee, where it was heard on July 14, 2025, and the Utilities and Energy Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Streets for All [SPONSOR]

350 Bay Area Action (prior version)

California YIMBY (prior version)

SPUR (prior version)

Opposition

The current version of this bill, amended July 9, 2025, substantially amended the bill. Organizations listed in opposition submitted their positions to the prior version of this bill.

Association of California Water Agencies

CalBroadband

California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Municipal Utilities Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

City of Arcata

City of Artesia

City of Burbank

City of Chino

City of Colton

City of Cypress

City of Downey

City of El Segundo

City of La Palma

City of Laguna Niguel

City of Lakewood

City of Los Alamitos

City of Manteca

City of Menifee

City of Merced

City of Mission Viejo

City of Moreno Valley

City of Morgan Hill

City of Novato

City of Ontario

City of Palm Desert

City of Rancho Cucamonga

City of San Luis Obispo

City of Stanton

City of Suisun City

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Torrance

City of Vernon

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Southern California Edison

Southern California Gas Company

Town of Mammoth Lakes

Urban Counties of California (UCC)

USTelecom - The Broadband Association

Watereuse California

Oppose Unless Amended

City of Tustin (prior version)

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: July 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 445

Author:(Wiener) – As Amended Ver:June 30, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 34-1

SUBJECT: High-speed rail: third-party permits and approvals: regulations.

SUMMARY: Requires the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to develop and adopt regulations for governing third-party permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the project. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CHSRA by January 1, 2026 to develop and adopt regulations for governing third-party permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the high-speed rail project and ensure that the regulations do all of the following:
2. Require early engagement between third parties and CHSRA;
3. Identify the circumstances under which CHSRA shall seek to enter into a cooperative agreement with each applicable third party that serves as the framework for all future project interactions and, where relevant, identifies who is responsible for specific utility relocations and the associated costs;
4. Require regular meetings with third parties during the planning, design, and construction phases;
5. Require the CHSRA to establish cost estimates with conservative contingency budgets for each utility relocation and to not oversimplify the utility costs and potential risks by bundling those costs into a single item;
6. Require regular communication and documentation of contracting terms, conditions, and decisions during construction;
7. Define options that can govern a third-party review process for permits and approvals;
8. Consider ways to reduce permitting and approval delays;
9. Establish a binding dispute resolution process;
10. Exempt gas corporations and electrical corporations that the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates from the dispute resolution process;
11. Prohibit third-party entities from insisting on exactions or betterments from CHSRA that are unrelated to ensuring that health and safety standards are met, unless otherwise stipulated by a cooperative agreement, as a condition for permits and approvals;
12. Consider reimbursement of third-party staff time and third-party time and materials to relocate the utility; and,
13. Define the terms “betterment” and “cooperative agreement” for purposes of the regulation.
14. Requires CHSRA to consult with all of the following entities when developing the regulations: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); CPUC; local government stakeholders; local publicly owned utilities, gas corporations, and electrical corporations; water districts; telecommunications companies; passenger and freight railroads; and any other relevant entities with expertise in transportation infrastructure project delivery.
15. Requires CHSRA to hold at least two public hearings regarding the proposed regulations before adopting them.
16. Requires CHSRA to post a public notice on its website when it adopts the regulations and not enter into a third-party agreement until 30 days after the public notice is posted.
17. Prohibits CHSRA from implementing these regulations until it completes the development and implementation of a process to review third-party agreements in a timely manner as recommended by the High-Speed Rail Authority Office of the Inspector General (OIG-HSR) in Recommendation 25-R-02-02.
18. Includes a severability clause.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates CHSRA in the California State Transportation Agency with 11 members: five appointed by the Governor, two appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, two appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and one each ex-officio member appointed by the Senate and Assembly. (Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 185020)
2. Requires CHSRA to direct the development and implementation of an intercity high-speed rail service. (PUC 185030)
3. Requires CHSRA to reimburse utilities for relocation costs under specified circumstances. It also requires the utility “to move its facilities as soon as reasonable possible so as not to delay high-speed rail construction” under specified circumstances. (PUC 185505)
4. Requires Caltrans to specify for a utility relocation a reasonable time within which the work of relocation shall commence. (Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 680)
5. Establishes special provisions and requirements for Caltrans when relocating utilities within and outside freeways. (SHC Sections 700 through 707.5)
6. Creates the OIG-HSR to initiate an audit or review regarding oversight related to delivery of the project, and the selection and oversight of contractors related to the project. (Public Utilities Code, Section 187000, et sec.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

Utility relocation can be one of the greatest risk factors to the scope, schedule, and cost of transit and rail projects. City streets and other rights-of-way are underlain by a wide variety of privately, publicly, or cooperatively-owned utilities for water, natural gas, fuel, and chemical feeds; stormwater, wastewater, electrical power, telephone, cable/TV/Internet fiber, street lighting, and traffic signaling. Some of these require special care such as fiber optic given the practice of threading the fiber through older, abandoned utilities such as gas lines. Projects with alignments near federal buildings such as court houses, or near public or law enforcement agencies may encounter communications lines or other infrastructure that are not readily identified. These buildings and their utilities require special handling.

Transit and rail projects often involve modification to existing underground and overhead infrastructure. The need to relocate or remove existing utilities on transit and rail project sets up encounters with known, unknown, unmarked, or abandoned utilities. The design of utility relocations must accommodate track slabs, rail-tie-ballast track roadbed, catenary poles, signal masts, gravity flow stormwater drainage, station platforms, signage, lighting, signaling, communications lines, power lines, bridge abutments and piers, earth retaining walls, noise walls, streetscaping, landscaping, and other new infrastructure. Relocation of utilities under intersections and sidewalks is even more complicated and overhead contact systems must consider the potential for electrical interference between the traction power wires and other overhead, non-transit, high voltage lines.

Pre-construction activities for transportation infrastructure projects—often referred to as early works— generally includes project sponsors negotiating agreements with various third parties, such as utility owners, railroad companies, and local jurisdictions, before initiating construction. Project sponsors must work with various third parties to acquire right of way and relocate utilities located in the system’s path, and manage betterments. A betterment is an improvement that occurs to the utility during the relocation process that increases capacity and is not otherwise required in order to successfully relocate the utility as a result of the project.

Utility relocations increase project risk. Utilities may be discovered during construction that were not identified during the design phase, leading to unexpected relocations. Coordinating with multiple utility companies and managing their schedules can be complex, especially when dealing with varying permit processes, easement acquisitions, and communication breakdowns. Adjustments to the project's design during construction can trigger the need for utility relocations, causing further delays.

Utility relocations can cause delays. Utility relocations may not be directly included in the main construction contract, leading to delays in getting the work done and potential disputes over costs and responsibility. A utility conflict occurs when a utility must be relocated, adjusted, protected-in-place, or abandoned because of the project. To relocate the utilities that conflict with the guideway on the extensions, project sponsors have to design plans for the relocation of existing utilities and identify the needed right of way. Acquisition of the needed replacement right of way for relocated utility facilities may become a major obstacle to timely utility relocation. Securing the necessary permits and easements for utility relocation can be a time-consuming process, especially on private property. Delays can also be caused by disagreements over land rights or contract terms, and a lack of staff at the third party. Relocating a utility or business is inherently disruptive for the third party.

Delays increase project schedule, cost, and scope. Project delays typically lead to increased labor costs, material costs, and potential claims for damages. Utility relocations can push projects past their planned completion dates, impacting the overall project schedule. Utility work can disrupt traffic flow, especially in urban areas, causing inconvenience to the public. Relocating utilities, especially underground, can pose safety risks if not handled properly.

Effectively managing utility relocations is crucial for on-time and on-budget project completion. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Project Management Oversight Program, Utility Relocation - Challenges and Proposed Solutions report of March 2022 identified best practices to address inherent utility relocation challenges. These include active, on-going implementation of mitigations such as meetings, tracking, following-up on action items to maintain accountability, schedule workarounds, communication, cost negotiations, enforcement of compliance with federal regulations, and dedicated attention throughout the project.

FTA’s six best practices for utility relocations are:

1. Preplanning: early in a project, all project stakeholders draft and agree to the terms of a Third-Party Utility Relocation Agreement. This agreement serves as the groundwork for all future project interactions between and among the stakeholders and identifies who is responsible for specific utility relocations and the costs associated with those relocations.
2. Meet regularly: Hold regular (weekly) meetings with utility companies during the planning, design, and construction phases.
3. Cost estimates: Project Sponsors should establish cost estimates with conservative contingency budgets for each utility relocation and not oversimplify the utility costs and potential risks by “bundling” them into a single item.
4. Partnering sessions: Define roles and responsibilities of the partners and clarify lines of communication so the decision-making process is understood.
5. Segments: For above ground transit and rail projects costs, break the project into segments so that as a segment is cleared of existing utilities new construction can begin.
6. Continue regular communication and documentation of contracting terms, conditions, and decisions during construction.

CHSRA. Chapter 796 of 1996 (SB 1420, Kopp) established the CHSRA to plan and construct a high‑speed rail system that would link the state’s major population centers. In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, which authorized the state to sell $10 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund the system, as well as related projects. Proposition 1A also specified certain criteria and conditions that the system must ultimately achieve. For example, the measure requires that the system be designed to be capable of specified travel times along certain routes, such as nonstop travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles within two hours and forty minutes.

Over the years, the project has faced many challenges largely stemming from a lack of adequate funding to complete even a segment of the project, and delays caused by right of way acquisition and utility relocations. As of May 31, 2025, $14.4 billion has been spent on the project, mostly on work between Merced and Bakersfield.

SB 198 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 71, Statutes of 2022 established the OIG-HSR. Since its inception, it has completed six reviews of the project. In its February 21, 2025 review of “Preconstruction Activities for the Merced to Bakersfield Extensions” the OIG-HSR recommended that the Legislature authorize the HSRA to promulgate regulations governing third-party review and approval timeframes for agreements and designs.

The OIG-HSR found that “…procedures do not fundamentally improve the Authority’s ability to get third parties to engage in what can be a time-consuming process. As a potential result, early works on the Merced and Bakersfield extensions have been hindered by delays in executing utility-owner reimbursement agreements, which are generally necessary for utility owners to review and approve utility relocation designs before the Authority can begin construction. In fact, some negotiations have been ongoing for nearly two years without reaching agreement. The Authority’s often time-consuming internal review process, disagreement over contract terms, and little incentive for utility owners to engage in the process in a timely manner have caused the delays. Consequently, the Authority is currently proceeding with utility relocation designs without owner approval, which could lead to more redesigns later.”

The OIG-HSR also found “During our review, Authority staff described what they believe are some causes of challenges in negotiating timely agreements with third parties. Authority staff responsible for working with third parties and overseeing design of the extensions indicated to us that delays result, in part, from third parties’ lack of incentive to engage in the process, which requires work on their part that they wouldn’t otherwise perform. Further, Authority staff overseeing the Central Valley region of the system explained to us that because utility owners, for example, are not under any particular time pressure, there is a resulting imbalance in these negotiations and the Authority’s other interactions with third parties.

“Additionally, Authority staff explained that, in the past, the Authority sometimes agreed to terms that put it in a disadvantageous position—for example, agreeing to compensate third parties for their attorney costs or agreeing to overly tight timelines for construction related to relocating individual utilities. We saw documentation of this type of issue in the example described in the previous section concerning attorney fee reimbursement. Authority staff also indicated that the lack of uniform agreement terms more generally increases difficulties in efficiently reaching and executing agreements. Authority staff expressed that, although the Authority has learned from and is now trying to avoid past mistakes, the legacy of those older agreements means that some third parties expect to receive the same terms as before, making current negotiations challenging.”

Internal processes at CHSRA can cause delays. In its February 2025 review, the OIG-HSR found that third-party-related delays are partially attributable to CHRSA and its project management procedures being inadequate. The OIG-HSR found that HSRA lacks defined negotiation timeframes, and “communicating those timeframes to third parties, would be helpful in making the process more efficient.” The OIG-HSR recommended that “by May 2025, the third-party agreements branch and the contracts and procurement branch should develop procedures with defined timeframes for their internal review processes. These should include defined timeframes for how long staff at each level should attempt to resolve an issue before escalating it.” OIG-HSR also recommended that CHSRA improve internal tracking tools and hire additional legal staff if needed by May 2025. CHSRA agreed with these recommendations.

At the time this analysis was published, OIG-HSR has not fully implemented these recommendation. It is critical for CHSRA to fully address these recommendations.

Caltrans Freeway Master Contracts. In contrast to the HSRA, Caltrans has extensive documentation to guide its utility relocation process.

Caltrans’ Right of Way Utilities Branch is responsible for the coordination of relocating utilities that are in conflict with proposed highway projects. Following enactment of the Collier-Burns Act in 1947, which reformed the state's highway financing system and paved the way for the development of its freeway system, the accumulation of disputed right of way and utility relocation claims was of such magnitude as to threaten delay of the newly enacted freeway program. To meet the problem, the Legislature in 1951 enacted legislation which authorizes Caltrans to enter into contracts with utility owners that govern exclusively the apportionment of relocation costs.

Caltrans’ Freeway Master Contracts (FMCs) govern apportionment of the cost of rearranging facilities in connection with freeway projects in lieu of the provisions in state law. In other words, under FMCs, the relevant provisions of the Streets and Highways Code and other laws have no application to the rearrangement of the facilities on freeway projects and are replaced by the terms of the FMC. The contracts do not affect relocations on conventional highways.

These contracts define terms for considerations that often come up when needing to relocate utilities to accommodate a new freeway such as “betterment”, “wasted work”, and “relocation”. Caltrans practice is consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) finding that by addressing these issues proactively, construction projects can minimize the impact of utility relocations on schedules, costs, and overall success.

According to the author, “California High-Speed Rail is critical for our state’s future. The project is already combating climate change, fostering transit-oriented developing, and creating thousands of good-paying union jobs. The project is essential for an abundant, affordable, zero-emission future. It is imperative to help the project cut through permitting and approval-related red tape in order to prevent project cost increases and accelerate project delivery. It shouldn’t be this hard to go through design review and approvals or to relocate utilities. There shouldn’t be so many veto-points that empower project skeptics or opponents to stall the delivery – particularly after the voters approved funding for the project and design and construction are underway. SB 445 implements a High-Speed Rail inspector general recommendation to cut red tape, streamline the project delivery process, curtail veto-points, and reduce and contain project costs. The bill will result in improved and more cost-effective delivery of California High-Speed Rail, ensuring that public dollars are wisely spent on the project.”

Writing in support, the sponsors of this bill, Streets for All states “SB 445 requires the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and adopt regulations that outline requirements for third party permits and approvals necessary for the project. In doing so, the bill helps the project get built faster and on budget, effectively spending public funds.

“The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the state, and the high-speed rail project will drastically reduce these emissions by an estimated 84 to 102 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the first 50 years of operation. In order for the project to be built on schedule and on budget, it is imperative that it not be held up by thousands of individual veto points after the decision has been made to fund, design, and construct the project.”

Opposition has not been submitted based on the version of this bill in print on July 9, 2025.

Staff comments. HSRA is relatively new to the challenges and risks created by having to engage with third-parties to construct a major infrastructure project. In contrast, Caltrans has had decades to develop a process that works well when constructing new freeways. This bill acknowledges the impacts of utility relocations on the HSR project’s schedule, cost, and scope and gives CHSRA the authority to establish regulations for the third-party relocation process. The regulatory process is intended to give stakeholders an opportunity to inform the regulations that are established.

A very undeveloped version of this bill was passed out of the Senate and only recently this bill was amended with more substantive content, which since then was very significantly amended. This bill is still a work in progress and has not been thoroughly vetted with stakeholders and CHSRA.

Some outstanding issues the author may wish to address are:

1. Is HSRA the appropriate entity to develop regulations or should a somewhat more neutral entity, such as the California State Transportation Agency, develop the regulations? A downside to this approach, may be that they lack HSR-project-specific expertise.
2. Does the bill need to more clearly define which third-parties and local agencies would be impacted by the bill?
3. Does this bill do enough to limit betterments?

In addition, it will be important to address concerns raised by the next two committees that hear this bill—Assembly Local Government and Assembly Utilities and Energy.

Related and prior legislation. AB 377 (Tangipa of 2025) requires the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) as part of the business plan due on or before May 1, 2026, to provide a detailed funding plan for the Merced to Bakersfield segment. This bill is on the Assembly floor.

SB 960 (Wiener), Chapter 630, Statutes of 2024 included a section requiring Caltrans to implement a specific encroachment permit application, review, and approval process for specified complete streets facilities/projects on the departments right-of-way designed to meet existing statutory timelines for the department’s review and approval of such applications.

SB 410 (Becker), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023 and AB 50 (Wood), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023 required the CPUC to establish target timelines for energization – or extension of service – activities to customers for the three large Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). The CPUC adopted these timelines in September 2024. These timelines apply to energization for all customers – including High-Speed Rail.

SB 198 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 71, Statutes of 2022 established the Office of the Inspector General, High-Speed Rail (OIG-HSR) in addition to placing other requirements on HSRA and limiting construction of the project to the Merced to Bakersfield segment, until it is completed.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

350 Bay Area Action

California YIMBY

Streets for All

Opposition

Writing in opposition, as amended on June 30, 2025, not based on the version in print which has been significantly amended.

Association of California Water Agencies
City of Burbank/Burbank Redevelopment Agency
CalBroadband
California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Arcata
City of Artesia, California
City of Chino
City of Colton
City of Cypress

City of Downey

City of El Segundo

City of Lakewood
City of LA Palma
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakewood CA
City of Los Alamitos
City of Manteca
City of Menifee
City of Merced
City of Moreno Valley
City of Morgan Hill
City of Novato

City of Ontario
City of Palm Desert
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Stanton
City of Suisun City
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Vernon
Cucamonga Valley Water District
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Rural County Representatives of California
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
City of San Rafael/Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members
Sempra Energy and its Affiliates: San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
Town of Mammoth Lakes
US Telecom-The Broadband Association
Urban Counties of California
WatereUse California

Oppose Unless Amended

City of Tustin

Analysis Prepared by: Farra Bracht / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 445

Author: Wiener (D), et al.

Amended: 4/10/25

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/22/25

AYES: Cortese, Strickland, Archuleta, Arreguín, Blakespear, Cervantes, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grayson, Limón, Menjivar, Richardson, Umberg

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Transportation: planning: complete streets facilities: sustainable transportation projects

SOURCE: Streets for All

DIGEST:

This bill (1) requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on or before February 1, 2027, instead of January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency. (2) Expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests Caltrans with the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes.
2. Authorizes Caltrans to issue encroachment permits and requires Caltrans to either approve or deny an application from an applicant for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application, as provided.
3. Requires Caltrans when notifying the applicant of the denial of an encroachment permit to furnish the applicant a detailed explanation of the reason for the denial.
4. Requires Caltrans, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.
5. Requires Caltrans to annually report to the California Transportation Commission information about project applications pursuant to this process, including the number of applications submitted, permits issued, and days required to process each application.
6. Requires Caltrans to appoint an encroachment permit manager in each district to ensure that applications for complete streets facilities are reviewed through the process adopted. Requires the encroachment permit manager to have expertise in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit priority facilities.

This bill:

1. Finds and declares that sustainable transportation projects are critical for the growth of the state in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps address the state’s housing shortage. It is in the interest of the state to accelerate the construction of sustainable transportation projects and avoid cost escalation, ensuring that more projects are built in a cost-effective manner.
2. Finds and declares that third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities, including utility relocations, design review, and issuance of encroachment or other similar permits, can be a source of delay for sustainable transportation projects, potentially resulting in cost escalations and projects being built late and over budget.
3. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, including through requiring lead agencies engage early with third parties, setting timelines on design review activities to ensure prompt responses between parties, and limiting third-party requirements associated with permits and other approvals.
4. Requires Caltrans on or before February 1, 2027, instead of January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

Comments

1. Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “Sustainable transportation projects – including public transportation projects like bus rapid transit, light rail, and passenger rail – are essential for an abundant, affordable, zero-emission future. However, these projects are often plagued by delays as lead agencies navigate a balkanized post-environmental permitting and construction process. Getting approvals and negotiating with 3rd-party entities for utility relocations and other work needed to support a project increases project risk and means we get less clean transportation improvements for more money.

“In its initial form, SB 445 cut red tape to streamline and improve 3rd-party permitting and approval timelines, reducing and containing project costs. Out of a desire to work more closely with the agencies that deliver these projects, the 3rd-party stakeholders whose approvals are necessary for projects to proceed, and the relevant policy committees, I have amended this bill for now to just make a minor change to an existing Caltrans complete streets encroachment permitting code section.”

1. Transportation and climate change. Emissions from the transportation sector, the state’s largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), are still on the rise despite statewide GHG emission reduction efforts and increasingly ambitious targets. Shifting people to cleaner modes of transportation, such as transit or bicycle and walking, also serves as a major component of the state’s goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. According to the California Air Resource Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan, including the transition to cleaner vehicles and low-carbon fuels, the path to carbon neutrality by 2045 also depends on reducing the amount people drive or vehicle miles traveled by 25% by 2030 and 30% by 2045.
2. Caltrans Encroachment permits. California has a large network of highways and local streets and roads, consisting of almost 400,000 lane-miles of pavement and over 25,000 bridges. The state highway system, owned and managed by Caltrans, is made up of roughly 50,000 lane miles and 13,000 bridges, including both federal and state highways. Whenever anyone, such as a local government, developer, utility company, or a private citizen wants to do work on any portion of the state’s right-of-way, they must obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Caltrans must either approve or deny an encroachment permit application within 60 calendar days, upon determination that the application is complete. However, the actual time of the total permit process can take much longer based upon the scope and complexity of the proposed work and the completeness of all necessary environmental and other statutory requirements prior to official submittal of the application.

In practice, Caltrans, usually through one of the districts, works directly with the entity applying for the permit. In most instances the length of time for the development of the project and the application for the permit depends on the complexity of the proposed activity. Generally, if a project request is under $1 million in cost, the permit would be issued or denied within the 60 day time period. If a project is over $1 million, it would likely constitute a more complex oversight project, which would bring Caltrans into the project process earlier, such as assisting with design and environmental review, which can cause the permit process to take much longer.

1. More complete streets and transit priority facilities on the state highway system. In an effort to facilitate mode shift, the Legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed into law SB 960 (Wiener, Chapter 630, Statutes of 2024), requiring Caltrans to better incorporate complete streets facilities into planning, design, and construction on the state highway system. Complete streets include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit priority facilities. Transit priority facilities are changes to the roadway layout and operations to improve transit efficiency, speed, and reliability.

SB 960 requires Caltrans to develop a transit priority policy and adopt guidance for defining performance measures to support the fast movement of transit vehicles on the state highway system. SB 960 also requires Caltrans to build complete streets into its project planning and asset management program. Additionally, Caltrans must commit to specific targets to incorporate complete streets into state highway reconstruction projects, including on entrances and exits that interact with local streets.

1. Keeping up with the permits. As detailed above, Caltrans is required to approve or deny an encroachment permit in 60 days, but in practice it may take much longer depending on the size and scope of the project. To help expedite locally-sponsored complete street projects, SB 960 requires Caltrans, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a process for project intake, project evaluation, and encroachment permit review for complete streets facilities. The projects must be sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

Additionally, Caltrans must report annually to the California Transportation Commission regarding project applications submitted through the new process. The report must include: the number of completed applications submitted, the number of encroachment permits issued, and the number of days required to process each application. Finally, Caltrans is required to designate an encroachment permit manager in each district to ensure that applications for complete streets facilities are reviewed through the new process. The encroachment permit manager must have expertise in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit priority facilities. SB 445 changes the date Caltrans has to develop and adopt the new process from January 1 to February 1, 2027.

1. Author intends to continue working on project delivery streamlining. SB 445 contains findings and declarations regarding the critical need for sustainable transportation projects, including that it is the intent of the state to accelerate the construction of these projects and avoid costs escalations. Additionally, this bill declares that so-called third party permits and approvals for activities, such as utility relocations, design review, and the issuance of permits can be a source of delay for a project. Recent amendments to SB 445 removed language to require certain timeframes for third party agreements and permit and project approvals.

SB 445 also expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, including through requiring lead agencies engage early with third parties, setting timelines on design review activities to ensure prompt responses between parties, and limiting third-party requirements associated with permits and other approvals.

After SB 445 was substantially amended on April 9, 2025, the committee reached out to stakeholders to verify their position on this bill. Many stakeholders confirmed their position on the amended bill; however, those writing in support and opposition still speak to the original provisions of SB 445. The issues raised will help serve as the basis for further work as noted by the author. The organizations listed in this analysis confirmed to the committee their position on the amended bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/5/25)

Streets for All (Source)

California Yimby
Climate Action California
Move LA
U.S. High Speed Rail Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/5/25)

Calbroadband
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
United States Telecom Association DBA UStelecom - the Broadband Association

Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

5/7/25 16:05:25

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 445 Hearing Date: 4/22/2025

SUBJECT: Transportation: planning: complete streets facilities: sustainable transportation projects

DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on or before February 1, 2027, instead of January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests Caltrans with the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes.
2. Authorizes Caltrans to issue encroachment permits and requires Caltrans to either approve or deny an application from an applicant for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application, as provided.
3. Requires Caltrans when notifying the applicant of the denial of an encroachment permit to furnish the applicant a detailed explanation of the reason for the denial.
4. Requires Caltrans, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.
5. Requires Caltrans to annually report to the California Transportation Commission information about project applications pursuant to this process, including the number of applications submitted, permits issued, and days required to process each application.
6. Requires Caltrans to appoint an encroachment permit manager in each district to ensure that applications for complete streets facilities are reviewed through the process adopted. Requires the encroachment permit manager to have expertise in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit priority facilities.

This bill:

1. Finds and declares that sustainable transportation projects are critical for the growth of the state in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps address the state’s housing shortage. It is in the interest of the state to accelerate the construction of sustainable transportation projects and avoid cost escalation, ensuring that more projects are built in a cost-effective manner.
2. Finds and declares that third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities, including utility relocations, design review, and issuance of encroachment or other similar permits, can be a source of delay for sustainable transportation projects, potentially resulting in cost escalations and projects being built late and over budget.
3. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend this bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, including through requiring lead agencies engage early with third parties, setting timelines on design review activities to ensure prompt responses between parties, and limiting third-party requirements associated with permits and other approvals.
4. Requires Caltrans on or before February 1, 2027, instead of January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Sustainable transportation projects – including public transportation projects like bus rapid transit, light rail, and passenger rail – are essential for an abundant, affordable, zero-emission future. However, these projects are often plagued by delays as lead agencies navigate a balkanized post-environmental permitting and construction process. Getting approvals and negotiating with 3rd-party entities for utility relocations and other work needed to support a project increases project risk and means we get less clean transportation improvements for more money.

In its initial form, SB 445 cut red tape to streamline and improve 3rd-party permitting and approval timelines, reducing and containing project costs. Out of a desire to work more closely with the agencies that deliver these projects, the 3rd-party stakeholders whose approvals are necessary for projects to proceed, and the relevant policy committees, I have amended the bill for now to just make a minor change to an existing Caltrans complete streets encroachment permitting code section.”

1. Transportation and climate change. Emissions from the transportation sector, the state’s largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), are still on the rise despite statewide GHG emission reduction efforts and increasingly ambitious targets. Shifting people to cleaner modes of transportation, such as transit or bicycle and walking, also serves as a major component of the state’s goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. According to the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan, including the transition to cleaner vehicles and low-carbon fuels, the path to carbon neutrality by 2045 also depends on reducing the amount people drive or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 25% by 2030 and 30% by 2045.
2. Caltrans Encroachment permits. California has a large network of highways and local streets and roads, consisting of almost 400,000 lane-miles of pavement and over 25,000 bridges. The state highway system, owned and managed by Caltrans, is made up of roughly 50,000 lane miles and 13,000 bridges, including both federal and state highways. Whenever anyone, such as a local government, developer, utility company, or a private citizen wants to do work on any portion of the state’s right-of-way, they must obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Caltrans must either approve or deny an encroachment permit application within 60 calendar days, upon determination that the application is complete. However, the actual time of the total permit process can take much longer based upon the scope and complexity of the proposed work and the completeness of all necessary environmental and other statutory requirements prior to official submittal of the application.

In practice, Caltrans, usually through one of the districts, works directly with the entity applying for the permit. In most instances the length of time for the development of the project and the application for the permit depends on the complexity of the proposed activity. Generally, if a project request is under $1 million in cost, the permit would be issued or denied within the 60 day time period. If a project is over $1 million, it would likely constitute a more complex oversight project, which would bring Caltrans into the project process earlier, such as assisting with design and environmental review, which can cause the permit process to take much longer.

1. More complete streets and transit priority facilities on the state highway system. In an effort to facilitate mode shift, the Legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed into law SB 960 (Wiener, Chapter 630, Statutes of 2024), requiring Caltrans to better incorporate complete streets facilities into planning, design, and construction on the state highway system. Complete streets include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit priority facilities. Transit priority facilities are changes to the roadway layout and operations to improve transit efficiency, speed, and reliability.

SB 960 requires Caltrans to develop a transit priority policy and adopt guidance for defining performance measures to support the fast movement of transit vehicles on the state highway system. SB 960 also requires Caltrans to build complete streets into its project planning and asset management program. Additionally, Caltrans must commit to specific targets to incorporate complete streets into state highway reconstruction projects, including on entrances and exits that interact with local streets.

1. Keeping up with the permits. As detailed above, Caltrans is required to approve or deny an encroachment permit in 60 days, but in practice it may take much longer depending on the size and scope of the project. To help expedite locally-sponsored complete street projects, SB 960 requires Caltrans, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a process for project intake, project evaluation, and encroachment permit review for complete streets facilities. The projects must be sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

Additionally, Caltrans must report annually to the California Transportation Commission regarding project applications submitted through the new process. The report must include: the number of completed applications submitted, the number of encroachment permits issued, and the number of days required to process each application. Finally, Caltrans is required to designate an encroachment permit manager in each district to ensure that applications for complete streets facilities are reviewed through the new process. The encroachment permit manager must have expertise in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit priority facilities.

SB 445 would change the date Caltrans has to develop and adopt the new process from January 1 to February 1, 2027.

1. Author intends to continue working on permit streamlining. SB 445 contains findings and declarations regarding the critical need for sustainable transportation projects, including that it is the intent of the state to accelerate the construction of these projects and avoid costs escalations. Additionally, the bill declares that so-called third party permits and approvals for activities, such as utility relocations, design review, and the issuance of permits can be a source of delay for a project. Recent amendments to SB 445 removed language to require certain timeframes for third party agreements and permit and project approvals.

SB 445 also expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend the bill with legislation that accelerates and makes more reliable third-party permits and approvals for preconstruction and construction activities on sustainable transportation projects, including through requiring lead agencies engage early with third parties, setting timelines on design review activities to ensure prompt responses between parties, and limiting third-party requirements associated with permits and other approvals.

After recent amendments to the bill, the organizations writing in support and opposition still speak to the original provisions of SB 445. Should the bill be approved by this committee, the issues raised will help serve as the basis for further work as noted by the author. The organizations listed in this analysis confirmed to the committee their position on the amended bill.

1. Double referral. This bill is double referred to the Senate Local Government Committee.

Related/PREVIOUS Legislation:

AB 1399 (Hoover, 2025) -- Would require Caltrans to perform additional actions for an encroachment permit application for a broadband facility, including, but not limited to, requiring the application and review process for the application to be uniform throughout the state, and would require a broadband facility encroachment permit application that is deemed complete to be deemed approved. This is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

SB 960 (Wiener, Chapter 630, Statutes of 2024) -- Required Caltrans to include complete streets assets in its asset management plan, system highway management plan, and in the plain language performance report for the state highway operation and protection program (SHOPP). Required Caltrans to develop and adopt transit priority policy and guidelines. Required Caltrans to commit to specific 4-year targets to incorporate complete streets facilities in the SHOPP. Required Caltrans, on or before January 1, 2027, to develop and adopt a project intake, evaluation, and encroachment permit review process for complete streets facilities that are sponsored by a local jurisdiction or a transit agency.

SB 760 (Wiener, 2018) -- Would have restricted Caltrans from denying an application for a permit for work within the state highway right-of-way solely because the work will not be performed in accordance with Caltrans approved plans and specifications if the improvement would not affect the operation of the state highway and is instead performed in accordance with local agency plans and specifications. This bill died in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

April 16, 2025.)

SUPPORT:

Streets for All (sponsor)

California Yimby

Climate Action California

Move LA

U.S. High Speed Rail Association

OPPOSITION:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Southern California Edison

Southern California Gas Company

-- END --