Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and maintain county highways.

Existing law authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or local agency to, among other things, establish bikeways, as defined and classified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of each type of bikeway and of roadways where bicycle travel is permitted, and requires all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted to utilize the minimum safety design criteria.

This bill would prohibit a bikeway constructed, in whole or part, using moneys from the State General Fund allocated to any city, county, regional, or other local agency from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, as documented in its project design or local building or permit application materials, whichever is less. less, except as specified. The bill would require the modification of one of those bikeways to be consistent with an active transportation use, as defined, and be subject to specified public meeting and hearing requirements, as provided.

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.

Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and maintain county highways.

Existing law authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or local agency to, among other things, establish bikeways, as defined and classified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of each type of bikeway and of roadways where bicycle travel is permitted, and requires all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted to utilize the minimum safety design criteria.

This bill would prohibit a bikeway constructed constructed, in whole or part, using state general funds moneys from the State General Fund allocated to any city, county, regional, or other local agency from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, as documented in its project design or local building or permit application materials, whichever is less. The bill would require the modification of one of those bikeways to be consistent with an active transportation use, as defined, and be subject to specified public meeting and hearing requirements, as provided.

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.

Existing law grants the legislative body of a city certain powers with respect to city streets and highways, including the power to construct and maintain those streets and highways. Existing law grants the board of supervisors of a county general supervision, management, and control of county highways and authorizes the board of supervisors to lay out, construct, improve, and maintain county highways.

Existing law authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or local agency to, among other things, establish bikeways, as defined and classified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of each type of bikeway and of roadways where bicycle travel is permitted, and requires all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted to utilize the minimum safety design criteria.

This bill would prohibit a city, county, regional, or other local agency from removing, or reducing the physical separation of, a Class I, II, III, or IV bikeway, or segment of a Class I, II, III, or IV bikeway, without a replacement of equivalent or greater safety and connectivity, unless the agency makes specified findings prepared or reviewed and certified by a licensed engineer. The bill would require the findings to be adopted by resolution at a regularly noticed public meeting, and the supporting technical analysis to be made available for public review not less than 30 days before the public meeting. a bikeway constructed using state general funds allocated to any city, county, regional, or other local agency from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, as documented in its project design or local building or permit application materials, whichever is less. The bill would require the modification of one of those bikeways to be consistent with an active transportation use, as defined, and be subject to specified public meeting and hearing requirements, as provided.

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.

Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system, including associated property, and authorizes the department to require the removal of any encroachment in, under, or over any state highway. Existing law authorizes the department to establish maintenance programs related to highway cleanup, as specified.

Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system, including associated property, and authorizes the department to require the removal of any encroachment in, under, or over any state highway. Existing law authorizes the department to establish maintenance programs related to highway cleanup, as specified.

This bill would require the department to coordinate with local governments to address and prevent homeless encampments located on department property and to establish a dedicated liaison office for this purpose. The bill would require the department to develop a joint action plan for each district of the department in which homeless encampments are located on department property in collaboration with local governments located in the district. The bill would require the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to allocate funds to support collaborative efforts with local governments to address homeless encampments on department property. The bill would require the department to establish an advisory committee in each district for the purpose of providing advice on the implementation of these provisions. The bill would require the department to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing specified information and recommendations regarding homeless encampments on department property.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 569

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:August 10, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a local or regional agency from reverting a bikeway it constructs using moneys from the state General Fund to a nonactive transportation use or modifying it in manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, to 20 years or its useful life, whichever is less.

Major Provisions

1. Defines active transportation as a use that encourages increased use of active transportation, such as walking and biking.
2. Prohibits a city, county, regional, or other local agency using moneys from the state General Fund, in whole or part, to construct a bikeway from reverting the bikeway to a non-active transportation use or modifying it in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, whichever is less.
3. Requires any modification to a bikeway to be consistent with an active transportation use and subjects it to both of the following:
   1. A duly noticed public meeting to discuss an intent to modify a bikeway and;
   2. A duly noticed public hearing where the final design of a modification is considered by a city, county, regional or other local agency.
4. Exempts from the bill any bikeway constructed, in whole or part, using moneys allocated from the Active Transportation Program.

COMMENTS

State funding for bike projects. The Active Transportation Program was created by SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of The Active Transportation Program (ATP) include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, and enhancing public health. SB 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act, directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.

As of 2025, state programs like the ATP and other highway programs the California Department of Caltrans administers have funded as of 2025, over 2,800 miles of bikeways (approved, constructed or ready for construction) since as early as 2014. In addition to funding that flows through Caltrans, the state General Fund has also provided small allocations for specific projects. Cities and other local governments also invest their own funds in bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Demand for non-vehicle alternatives continues to exceed available funding. As a result, ATP has been chronically over-subscribed. Program funding has fluctuated significantly but on average available funding ranges from $500-600 million a year from state and federal sources. According to the CTC, in its 7th and most recent cycle (2025), one of the most competitive since inception, it received 277 project applications from local, regional and tribal governments requesting $2.5 billion in funding, about 15 times available funding, which was significantly lower than average.

Growing pains as bike infrastructure is more widely developed. As local governments have built more comprehensive bikeways, some have experienced challenges balancing competing demands for limited road space. Desktop models or studies during the design phase of bike projects may not reliably capture potential user conflicts or vehicle congestion as a result of road narrowing, converting lanes, or removing vehicle parking to accommodate bikeways. As a result, community opposition to new bike and pedestrian infrastructure can motivate local leaders to respond accordingly and in limited circumstances, this has resulted in the removal or downgrading (e.g., converting a separated bikeway to a shared or striped one) of a bikeway.

The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces.

These examples, a small subset in the context of several thousand miles of bikeways approved or constructed in the past decade, highlight the challenges associated with developing bike infrastructure on existing roadways and the actual or perceived creation of unintended safety risks or conflicts between vehicles and cyclists. Changes to roadways may be met with opposition as local governments pursue alternatives to vehicles and consider mechanisms to increase the safety of nonmotorized alternatives. However, the growing pains some communities are experiencing may not persist as they learn how to develop active transportation infrastructure that balances competing roadway uses. Moreover, it takes time for users of the new facilities to adapt to new infrastructure.

Rules of the bikeway. Modeled after ATP requirements, this bill prohibits a local government, on a going forward basis, from converting a bikeway to a non-active transportation use for the lesser of 20 years or the useful life of a bikeway should they accept state General Fund monies to develop a bikeway.

This bill also prohibits the modification of a bikeway if it reduces the safety, accessibility, and mobility of nonmotorized users. This conditional prohibition is intended to accommodate changed circumstances or the ever-evolving nature of roadways that may need to be re-designed to adapt to things such as utility re-locations, emergency access, construction or intersection upgrades, and safety issues. In these circumstances, a modification must be consistent with an active transportation use and provide the same or similar level of safety, accessibility and mobility of nonmotorized users. For example, converting a protected bikeway or a portion of the bikeway to a less protected one could be offset with greater protection for bicyclists in other areas of the same bikeway corridor.

This bill requires a local government to consider a modification at a public hearing to maximize transparency. First, a local government must hold a public meeting to initially disclose its intent to modify a bikeway, inform the public of the need and justification for the modification, and invite public input. Adoption of the modification’s final design must occur at a duly noticed public hearing.

According to the Author

″Protected bikeways physically separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, improving safety and increasing ridership. California law requires engineering assessments when local agencies build bikeways, but imposes no equivalent standard before one is removed or downgraded. Recent local decisions to remove bike infrastructure have raised serious safety concerns and in one case forced a city to repay $435,000 in transportation funding.″

Arguments in Support

California Bicycle Coalition states, ″California communities are investing significant public dollars, staff time, and political will into safer streets. These investments help people bike, walk, and roll with more confidence, and they are especially important in communities where safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation choices have too often been delayed or underfunded. When state general funds are used to build a bikeway, the public should have confidence that the project will not be hastily reverted to a non-active transportation use or weakened in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility for nonmotorized users.″

Arguments in Opposition

California Association of Bicycling Organizations states that, ″The bill also prohibits an existing bikeway from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility. Because these are independent criteria, even minor changes—such as rerouting a Class III bike route to nearby streets—could trigger the bill despite no net loss of bicycle access. The requirement to determine whether a change reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility raises additional concerns. These judgments are often subjective and depend on professional engineering and planning expertise, yet the bill provides no clear standards or decision-maker. It is also unclear why bikeways should be uniquely locked in place for twenty years despite changing conditions and transportation needs.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes, Wahab

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 13-2-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Papan, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp-Collins, Ward

NO: Hoover, Macedo

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: August 10, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dan Chia / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003403

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 569

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a local or regional agency from reverting a bikeway it constructs using moneys from the state General Fund to a nonactive transportation use or modifying it in manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, to 20 years or its useful life, whichever is less.

Major Provisions

1. Defines active transportation as a use that encourages increased use of active transportation, such as walking and biking.
2. Prohibits a city, county, regional, or other local agency using moneys from the state General Fund, in whole or part, to construct a bikeway from reverting the bikeway to a non-active transportation use or modifying it in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, whichever is less.
3. Requires any modification to a bikeway to be consistent with an active transportation use and subjects it to both of the following:
   1. A duly noticed public meeting to discuss an intent to modify a bikeway and;
   2. A duly noticed public hearing where the final design of a modification is considered by a city, county, regional or other local agency.

COMMENTS

State funding for bike projects. The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, and enhancing public health. SB 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act, directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.

As of 2025, state programs like the ATP and other highway programs the California Department of Caltrans administers have funded as of 2025, over 2,800 miles of bikeways (approved, constructed or ready for construction) since as early as 2014. In addition to funding that flows through Caltrans, the state General Fund has also provided small allocations for specific projects. Cities and other local governments also invest their own funds in bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Demand for non-vehicle alternatives continues to exceed available funding. As a result, ATP has been chronically over-subscribed. Program funding has fluctuated significantly but on average available funding ranges from $500-600 million a year from state and federal sources. According to the CTC, in its 7^th and most recent cycle (2025), one of the most competitive since inception, it received 277 project applications from local, regional and tribal governments requesting $2.5 billion in funding, about 15 times available funding, which was significantly lower than average.

Growing pains as bike infrastructure is more widely developed. As local governments have built more comprehensive bikeways, some have experienced challenges balancing competing demands for limited road space. Desktop models or studies during the design phase of bike projects may not reliably capture potential user conflicts or vehicle congestion as a result of road narrowing, converting lanes, or removing vehicle parking to accommodate bikeways. As a result, community opposition to new bike and pedestrian infrastructure can motivate local leaders to respond accordingly and in limited circumstances, this has resulted in the removal or downgrading (e.g., converting a separated bikeway to a shared or striped one) of a bikeway.

The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces.

These examples, a small subset in the context of several thousand miles of bikeways approved or constructed in the past decade, highlight the challenges associated with developing bike infrastructure on existing roadways and the actual or perceived creation of unintended safety risks or conflicts between vehicles and cyclists. Changes to roadways may be met with opposition as local governments pursue alternatives to vehicles and consider mechanisms to increase the safety of nonmotorized alternatives. However, the growing pains some communities are experiencing may not persist as they learn how to develop active transportation infrastructure that balances competing roadway uses. Moreover, it takes time for users of the new facilities to adapt to new infrastructure.

Rules of the bikeway. Modeled after ATP requirements, this bill prohibits a local government, on a going forward basis, from converting a bikeway to a non-active transportation use for the lesser of 20 years or the useful life of a bikeway should they accept state General Fund monies to develop a bikeway.

This bill also prohibits the modification of a bikeway if it reduces the safety, accessibility, and mobility of nonmotorized users. This conditional prohibition is intended to accommodate changed circumstances or the ever-evolving nature of roadways that may need to be re-designed to adapt to things such as utility re-locations, emergency access, construction or intersection upgrades, and safety issues. In these circumstances, a modification must be consistent with an active transportation use and provide the same or similar level of safety, accessibility and mobility of nonmotorized users. For example, converting a protected bikeway or a portion of the bikeway to a less protected one could be offset with greater protection for bicyclists in other areas of the same bikeway corridor.

This bill requires a local government to consider a modification at a public hearing to maximize transparency. First, a local government must hold a public meeting to initially disclose its intent to modify a bikeway, inform the public of the need and justification for the modification, and invite public input. Adoption of the modification’s final design must occur at a duly noticed public hearing.

According to the Author

"Protected bikeways physically separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, improving safety and increasing ridership. California law requires engineering assessments when local agencies build bikeways, but imposes no equivalent standard before one is removed or downgraded. Recent local decisions to remove bike infrastructure have raised serious safety concerns and in one case forced a city to repay $435,000 in transportation funding."

Arguments in Support

California Bicycle Coalition states, "California communities are investing significant public dollars, staff time, and political will into safer streets. These investments help people bike, walk, and roll with more confidence, and they are especially important in communities where safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation choices have too often been delayed or underfunded. When state general funds are used to build a bikeway, the public should have confidence that the project will not be hastily reverted to a non-active transportation use or weakened in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility for nonmotorized users."

Arguments in Opposition

California Association of Bicycling Organizations states that, "The bill also prohibits an existing bikeway from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility. Because these are independent criteria, even minor changes—such as rerouting a Class III bike route to nearby streets—could trigger the bill despite no net loss of bicycle access. The requirement to determine whether a change reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility raises additional concerns. These judgments are often subjective and depend on professional engineering and planning expertise, yet the bill provides no clear standards or decision-maker. It is also unclear why bikeways should be uniquely locked in place for twenty years despite changing conditions and transportation needs."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes, Wahab

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 13-2-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Papan, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp-Collins, Ward

NO: Hoover, Macedo

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: June 24, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dan Chia / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003261

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 569

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a local or regional agency from reverting a bikeway it constructs using moneys from the state General Fund to a nonactive transportation use or modifying it in manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, to 20 years or its useful life, whichever is less.

Major Provisions

1. Defines active transportation as a use that encourages increased use of active transportation, such as walking and biking.
2. Prohibits a city, county, regional, or other local agency using moneys from the state General Fund, in whole or part, to construct a bikeway from reverting the bikeway to a non-active transportation use or modifying it in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, whichever is less.
3. Requires any modification to a bikeway to be consistent with an active transportation use and subjects it to both of the following:
   1. A duly noticed public meeting to discuss an intent to modify a bikeway and;
   2. A duly noticed public hearing where the final design of a modification is considered by a city, county, regional or other local agency.

COMMENTS

State funding for bike projects. The Active Transportation Program was created by SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, and enhancing public health. SB 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act, directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.

As of 2025, state programs like the ATP and other highway programs the California Department of Caltrans administers have funded as of 2025, over 2,800 miles of bikeways (approved, constructed or ready for construction) since as early as 2014. In addition to funding that flows through Caltrans, the state General Fund has also provided small allocations for specific projects. Cities and other local governments also invest their own funds in bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Demand for non-vehicle alternatives continues to exceed available funding. As a result, ATP has been chronically over-subscribed. Program funding has fluctuated significantly but on average available funding ranges from $500-600 million a year from state and federal sources. According to the CTC, in its 7^th and most recent cycle (2025), one of the most competitive since inception, it received 277 project applications from local, regional and tribal governments requesting $2.5 billion in funding, about 15 times available funding, which was significantly lower than average.

Growing pains as bike infrastructure is more widely developed. As local governments have built more comprehensive bikeways, some have experienced challenges balancing competing demands for limited road space. Desktop models or studies during the design phase of bike projects may not reliably capture potential user conflicts or vehicle congestion as a result of road narrowing, converting lanes, or removing vehicle parking to accommodate bikeways. As a result, community opposition to new bike and pedestrian infrastructure can motivate local leaders to respond accordingly and in limited circumstances, this has resulted in the removal or downgrading (e.g., converting a separated bikeway to a shared or striped one) of a bikeway.

The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces.

These examples, a small subset in the context of several thousand miles of bikeways approved or constructed in the past decade, highlight the challenges associated with developing bike infrastructure on existing roadways and the actual or perceived creation of unintended safety risks or conflicts between vehicles and cyclists. Changes to roadways may be met with opposition as local governments pursue alternatives to vehicles and consider mechanisms to increase the safety of nonmotorized alternatives. However, the growing pains some communities are experiencing may not persist as they learn how to develop active transportation infrastructure that balances competing roadway uses. Moreover, it takes time for users of the new facilities to adapt to new infrastructure.

Rules of the bikeway. Modeled after ATP requirements, this bill prohibits a local government, on a going forward basis, from converting a bikeway to a non-active transportation use for the lesser of 20 years or the useful life of a bikeway should they accept state General Fund monies to develop a bikeway.

This bill also prohibits the modification of a bikeway if it reduces the safety, accessibility, and mobility of nonmotorized users. This conditional prohibition is intended to accommodate changed circumstances or the ever-evolving nature of roadways that may need to be re-designed to adapt to things such as utility re-locations, emergency access, construction or intersection upgrades, and safety issues. In these circumstances, a modification must be consistent with an active transportation use and provide the same or similar level of safety, accessibility and mobility of nonmotorized users. For example, converting a protected bikeway or a portion of the bikeway to a less protected one could be offset with greater protection for bicyclists in other areas of the same bikeway corridor.

This bill requires a local government to consider a modification at a public hearing to maximize transparency. First, a local government must hold a public meeting to initially disclose its intent to modify a bikeway, inform the public of the need and justification for the modification, and invite public input. Adoption of the modification’s final design must occur at a duly noticed public hearing.

According to the Author

"Protected bikeways physically separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, improving safety and increasing ridership. California law requires engineering assessments when local agencies build bikeways, but imposes no equivalent standard before one is removed or downgraded. Recent local decisions to remove bike infrastructure have raised serious safety concerns and in one case forced a city to repay $435,000 in transportation funding."

Arguments in Support

California Bicycle Coalition states, "California communities are investing significant public dollars, staff time, and political will into safer streets. These investments help people bike, walk, and roll with more confidence, and they are especially important in communities where safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation choices have too often been delayed or underfunded. When state general funds are used to build a bikeway, the public should have confidence that the project will not be hastily reverted to a non-active transportation use or weakened in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility for nonmotorized users."

Arguments in Opposition

California Association of Bicycling Organizations states that, "The bill also prohibits an existing bikeway from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility. Because these are independent criteria, even minor changes—such as rerouting a Class III bike route to nearby streets—could trigger the bill despite no net loss of bicycle access. The requirement to determine whether a change reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility raises additional concerns. These judgments are often subjective and depend on professional engineering and planning expertise, yet the bill provides no clear standards or decision-maker. It is also unclear why bikeways should be uniquely locked in place for twenty years despite changing conditions and transportation needs."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes, Wahab

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 13-2-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Papan, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp-Collins, Ward

NO: Hoover, Macedo

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: June 24, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dan Chia / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003261

Date of Hearing: July 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 569

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Department of Transportation: homeless encampments

SUMMARY: Allows a local government to use its homeless encampment abatement policies and personnel to address encampments within the state highway system and requires the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) to establish a dedicated liaison to collaborate with local governments. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes Caltrans to execute a delegated maintenance agreement (DMA) that allows a local agency to use its own homeless encampment abatement policies and procedures to address encampments within the state highway system.
2. Requires Caltrans to establish a dedicated liaison to do all of the following:
3. Facilitate communication with local governments and relevant state agencies to address homeless encampments within the state highway system;
4. Provide guidance and support for implementing best practices to address homeless encampments within the state highway system;
5. Oversee the development and implementation of DMAs, which are defined as contracts between Caltrans and a local government in which both work to reduce and remove encampments within Caltrans’ jurisdiction;
6. Review existing practices and contracting to maximize efficient abatement and clearing of homeless encampments;
7. Create a publicly accessible digital collection of executed DMAs entered into by Caltrans, including information regarding the geographic location, funding allocation, and activities conducted for each agreement; and,
8. Collaborate with local governments to develop timelines for Caltrans responses to requests from local governments for encampment removal, and consider prioritizing encampments that pose environmental hazards, such as those that may lead to heightened fire risk.
9. Allows Caltrans, upon appropriation of funds, to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to a DMA, including outreach and support programs, environmental cleanup and restoration, homeless encampment abatement, trash removal, and graffiti abatement.
10. Authorizes Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of an agreement to conduct activities pursuant to the bill.
11. Require Caltrans to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing the number of homeless encampments addressed through collaboration with local governments, and recommendations for improving coordination and resource allocation to address homeless encampments.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes to Caltrans. (Streets and Highways Code Section (SHC) 90)
2. Tasks Caltrans with improving and maintaining the state highways. (SHC 91)
3. Grants California Highway Patrol (CHP) the full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, on all toll highways and state highways constructed as freeways, including transit-related facilities located on or along the rights-of-way of those toll highways or freeways. (Vehicle Code Section VEH 2400)
4. Allows city police officers, while engaged primarily in general law enforcement duties, to incidentally enforce state and local traffic laws and ordinances on toll highways and state freeways within incorporated areas of the state. (VEH 2400)
5. Creates the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH) and requires it to set and measure progress toward goals to prevent and end homelessness in California. (Welfare And Institutions Code Section (WIC) 8255)
6. Authorizes Caltrans and any county, city, or joint highway district to enter into a contract in respect to the proportion of the expense of the acquisition, construction, improvement or maintenance of any state highway to be borne by the respective parties to such contract. Any such contract may provide for the advancement of funds, for the acquisition of rights of way and for the doing of the work, or any portion thereof, by any party to the contract, pursuant to the laws governing such party with reference to such type of acquisition or such character of work. (SHC 130)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

“Ongoing Caltrans costs of approximately $200,000 annually to establish a new dedicated liaison position to collaborate with cities and counties on addressing homeless encampments, oversee the development and implementation of delegated maintenance agreements, create a publicly accessible collection of executed agreements, and submit an annual report to the Legislature, among other things. (State Highway Account)

Unknown significant cost pressures, potentially in the tens of millions annually, to provide funding to reimburse local agencies for services rendered pursuant to delegated maintenance agreements. (General Fund)”

COMMENTS: Caltrans maintains possession and control of all state highways, property acquired for state highway purposes, and is authorized to remove any encroachment in, under, or over any state highway. Additionally, Caltrans is required to improve and maintain the state highway system, and is authorized to enter into a contract with any city or county for the acquisition, construction, improvement, or maintenance of any state highway.

California’s 2024 federally required “point-in-time” count of people experiencing homelessness on a given night reported 187,000 people experiencing homeless—an all-time high for the state, and 36,000 (24%) more than were counted in January 2019. Two-thirds of those counted were “unsheltered,” such as people living on the street or in a park. The other one-third were identified as “sheltered homeless,” meaning they were spending the night in an emergency shelter or other temporary housing. California represents 12% of the total population of the United States, and accounts for approximately 25% of the country’s homelessness count.

A homeless encampment is a makeshift outdoor living space, often temporary, where one or more persons experiencing homelessness reside, typically without permission from the property owner. Encampments can be found on public or private land and usually consist of tents or other structures. Residents of encampments generate solid waste during daily activities of food preparation and consumption, shelter building and maintenance, storing possessions, eliminating unwanted materials, and gathering recyclable materials of value. This often results in sources for vectors and related pathogens, sources of odors, fuel for fires, and potential sites that can cause bodily injuries. Research shows that freeway environments offer certain benefits for individuals experiencing homelessness, including separation from neighborhoods, shelter under bridges, and community amongst those living there, but that these locations can be dangerous to residents, pedestrians, and infrastructure.

Between July 2021 and May 2025, over 16,000 homeless encampments and over 311,873 cubic yards of waste and debris were cleared from sites along Caltrans right of way (ROW). In fiscal year 2024, Caltrans removed a record 7,083 encampments.

Federal and state guidance on encampments on state right-of-way. In 2022, Caltrans issued “Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 - Encampment Removal Policy” to its encampment removal operations on Caltrans’ ROW. The directive prioritizes the safety of both the individuals in encampments and the general public, emphasizing the need for a coordinated and humane approach to encampment removal. It also highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of transportation infrastructure.

Caltrans’ response to encampments includes a minimum of 48 hours written notice before removing an encampment, coordination with social service agencies to offer outreach services, property storage of items collected for a designated period, and debris and trash removal guidelines to prevent environmental damage and stormwater runoff issues. Caltrans’ response involves coordination between state and local law enforcement, government agencies, and service providers, and can take between two days and two weeks.

Encampments assessed as “Priority Level 1” pose an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure and must be immediately addressed. Examples of “Priority Level 1” sites include an encampment that is on or near an unstable structure at risk of collapse or an encampment that is close to traffic and the individuals living in the encampment are at immediate risk of getting hit by vehicles. Encampments assessed as “Priority Level 2” and do not pose an immediate threat and may take longer for Caltrans to address.

On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that cities may enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals, even when adequate shelter is unavailable. The ruling finds that arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness who are camping and sleeping in public spaces does not violate their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision has facilitated cities and counties clearing homeless encampments and imposing penalties for violations.

On July 25^th, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order (EO) N-1-24, which directs state agencies to develop policies to prioritize addressing encampments on state property while providing reasonable advance notice and partnering with shelter and services providers. The EO also encourages local governments to adopt similar policies, and to use all available resources and infrastructure, including the resources provided by the state, to take urgent action to humanely remove encampments from public spaces.

State funding to address local homeless population. Since 2021-22, the Legislature has provided a total of $900 million General Fund through four rounds of funding for the Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) program, with an additional $100 million in the Governor’s budget planned for a fifth round of funding in 2025-26.

ERF provides competitive grants to cities, counties, and local Continuums of Care to address “critical encampment concerns” in their communities and transition unhoused individuals to safe and stable housing, with a focus on permanent housing. Applicants for an ERF grant identify the specific encampment or encampments they wish to resolve and provide plans on how they will use requested grant funds and other funding, including local funds, to connect the people in the specified encampment with services and housing. Beginning in 2023-24, some ERF budget funding has been set aside for local partnerships with Caltrans to address encampments fully or partially within the state highway system.

Separately, the 2021-22 and 2022-23 budgets provided Caltrans $2.7 million General Fund annually for 20 encampment coordinator positions. This amount was increased to $4.5 million annually from 2023-24 through 2025-26 to expand Caltrans’ encampment coordinator team to 30 positions. As a result of this funding, Caltrans established an Office of Homelessness and Encampments within its Maintenance Division. Encampment coordinators are tasked with managing homeless encampment cleanups within the state highway system by working with Caltrans’ maintenance staff, local governments, law enforcement, and service providers. Caltrans is required to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026 that summarizes the outcomes of the encampment coordinator team.

Local efforts to address homelessness and working with Caltrans. Currently, a DMA allows a local government to perform maintenance activities on state highways within its jurisdiction. This delegation shifts some maintenance responsibilities from Caltrans to the local entity, often a city or county. The agreement outlines specific tasks, responsibilities, and procedures for the local agency to follow, ensuring the highway is maintained to Caltrans' standards, and that encampment abatement follows Caltrans’ guidance around protection of life, health, safety and infrastructure. A number of cities across the state are in current negotiations with Caltrans on a final or updated DMA, including San Jose and San Francisco. A number of cities already maintain a DMA with Caltrans including Los Angeles. It is the understanding of the committee that the city of San Diego, this bill’s sponsor, has been in negotiation with Caltrans for over six months regarding a DMA and that the agreement is in the process of being finalized. This is a typical timeline for a DMA. Los Angeles’ agreement, for example, took approximately one year to finalize with Caltrans.

Local agencies adopt their own local encampment abatement policies, which are considered during the DMA negotiation. Many of these policies center on location-specific camping bans, such as bans on encampments on sidewalks, parks, and transportation hubs. Some policies detail procedural protections, such as noticing requirements for individuals living in the encampments. Unlike Caltrans’ policy, some cities have limited or no protections to ensure due process for people experiencing homelessness. The city of San Diego, for example, provides 24 hours written notice to the individuals living in the encampment before abatement begins. Additionally locals would rather local law enforcement officers be present at encampment removals, rather than California Highway Patrolmen (CHP).

According to the author. “Across the state, tens of thousands of people live unsheltered on city streets, in public parks and riverbeds, and near state highways. Many cities have developed robust programs to restabilize and rehouse people living in encampments. These programs are effective at resolving encampments on municipal property, but cities have run into challenges when working with the Department of Transportation, otherwise known as CalTrans, to address encampments on highways. CalTrans’ process for addressing encampments does not have clear timelines and is prone to delay due to bureaucratic hurdles. While many cities are able to clear encampments on city land within less than a week, CalTrans has taken up to two months to respond to encampments on its property. This is problematic because of the environmental and public safety hazards these encampments create. The City of San Diego’s Fire Department reported that encampments on state highway land caused close to 60 fires that cost the City a total of $2 million to respond to in the last three years. This is unacceptable. CalTrans should be working arm-in-arm with local agencies to resolve encampments and move people into housing expeditiously. SB 569 would direct the department to set clear timelines for resolving encampments and to prioritize encampments that pose environmental hazards, like fire risks; it also would authorize the department to allow local agencies it contracts with to use their own encampment resolution programs and policies on state highway land.”

Committee comments. This bill allows locals to utilize their own homeless encampment abatement policies and personnel on Caltrans’ right of way (ROW), allows one permit for all activities included in the DMA, and allows Caltrans to reimburse the local for these activities. The author and sponsor state the intent of this bill is to speed up the process for removing encampments the local government’s jurisdiction, that are on Caltrans’ ROW. The author and sponsor want to use local government resources and policies to clear these encampments quickly, rather than having to wait a few weeks for Caltrans to coordinate a response across governments, law enforcement, and service providers. Caltrans asserts that without robust service provider engagement, individuals living in the encampments will move to another nearby area and establish a new encampment in a matter of days.

While seemingly lengthy, Caltrans’ process for encampment abatement has been effective, and continues to improve. The state has invested significant policy and monetary resources into addressing homelessness, in consultation with local priorities, and this issue remains the number one priority of the current Governor.

While encampments on state roads may be within the local boundaries, they are on state ROW, and it is the state’s policies which should dictate the removal of homeless encampments. In order to facilitate coordination between state and local policies on encampment abatement, the committee may wish to amend the bill as follows:

1. Establish findings and declarations related to Caltrans’ existing work on homeless encampments.
2. Define “Delegated maintenance agreement,” “Homeless encampment,” “Local government,” “Continuum of Care,” and “Local government.”
3. Require Caltrans to post on its website the following:
   1. An outline of the process for local governments to enter into a DMA;
   2. Case studies of effective interventions; and,
   3. Links to relevant information and resources, including the CA Interagency Council on Homelessness, available funding opportunities, technical assistance, interagency support programs, and contact information for continuums of care.
4. For each DMA, requires Caltrans and local governments to develop reporting standards for DMAs in collaboration with local agencies, including improvement in encampment resolution, and connecting homeless with housing and services.
5. Allows Caltrans to execute a delegated maintenance agreement that allows a local agency to use its local homeless encampment abatement policies, processes, and personnel, and requires the local homeless encampment abatement policy to adhere to the tenants of Executive Order N-1-24, and the state’s most recent model ordinance for cities and counties to address encampments.
6. Allows Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of a DMA to conduct activities pursuant to this section.
7. Specifies reimbursements authorized by Caltrans for work performed under a DMA be made pursuant to the DMA.

In support, California Big City Mayors Coalition writes, “Caltrans is responsible for managing right-of-ways on state highways, but regulatory constraints have made it difficult to coordinate effectively with local governments. SB 569 directs CalTrans to develop locally tailored approaches, strengthen stakeholder engagement, and streamline the execution of Delegated Maintenance Agreements. These changes will improve the coordination and effectiveness of encampment resolution efforts in CalTrans’ right-of-ways.”

In opposition, Housing California writes, “Most importantly, as it stands right now, the bill leaves open the possibility that local governments could bypass CalTrans outreach protocols and remove homeless encampments without any advance outreach or protections for people's belongings, thereby bypassing critical protections that seek to minimize harm of encampment closures and increase the likelihood of connections to critical supportive services, shelter, and housing.”

Previous legislation. AB 2338 (Jones-Sawyer of 2024) would have required the Governor to appoint a Statewide Homelessness Coordinator within the Governor’s Office to serve as the lead person for ending homelessness in the state. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1011 (Jones of 2024) would have prohibited sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property upon any street, sidewalk, if a homeless shelter, as defined is available to the person. This bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 2630 (O’Donnell of 2022) would have required a city, county, or city and county that has used any state funding to assist in addressing homelessness to provide a public report on its internet website on the use of those funds by July 1, 2023. This bill was held in the Senate Human Services Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Anaheim / Orange County Hotel & Lodging Association
California Big City Mayors Coalition
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Police Chiefs Association
City of Alameda
City of Bakersfield

City of Camarillo
City of Carlsbad
City of Corona
City of Goleta

City of Lake Forest
City of Norwalk

City of Paramount
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Riverside
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Marcos
City of Thousand Oaks

City of Visalia
County of Fresno
County of Orange
San Diego County Lodging Association

Opposition

None on file

Oppose Unless Amended

Corporation for Supportive Housing

Housing California

National Alliance to End Homelessness

Analysis Prepared by: Julia Kingsley / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

Date of Hearing: June 29, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 569

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:June 24, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Bikeways: reversions and modifications

SUMMARY: Prohibits a local or regional agency from reverting a bikeway it constructs using moneys from the state General Fund to a nonactive transportation use or modifying it in manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users, to 20 years or its useful life, whichever is less. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines active transportation as a use that encourages increased use of active transportation, such as walking and biking.
2. Prohibits a city, county, regional, or other local agency using moneys from the state General Fund, in whole or part, to construct a bikeway from reverting the bikeway to a non-active transportation use or modifying it in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users for a minimum of 20 years from the date of the allocation or its actual useful life, whichever is less.
3. Requires any modification to a bikeway to be consistent with an active transportation use and subjects it to both of the following:
   
   1. A duly noticed public meeting to discuss an intent to modify a bikeway and;
   2. A duly noticed public hearing where the final design of a modification is considered by a city, county, regional or other local agency.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines and distinguishes a bikeway as follows:
   
   1. Class I bikeways (off-street, paved) provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
   2. Class II bikeways (striped lanes) provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
   3. Class III bikeways or “sharrows” (shared roadway) provide a right-of-way on-street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
   4. Class IV bikeways (separated lanes) provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking (Streets and Highways Code (SHC) §890.4).
      
2. Requires California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish, and local governments to use, minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria must include factors such as design speed, minimum widths and clearances, and grade (SHC §890.6).
   
3. After January 1, 2025, prohibits the installation of Class III bikeways on road with posted speeds above 30 miles per hour; prohibits the use of Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds to construct Class III bikeways with some exceptions (SHC §891.9).
   
4. Establishes the ATP within Caltrans to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, and expresses the intent of the Legislature that the program achieve goals such as increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking and increase safety and mobility for nonmotorized users (Streets and Highways Code (SHC) §2380).
   
5. Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to develop ATP guidelines and project selection criteria in consultation with an ATP Workgroup; the guidelines must include topics like project eligibility, application timelines, application rating and ranking criteria, project monitoring, reporting, and transparency, and project performance measurement (SHC §2382).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: According to the author, “Protected bikeways physically separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, improving safety and increasing ridership. California law requires engineering assessments when local agencies build bikeways, but imposes no equivalent standard before one is removed or downgraded. Recent local decisions to remove bike infrastructure have raised serious safety concerns and in one case forced a city to repay $435,000 in transportation funding.”

State funding for bike projects. The Active Transportation Program was created by SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities. In 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act. SB 1 directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.

Statewide programs like the ATP and other highway programs Caltrans administers have funded as of 2025, over 2,800 miles of bikeways (approved, constructed or ready for construction) since as early as 2014. In addition to funding that flows through Caltrans, the state General Fund has also provided small allocations for specific projects. Cities and other local governments also invest their own funds in bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

In 2024, Caltrans committed to invest nearly $1 billion as part of the 2024 State Highway Operation and Protection Program funded by SB 1 and federal funding over four years in bike and pedestrian infrastructure statewide, including 265 miles of new and enhanced bike lanes. Moreover, as early as 2011, local governments have been obligated to plan for the multimodal needs of all road users, including bicyclists, when updating their general plans.

Demand for non-vehicle alternatives continues to exceed available funding. As a result, ATP has been chronically over-subscribed. Program funding has fluctuated significantly but on average available funding ranges from $500-600 million a year from state and federal sources. According to the CTC, in its 7^th and most recent cycle (2025), one of the most competitive since inception, it received 277 project applications from local, regional and tribal governments requesting $2.5 billion in funding, about 15 times available funding, which was significantly lower than average.

Growing pains as bike infrastructure is more widely developed. As local governments have built more comprehensive bikeways, some have experienced challenges balancing competing demands for limited road space. Desktop models or studies during the design phase of bike projects may not reliably capture potential user conflicts or vehicle congestion as a result of road narrowing, converting lanes, or removing vehicle parking to accommodate bikeways. As a result, community opposition to new bike and pedestrian infrastructure can motivate local leaders to respond accordingly and in limited circumstances, this has resulted in the removal or downgrading (e.g., converting a separated bikeway to a shared or striped one) of a bikeway.

The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces.

These examples, a small subset in the context of several thousand miles of bikeways approved or constructed in the past decade, highlight the challenges associated with developing bike infrastructure on existing roadways and the actual or perceived creation of unintended safety risks or conflicts between vehicles and cyclists. Changes to roadways may be met with opposition as local governments pursue alternatives to vehicles and consider mechanisms to increase the safety of nonmotorized alternatives. However, the growing pains some communities are experiencing may not persist as they learn how to develop active transportation infrastructure that balances competing roadway uses. Moreover, it takes time for users of the new facilities to adapt to new infrastructure.

Rules of the bikeway. Modeled after ATP requirements, this bill prohibits a local government, on a going forward basis, from converting a bikeway to a non-active transportation use for the lesser of 20 years or the useful life of a bikeway should they accept state General Fund monies to develop a bikeway.

This bill also prohibits the modification of a bikeway if it reduces the safety, accessibility, and mobility of nonmotorized users. This conditional prohibition is intended to accommodate changed circumstances or the ever-evolving nature of roadways that may need to be re-designed to adapt to things such as utility re-locations, emergency access, construction or intersection upgrades, and safety issues. In these circumstances, a modification must be consistent with an active transportation use and provide the same or similar level of safety, accessibility and mobility of nonmotorized users. For example, converting a protected bikeway or a portion of the bikeway to a less protected one could be offset with greater protection for bicyclists in other areas of the same bikeway corridor.

This bill also requires a local government to consider a modification at a public hearing to maximize transparency. First, a local government must hold a public meeting to initially disclose its intent to modify a bikeway, inform the public of the need and justification for the modification, and invite public input. Adoption of the modification’s final design must occur at a duly noticed public hearing.

Writing in support, the California Bicycle Coalition states, “California communities are investing significant public dollars, staff time, and political will into safer streets. These investments help people bike, walk, and roll with more confidence, and they are especially important in communities where safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation choices have too often been delayed or underfunded. When state general funds are used to build a bikeway, the public should have confidence that the project will not be hastily reverted to a non-active transportation use or weakened in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility for nonmotorized users.”

Writing in opposition, the California Association of Bicycling Organizations states that, “The bill also prohibits an existing bikeway from being reverted to a nonactive transportation use or modified in a way that reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility. Because these are independent criteria, even minor changes—such as rerouting a Class III bike route to nearby streets—could trigger the bill despite no net loss of bicycle access. The requirement to determine whether a change reduces safety, accessibility, or mobility raises additional concerns. These judgments are often subjective and depend on professional engineering and planning expertise, yet the bill provides no clear standards or decision-maker. It is also unclear why bikeways should be uniquely locked in place for twenty years despite changing conditions and transportation needs.”

Related legislation. SB 1216 (Blakespear), Chapter 788, Statutes of 2024, prohibits the installation of Class III bikeways on road with posted speeds above 30 miles per hour; prohibits the use of ATP funds to construct Class III bikeways with some exceptions.

AB 1193 (Ting), Chapter 495, Statutes of 2014, requires Caltrans to establish and local governments to use minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria must include factors such as design speed, minimum widths and clearances, and grade.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Bicycle Coalition

Opposition

California Association of Bicycling Organizations

Analysis Prepared by: Dan Chia / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 569

Author: Blakespear (D), et al.

Amended: 4/21/25

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/22/25

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

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson

NOES: Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Department of Transportation: homeless encampments

SOURCE: City of San Diego

DIGEST:

This bill (1) directs the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a dedicated liaison to collaborate with local governments to facilitate the removal of homeless encampments on Caltrans’ right-of-way, as specified. This bill also (2) authorizes Caltrans to negotiate specified terms for Delegated Maintenance Agreements (DMAs) with local jurisdictions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes to Caltrans. (Streets and Highways Code (SHC) § 90)
2. Tasks Caltrans with improving and maintaining the state highways. (SHC § 91)
3. Grants the California Highway Patrol (CHP) the full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, on all toll highways and state highways constructed as freeways, including transit-related facilities located on or along the rights-of-way of those toll highways or freeways. (Vehicle Code (VEH) § 2400)
4. Allows city police officers, while engaged primarily in general law enforcement duties, to incidentally enforce state and local traffic laws and ordinances on toll highways and state freeways within incorporated areas of the state. (VEH § 2400)
5. Creates the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH) and requires it to set and measure progress toward goals to prevent and end homelessness in California. (Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 8255)
6. Authorizes Caltrans and any county, city, or joint highway district to enter into a contract in respect to the proportion of the expense of the acquisition, construction, improvement or maintenance of any state highway to be borne by the respective parties to such contract. Any such contract may provide for the advancement of funds, for the acquisition of rights of way and for the doing of the work, or any portion thereof, by any party to the contract, pursuant to the laws governing such party with reference to such type of acquisition or such character of work. (SHC 130)

This bill:

1. Requires Caltrans to establish a dedicated homeless encampment liaison with the following responsibilities:
   1. Facilitate communication with local governments and relevant state agencies.
   2. Provide guidance and support for implementing best practices.
   3. Oversee the development and implementation of DMAs.
   4. Review existing practices and contracting to maximize efficient abatement and clearing of homeless encampments.
   5. Create a publicly accessible digital collection of executed DMAs entered into by Caltrans, which shall include, but not be limited to, geographic location, funding allocation, and activities as specified.
   6. Collaborate with local governments to develop timelines for Caltrans’ response to requests from local governments for encampment removal.
   7. Consider prioritizing encampments that pose environmental hazards, such as those that may lead to heightened fire risk.
2. Authorizes Caltrans to negotiate agreements to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to DMAs for addressing homeless encampments on Caltrans property.
3. Authorizes Caltrans to enter into a DMA with a local agency that allows the local agency to use its own homeless encampment abatement policies and personnel, instead of Caltrans’ policies.
4. Authorizes Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of the agreement to conduct activities pursuant to this chapter.
5. Requires Caltrans to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing the number of homeless encampments addressed through collaboration with local governments and recommendations for improving coordination and resource allocation.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California has a crisis of people living unsheltered on city streets, in canyons and riverbeds, and near our state highways. Many cities are working expeditiously to relocate people living in encampments into housing and shelter. Cities run into roadblocks, though, when they try to resolve encampments near highways, which are the property of California’s Department of Transportation, otherwise known as CalTrans. Cities do not have authority to resolve these encampments themselves and run into delays when seeking to coordinate with CalTrans to conduct resolution activities. These delays are a critical issue. In San Diego, the city receives over 300 complaints a month about encampments on CalTrans’ property. While the City frequently clears encampments on its property in less than a week, CalTrans takes up to two months to respond to encampments on its property. These encampments are unsafe for the people living in them and unsafe for the motorists using our highways. In San Diego alone there have been more than 60 fires linked to encampments near highways, damaging infrastructure and threatening public safety. CalTrans needs to be working arm-in-arm with local agencies to solve this problem. SB 569 will provide clear direction for CalTrans to improve its coordination with cities and to prioritize encampments that pose environmental hazards, including risks of fire. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support SB 569.”
2. Abatement ramps up. On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness who are camping and sleeping in public spaces does not violate their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision opened the door for cities and counties to begin clearing homeless encampments and imposing penalties for violations. The ruling means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. The decision marked a new era of more aggressive encampment abatement in cities across the state.
3. Encampments on Caltrans right-of-way. As cities aggressively move people out of encampments, individuals experiencing homelessness are forced with growing frequency along state roadways. Research performed by UCLA found that freeway environments offer certain benefits for individuals experiencing homelessness, including separation from neighborhoods, shelter under bridges, and community amongst those living there. But the report goes on to find that these locations can be dangerous. Specifically, “living close to freeways and major streets raises the chance of getting injured by an automobile; for instance, seven in ten pedestrian deaths in Portland, Oregon in 2021 were of unhoused pedestrians.”
4. What does Caltrans do now? In 2022 Caltrans issued “Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 - Encampment Removal Policy” to guide the department’s encampment removal operations on Caltrans’ Right-of-Way. According to the policy, “removal of encampments mitigates health, safety, access, and concealment issues for Persons Experiencing Homelessness (PEH), the traveling public, adjacent neighborhoods, Caltrans staff and first responders.” Some of the timelines and procedures in this policy clash with the encampment removal policies of certain local jurisdictions seeking a more aggressive approach.

Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 directs Caltrans’ maintenance staff to first conduct a site assessment of the encampment. It is during this site assessment that they must identify encampments that pose an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure. These encampments are marked as “Priority Level 1” for urgent removal and must be immediately addressed. All other sites are deemed “Priority Level 2” and have lengthier noticing and removal procedures. Governor Newsom applauded the success of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1, citing that between July 2021 and July 2024 Caltrans removed 11,188 encampments and 248,275 cubic yards of debris from these encampments along the state rights of way. He went on to issue Executive Order N-1-24, directing all state agencies and departments to adopt policies generally consistent with Caltrans’ Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 to address encampments on state property.

1. Cities want to move faster. Some cities argue that Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 is constraining and results in delays in removing encampments. For example, the City of San Diego, the sponsor of SB 569, only provides 24 hours written notice to the individuals living in the encampment before abatement begins. In contrast, Caltrans provides 48 hours notice. Another slowdown identified by cities is Caltrans’ partnership with CHP. Cities raise concerns that CHP’s limited availability delays abatement action—a claim that Caltrans and CHP dispute. Some cities contend that their own law enforcement officers should replace CHP’s presence at encampment removals; however, CHP has statutory jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws on and along state highways.

The most significant delay, according to both the City of San Diego and Caltrans, stems from the amount of time Caltrans spends coordinating with local homeless service providers and requesting outreach services for people living in the encampment. Caltrans reported that typically the only reason an encampment would take more than two weeks to be removed would be because local service providers requested more time to coordinate services for the individuals living in the encampment. Caltrans asserts that without robust service provider engagement, individuals living in the encampments typically move to another nearby area and establish a new encampment in a matter of days.

1. Abatement vs resolution. A recent body of research has brought into question the effectiveness of encampment abatement. The Legislative Analysist’s Office (LAO) differentiates between “encampment resolution” and other forms of abatement by defining resolution as when the people living in an encampment are transitioned into housing. The LAO goes on to report that, “encampment resolution is intended to be a ‘win/win’ both for people living in the encampment (in that they are brought inside with supports they need) and for the general public (which sees the encampment area returned to its original intended purpose, such as a park for recreation). Encampment resolution thus is distinct from encampment ‘sweeps,’ in which people are moved from an encampment (sometimes losing their personal possessions in the process) and remain homeless—and still outside—in a different neighborhood or area.”
2. Delegated maintenance agreements. As defined in the bill, a DMA is a contract entered into by Caltrans and a local government, in which both work together to reduce and remove homeless encampments within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Currently, a number of cities are actively negotiating the terms of DMAs on encampment removal with Caltrans, including the cities of San Jose and San Diego. The purpose of the DMA would be to delegate some of the Caltrans’ right-of-way encampment clearing work to local jurisdictions.

Some of the provisions of this bill focus on two sticking points that arose during negotiations: encampment removal policies and reimbursement. Caltrans currently asks cities to largely abide by the provisions of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 during encampment removal work. Cities, on the other hand, want to use their own policies. This bill authorizes Caltrans to allow a city to use their own abatement policies in a DMA. This means that Caltrans would be able to enter into a DMA that replaces the state’s encampment policies with that of a local government, regardless of the local government’s policies. While some cities have polices to minimize harm to those living in encampments, other cities have no encampment resolution policies and do not ensure due process for people experiencing homelessness. It is notable that no law currently prohibits Caltrans from entering into this kind of agreement right now. SB 569 also permits Caltrans to reimburse cities for the encampment clearing work, as negotiated in the DMA.

1. Past budgets created Encampment Coordinators. The 2021-22 state budget provided $2.7 million from the General Fund in both 2021-22 and 2022-23 for Caltrans to hire homeless encampment coordinators. The staff in these positions coordinate encampment cleanups with Caltrans’ maintenance staff, local governments, law enforcement, and service providers. The 2023-24 budget provided $4.5 million annually from the General Fund from 2023-24 through 2025-26 for Caltrans to continue and expand its’ encampment coordinator team. Budget trailer bill legislation requires Caltrans to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026, that summarizes outcomes of the encampment coordinator team.

This bill directs Caltrans to create a dedicated liaison to communicate and collaborate with local governments to facilitate the removal of homeless encampments within the department’s jurisdiction position. The liaison would be responsible for coordinating with cities and counties, developing DMAs with local governments to address homeless encampments within the state highway system right-of-way, and developing and maintaining a publicly assessable digital collection of those agreements. It is unclear to what extent these efforts would overlap with work currently performed by Caltrans’ homeless encampment coordinators and Office of Homelessness and Encampments, which is a statewide team responsible for encampment cleanup and coordinating with local governments to provide services and supports for homeless persons.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Ongoing Caltrans costs of approximately $200,000 annually to establish a new dedicated liaison position to collaborate with cities and counties on addressing homeless encampments, oversee the development and implementation of delegated maintenance agreements, create a publicly accessible collection of executed agreements, and submit an annual report to the Legislature, among other things. (State Highway Account)
  
• Unknown significant cost pressures, potentially in the tens of millions annually, to provide funding to reimburse local agencies for services rendered pursuant to delegated maintenance agreements. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

City of San Diego (source)

Anaheim / Orange County Hotel & Lodging Association
California Big City Mayors Coalition
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Camarillo; City of
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
City of Agoura Hills
City of Artesia, California
City of Bell Gardens
City of Buena Park
City of Carlsbad
City of Chula Vista
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of LA Mirada
City of LA Verne
City of Lake Forest
City of Lakewood CA
City of Los Alamitos
City of Norwalk
City of Redwood City
City of Riverside
City of Thousand Oaks
Council President Joe Lacava's Office
County of Fresno
Fullerton; City of
League of California Cities
Norwalk; City of
Orange; County of
Paramount; City of
Placentia; City of
San Diego County Lodging Association
San Diego Padres
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Tulare; City of
Tustin, City of

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

None received

Prepared by: Isabelle LaSalle / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

5/25/25 18:19:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/22/2025

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill directs the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a dedicated liaison to facilitate the removal of homeless encampments on Caltrans’ right-of-way, as specified, and authorizes Caltrans to negotiate specified terms for Delegated Maintenance Agreements (DMA) with local jurisdictions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes to Caltrans. (SHC 90)
2. Tasks Caltrans with improving and maintaining the state highways. (SHC 91)
3. Grants California Highway Patrol (CHP) the full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, on all toll highways and state highways constructed as freeways, including transit-related facilities located on or along the rights-of-way of those toll highways or freeways. (VEH 2400)
4. Allows city police officers, while engaged primarily in general law enforcement duties, to incidentally enforce state and local traffic laws and ordinances on toll highways and state freeways within incorporated areas of the state. (VEH 2400)
5. Creates the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH) and requires it to set and measure progress toward goals to prevent and end homelessness in California. (WIC 8255)
6. Authorizes Caltrans and any county, city, or joint highway district to enter into a contract in respect to the proportion of the expense of the acquisition, construction, improvement or maintenance of any state highway to be borne by the respective parties to such contract. Any such contract may provide for the advancement of funds, for the acquisition of rights of way and for the doing of the work, or any portion thereof, by any party to the contract, pursuant to the laws governing such party with reference to such type of acquisition or such character of work. (SHC 130)

This bill:

1. Requires Caltrans to establish a dedicated homeless encampment liaison with the following responsibilities:
   1. Facilitate communication with local governments and relevant state agencies.
   2. Provide guidance and support for implementing best practices.
   3. Oversee the development and implementation of DMAs.
   4. Review existing practices and contracting to maximize efficient abatement and clearing of homeless encampments.
   5. Create a publicly accessible digital collection of executed DMAs entered into by Caltrans, which shall include, but not be limited to, geographic location, funding allocation, and activities as specified.
   6. Collaborate with local governments to develop timelines for Caltrans’ response to requests from local governments for encampment removal.
   7. Consider prioritizing encampments that pose environmental hazards, such as those that may lead to heightened fire risk.
2. Authorizes Caltrans to negotiate agreements to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to DMAs for addressing homeless encampments on Caltrans property.
3. Authorizes Caltrans to enter into a DMA with a local agency that allows the local agency to use its own homeless encampment abatement policies and personnel, instead of Caltrans’ policies.
4. Authorizes Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of the agreement to conduct activities pursuant to this chapter.
5. Requires Caltrans to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing the number of homeless encampments addressed through collaboration with local governments and recommendations for improving coordination and resource allocation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California has a crisis of people living unsheltered on city streets, in canyons and riverbeds, and near our state highways. Many cities are working expeditiously to relocate people living in encampments into housing and shelter. Cities run into roadblocks, though, when they try to resolve encampments near highways, which are the property of California’s Department of Transportation, otherwise known as CalTrans. Cities do not have authority to resolve these encampments themselves and run into delays when seeking to coordinate with CalTrans to conduct resolution activities. These delays are a critical issue. In San Diego, the city receives over 300 complaints a month about encampments on CalTrans’ property. While the City frequently clears encampments on its property in less than a week, CalTrans takes up to two months to respond to encampments on its property. These encampments are unsafe for the people living in them and unsafe for the motorists using our highways. In San Diego alone there have been more than 60 fires linked to encampments near highways, damaging infrastructure and threatening public safety. CalTrans needs to be working arm-in-arm with local agencies to solve this problem. SB 569 will provide clear direction for CalTrans to improve its coordination with cities and to prioritize encampments that pose environmental hazards, including risks of fire. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support SB 569.”
2. Homelessness in California. California’s 2024 point-in-time count reported that 187,000 people were counted as homeless—an all-time high for the state, and 36,000 (24%) more than were counted in January 2019. Two-thirds of those counted were “unsheltered,” such as people living on the street or in a park. The other one-third were identified as “sheltered homeless,” meaning they were spending the night in an emergency shelter or other temporary housing. California has 12% of the total population in the U.S. but accounts for about one-quarter of the country’s homelessness count.
3. Abatement ramps up. On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness who are camping and sleeping in public spaces does not violate their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision opened the door for cities and counties to begin clearing homeless encampments and imposing penalties for violations. The ruling means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. The decision marked a new era of more aggressive encampment abatement in cities across the state.

Numerous cities have adopted a wide variety of abatement policies. Many of these policies center on location-specific camping bans, such as bans on encampments on sidewalks, parks, and transportation hubs. Some policies detail procedural protections, such as noticing requirements, for individuals living in the encampments. However, some cities have either limited or no protections to ensure due process for people experiencing homelessness. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of abatement polices to reduce homelessness overall, but some of these polices have successfully reduced the number of encampments in downtown areas.

1. Encampments on Caltrans right-of-way. As cities aggressively move people out of encampments, individuals experiencing homelessness are forced with growing frequency along state roadways. Research performed by UCLA found that freeway environments offer certain benefits for individuals experiencing homelessness, including separation from neighborhoods, shelter under bridges, and community amongst those living there. But the report goes on to find that these locations can be dangerous. Specifically, “living close to freeways and major streets raises the chance of getting injured by an automobile; for instance, seven in ten pedestrian deaths in Portland, Oregon in 2021 were of unhoused pedestrians.” Furthermore, “encampments near freeways can create hazards for motorists and those in neighboring residences and businesses and also pose problems for DOTs, including threats to employee safety, damages to equipment and infrastructure, and unsafe debris.”^[1]
2. What does Caltrans do now? In 2022 Caltrans issued “Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 - Encampment Removal Policy” to guide the department’s encampment removal operations on Caltrans’ Right-of-Way.^[2] According to the policy, “removal of encampments mitigates health, safety, access, and concealment issues for Persons Experiencing Homelessness (PEH), the traveling public, adjacent neighborhoods, Caltrans staff and first responders.” Some of the timelines and procedures in this policy clash with the encampment removal policies of certain local jurisdictions seeking a more aggressive approach.

Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 directs Caltrans’ maintenance staff to first conduct a site assessment of the encampment. It is during this site assessment that they must identify encampments that pose an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure. These encampments are marked as “Priority Level 1” for urgent removal and must be immediately addressed. Examples of “Priority Level 1” sites include an encampment that is on or near an unstable structure at risk of collapse or an encampment that is close to traffic and the individuals living in the encampment are at immediate risk of getting hit by vehicles. Unlike with other encampments, no advance posted Notice to Vacate is required for “Priority Level 1” sites. All other sites are deemed “Priority Level 2” and have lengthier noticing and removal procedures.

As part of the initial site assessment for any encampment, the local Caltrans District Encampment Coordinator must contact local homeless service providers and request outreach services for people in the encampment. According to Caltrans, the department prioritizes this step, even if it can delay encampment removal. In addition to coordinating with these local service providers, Caltrans takes the following steps when removing a “Priority Level 2” encampment, among others:

1. Post a Notice to Vacate at least 48 hours before beginning encampment removal. Removal work must begin on the exact date written on the notice.
2. CHP shall be present during the posting of Notice to Vacate and during removal operations.
3. Time-stamped photographs or videos should be taken before, during, and after removal work has been completed.
4. Hazardous Materials (hazmat) trained personnel should evaluate the site to identify and plan for removal of any hazardous materials.
5. Any personal property that is collected should be stored in a secured location by Caltrans for not less than 60 days, then discarded if not claimed.
6. Collected personal property should be time-stamped photographed and shall be inventoried by describing and labeling the items and identifying the encampment location and the removal date.
7. A report should be submitted to the Caltrans Headquarters office handling encampments within one week of a completed encampment removal and retained for four years.

Governor Newsom applauded the success of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1, citing that between July 2021 and July 2024 Caltrans removed 11,188 encampments and 248,275 cubic yards of debris from these encampments along the state rights of way. He went on to issue Executive Order N-1-24 to bring the policy statewide.^[3] The order directed all state agencies and departments to adopt policies generally consistent with Caltrans’ Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 to address encampments on state property.

1. Cities want to move faster. Some cities argue that Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 is constraining and results in delays in removing encampments. For example, the City of San Diego, the sponsor of SB 569, only provides 24 hours written notice to the individuals living in the encampment before abatement begins. In contrast, Caltrans provides 48 hours notice. Another slowdown identified by cities is Caltrans’ partnership with CHP. Cities raise concerns that CHP’s limited availability delays abatement action—a claim that Caltrans and CHP dispute. Some cities contend that their own law enforcement officers should replace CHP’s presence at encampment removals; however, CHP has statutory jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws on and along state highways.

According to some cities, another source of delay stems from Caltrans’ use of hazmat trained staff. As mentioned, Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 specifies that hazmat trained personnel should evaluate the site to identify and plan for removal of any hazardous materials. Cities contend that Caltrans overuses hazmat trained personnel, when non-specialized personnel could perform the abatement instead. For example, the City of San Diego reports that they use Urban Corps, a local young adult conservation corps, to perform most abatements. It is unlear what level of training San Diego Urban Corps members are provided to perform encampment removal.^[4]

The most significant delay, according to both the City of San Diego and Caltrans, stems from the amount of time Caltrans spends coordinating with local homeless service providers and requesting outreach services for people living in the encampment. Caltrans reported that typically the only reason an encampment would take more than two weeks to be removed would be because local service providers requested more time to coordinate services for the individuals living in the encampment. Caltrans asserts that without robust service provider engagement, individuals living in the encampments will move to another nearby area and establish a new encampment in a matter of days.

1. Abatement efficacy up for debate. A recent body of research has brought into question the effectiveness of encampment abatement. The Legislative Analysist’s Office (LAO) differentiates between “encampment resolution” and other forms of abatement by defining resolution as when the people living in an encampment are transitioned into housing. The LAO goes on to report that, “encampment resolution is intended to be a “win/win” both for people living in the encampment (in that they are brought inside with supports they need) and for the general public (which sees the encampment area returned to its original intended purpose, such as a park for recreation). Encampment resolution thus is distinct from encampment “sweeps,” in which people are moved from an encampment (sometimes losing their personal possessions in the process) and remain homeless—and still outside—in a different neighborhood or area.”^[5]

In a study titled Homelessness in State Transportation Environments the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies reported that, “encampments often return, and removals are expensive. Offers of shelter may come with barriers to entry, and the root causes of homelessness remain unaddressed.”^[6] CalMatters spent four months researching encampments for an article titled “Look, there’s nowhere else to go”: Inside California’s crackdown on homeless camps. The article reported that, “experts agree clearing or ‘sweeping’ encampments alone can’t end homelessness. But here’s what we did see over and over as a result of sweeps in those cities: people becoming more likely to lose touch with support services, people losing essential items they need to get into housing (such as birth certificates) or to survive the elements (such as tents) and people still stuck on the streets — sometimes in new locations.”^[7]

1. Delegated maintenance agreements. As defined in the bill, a DMA is a contract entered into by Caltrans and a local government, in which both work together to reduce and remove homeless encampments within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. It is common practice for Caltrans to enter into agreements with local governments for a number of reasons, such as liter removal or construction projects. Currently, a number of cities are actively negotiating the terms of DMAs on encampment removal with Caltrans, including the cities of San Jose and San Diego. The purpose of the DMA would be to delegate some of the Caltrans right-of-way encampment clearing work to local jurisdictions. SB 569 focuses on two sticking points that arose during negotiations: encampment removal policies and reimbursement. Caltrans asks cities to largely abide by the provisions of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 during this work. Cities, on the other hand, want to use their own policies. This bill authorizes Caltrans to allow a city to use their own abatement policies in a DMA. This means that Caltrans would be able to enter into a DMA that replaces the state’s encampment policies with that of a local government, regardless of the local government’s policies. While some cities have polices to minimize harm to those living in encampments, other cities have no encampment resolution policies and do not ensure due process and dignity for people experiencing homelessness. However, it is unclear to what extent Caltrans will utilize this authority because there is no law currently prohibiting Caltrans from entering into this kind of agreement right now. The bill also permits Caltrans to reimburse cities for the encampment clearing work—as negotiated in the DMA.
2. Past budgets created Encampment Coordinators. SB 569 creates a homeless encampment liaison position within Caltrans. The 2021-22 state budget provided $2.7 million from the General Fund in both 2021-22 and 2022-23 for Caltrans to hire homeless encampment coordinators. The staff in these positions coordinate encampment cleanups with Caltrans’ maintenance staff, local governments, law enforcement, and service providers. The 2023-24 budget provided $4.5 million annually from the General Fund from 2023-24 through 2025-26 for Caltrans to continue and expand its’ encampment coordinator team. Budget trailer bill legislation requires Caltrans to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026, that summarizes outcomes of the encampment coordinator team. The author may wish to consider waiting for the results of the report before establishing a significantly similar position.

previous Legislation:

AB 2338 (Jones-Sawyer, 2024) -- This bill would have required the Governor to appoint a Statewide Homelessness Coordinator within the Governor’s Office to serve as the lead person for ending homelessness in the state. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1011 (Jones, 2024) – This bill would have prohibited sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property upon any street, sidewalk, if a homeless shelter, as defined is available to the person. This bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

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

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.)

SUPPORT:

Anaheim / Orange County Hotel & Lodging Association

California Big City Mayors Coalition

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Agoura Hills

City of Artesia, California

City of Chula Vista

City of Corona

City of LA Mirada

City of LA Verne

City of Lakewood CA

City of Riverside

City of San Diego

City of Thousand Oaks

Council President Joe Lacava's Office

Fullerton; City of

League of California Cities

Orange; County of

Paramount; City of

Placentia; City of

San Diego County Lodging Association

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

Tustin, City of

OPPOSITION:

None received.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The City of San Diego, the sponsor of the bill, writes, “Cities across the state are seeing a proliferation of homeless encampments on Caltrans property. The City of San Diego, over the last year, has received on average 300 complaints per month about people experiencing homelessness and tent encampments on state property. While cities and counties throughout California have been able to reduce encampments on their property, cities are not authorized to exercise that authority on state-owned property. To help counter this, California city officials have expressed willingness to enter into “Delegated Maintenance Agreements” (DMAs) with CalTrans to take on the responsibilities of clearing homeless encampments in the Caltrans right-of-way in return for reimbursement of these services. The DMA is intended to remove jurisdictional boundaries, allowing local communities to address encampments and receive reimbursement for their efforts. However, the practical application of Caltrans’ DMA structures is inconsistent throughout the state and overly bureaucratic. Specifically, SB 569 provides Caltrans the statutory authority to allow local governments, under an executed DMA, to utilize local policies and procedures to streamline encampment abatement, as well as streamlining the permit process. These common-sense reforms will improve the applicability of DMAs and help ensure that encampment abatement on our state right of ways is more efficient.”

-- END --

1. Jacob L. Wasserman, Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Hao Ding, Claire Nelischer, The Road, Home: Challenges of and Responses to Homelessness in State Transportation Environments, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Volume 21, 2023,100890, ISSN 2590-1982, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100890. ↑

2. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/maintenance/documents/mpd-1001r1-10-2022-a11y.pdf ↑

3. 2024-Encampments-EO-7-24.pdf ↑

4. About Urban Corps - Urban Corps of San Diego County ↑

5. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5007 ↑

6. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Wasserman, J. L, Ding, H., & Nelischer, C. (2023). Homelessness in State Transportation Environments. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6J603 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zr2x79n ↑

7. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/02/california-homeless-encampment-sweeps/ ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 569 (Blakespear) - Department of Transportation: homeless encampments

Bill Summary:

SB 569 would require the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a dedicated liaison to communicate and collaborate with local governments to facilitate the removal of homeless encampments within the department’s jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would also authorize Caltrans, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide reimbursement to local governments for services rendered under delegated maintenance agreements for addressing homeless encampments, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Ongoing Caltrans costs of approximately $200,000 annually to establish a new dedicated liaison position to collaborate with cities and counties on addressing homeless encampments, oversee the development and implementation of delegated maintenance agreements, create a publicly accessible collection of executed agreements, and submit an annual report to the Legislature, among other things. (State Highway Account)
  
• Unknown significant cost pressures, potentially in the tens of millions annually, to provide funding to reimburse local agencies for services rendered pursuant to delegated maintenance agreements. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law vests Caltrans with the full possession and control of all state highways and all property acquired for state highway purposes, and authorizes Caltrans to require the removal of any encroachment in, under, or over any state highway. Existing law requires Caltrans to improve and maintain the state highway system, and further authorizes the department to enter into a contract with any city or county for the acquisition, construction, improvement, or maintenance of any state highway, as specified.

Since 2021-22, the Legislature has provided a total of $900 million in General Fund revenues through four rounds of funding for the Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) program, with an additional $100 million in the Governor’s budget planned for a fifth round of funding in 2025-26. The purpose of ERF is to provide competitive grants to cities, counties, and local Continuums of Care to address “critical encampment concerns” in their communities and transition unhoused individuals to safe and stable housing, with a focus on permanent housing. Applicants for an ERF grant must identify the specific encampment or encampments they wish to resolve and provide plans on how they will use requested grant funds and other funding, including local funds, to connect the people in the specified encampment with services and housing. Since the focus of the state’s program is on providing housing, grantees generally are limited to using non-ERF funds (such as local funds) for site restoration/clean-up activities. Beginning in 2023-24, some ERF budget funding has been set aside for local partnerships with Caltrans to address encampments fully or partially in a state highway rights-of-way.

Separately, the Legislature has provided Caltrans with funding for encampment clean-up purposes and to improve coordination with local jurisdictions. Specifically, the 2021-22 and 2022-23 budgets provided $2.7 million in annual General Fund revenues for 20 encampment coordinator positions. Caltrans subsequently established an Office of Homelessness and Encampments within its Maintenance Division. Encampment coordinators are tasked with managing homeless encampment cleanups on the state highway system by working with Caltrans’ maintenance staff, local governments, law enforcement, and service providers. This amount was increased to $4.5 million annually from 2023-24 through 2025-26 to expand Caltrans’ encampment coordinator team to 30 positions. Budget trailer bill language was enacted in 2023-24 that requires Caltrans to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026 that summarizes the outcomes of the encampment coordinator team. The 2023-24 budget also included $1.3 million from the General Fund in both 2023-24 and 2024-25 to establish a homelessness solutions team charged with coordinating long-term planning efforts involving homelessness and housing across all of the department’s programs.

Proposed Law:

SB 569 would require Caltrans to establish a dedicated liaison to work with cities and counties to address homeless encampments within the state highway system. Specifically, this bill would:

• Require Caltrans to establish a dedicated liaison to do all of the following:
  • Facilitate communication with local governments and relevant state agencies to address homeless encampments within the state highway system.
  • Provide guidance and support for implementing best practices to address homeless encampments within the state highway system.
  • Oversee the development and implementation of “delegated maintenance agreements,” which are defined as contracts between Caltrans and a local agency in which both work to reduce and remove encampments within the department’s jurisdiction.
  • Review existing practices and contracting to maximize efficient abatement and clearing of homeless encampments.
  • Create a publicly accessible digital collection of executed delegated maintenance agreements, including information regarding the geographic location, funding allocation, and activities conducted for each agreement.
  • Collaborate with local governments to develop timelines for Caltrans responses to requests from locals for encampment removal, and consider prioritizing encampments that pose environmental hazards, such as those that may lead to heightened fire risk.
• Authorize Caltrans, upon appropriation of funds, to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to a delegated maintenance agreement, including outreach and support programs, environmental cleanup and restoration, homeless encampment abatement, trash removal, and graffiti abatement.
• Authorize Caltrans to execute a delegated maintenance agreement that allows a local agency to use its own homeless encampment abatement policies and procedures.
• Authorize Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of an agreement to conduct activities pursuant to the bill.
• Require Caltrans to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing:
  • The number of homeless encampments addressed through collaboration with local governments.
  • Recommendations for improving coordination and resource allocation to address homeless encampments.

Staff Comments:

Caltrans indicates that the costs to establish a dedicated liaison position would be approximately $200,000 annually. This position would be responsible for coordinating with cities and counties, developing delegated maintenance agreements with local governments to address homeless encampments within the state highway system right-of-way, and developing and maintaining a publicly assessable digital collection of those agreements, as specified. Caltrans notes that this would be a wholly separate effort from work currently performed by the Office of Homelessness and Encampments, which is a statewide team responsible for encampment cleanup and coordinating with local governments to provide services and supports for homeless persons.

This bill also authorizes Caltrans, upon appropriation of funding by the Legislature, to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to delegated maintenance agreements. As such, the bill creates unknown significant cost pressures, potentially in the tens of millions annually, to provide funding for these reimbursements. Staff notes that Caltrans spent over $51 million in 2023-24 to address encampments and people experiencing homelessness within the state highway system, and that the local government demand for those funds exceed available revenues. Caltrans anticipates that significant pressure from local governments will require additional funding to reimburse local governments for encampment clean-ups. To the extent this bill resulted in additional appropriations for services rendered under delegated maintenance agreements, and depending on the level of funding provided, Caltrans may require additional staff to negotiate and administer those agreements.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/22/2025

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill directs the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a dedicated liaison to facilitate the removal of homeless encampments on Caltrans’ right-of-way, as specified, and authorizes Caltrans to negotiate specified terms for Delegated Maintenance Agreements (DMA) with local jurisdictions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes to Caltrans. (SHC 90)
2. Tasks Caltrans with improving and maintaining the state highways. (SHC 91)
3. Grants California Highway Patrol (CHP) the full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, on all toll highways and state highways constructed as freeways, including transit-related facilities located on or along the rights-of-way of those toll highways or freeways. (VEH 2400)
4. Allows city police officers, while engaged primarily in general law enforcement duties, to incidentally enforce state and local traffic laws and ordinances on toll highways and state freeways within incorporated areas of the state. (VEH 2400)
5. Creates the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH) and requires it to set and measure progress toward goals to prevent and end homelessness in California. (WIC 8255)
6. Authorizes Caltrans and any county, city, or joint highway district to enter into a contract in respect to the proportion of the expense of the acquisition, construction, improvement or maintenance of any state highway to be borne by the respective parties to such contract. Any such contract may provide for the advancement of funds, for the acquisition of rights of way and for the doing of the work, or any portion thereof, by any party to the contract, pursuant to the laws governing such party with reference to such type of acquisition or such character of work. (SHC 130)

This bill:

1. Requires Caltrans to establish a dedicated homeless encampment liaison with the following responsibilities:
   1. Facilitate communication with local governments and relevant state agencies.
   2. Provide guidance and support for implementing best practices.
   3. Oversee the development and implementation of DMAs.
   4. Review existing practices and contracting to maximize efficient abatement and clearing of homeless encampments.
   5. Create a publicly accessible digital collection of executed DMAs entered into by Caltrans, which shall include, but not be limited to, geographic location, funding allocation, and activities as specified.
   6. Collaborate with local governments to develop timelines for Caltrans’ response to requests from local governments for encampment removal.
   7. Consider prioritizing encampments that pose environmental hazards, such as those that may lead to heightened fire risk.
2. Authorizes Caltrans to negotiate agreements to reimburse local governments for services rendered pursuant to DMAs for addressing homeless encampments on Caltrans property.
3. Authorizes Caltrans to enter into a DMA with a local agency that allows the local agency to use its own homeless encampment abatement policies and personnel, instead of Caltrans’ policies.
4. Authorizes Caltrans to grant a single general entry permit for the duration of the agreement to conduct activities pursuant to this chapter.
5. Requires Caltrans to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing the number of homeless encampments addressed through collaboration with local governments and recommendations for improving coordination and resource allocation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California has a crisis of people living unsheltered on city streets, in canyons and riverbeds, and near our state highways. Many cities are working expeditiously to relocate people living in encampments into housing and shelter. Cities run into roadblocks, though, when they try to resolve encampments near highways, which are the property of California’s Department of Transportation, otherwise known as CalTrans. Cities do not have authority to resolve these encampments themselves and run into delays when seeking to coordinate with CalTrans to conduct resolution activities. These delays are a critical issue. In San Diego, the city receives over 300 complaints a month about encampments on CalTrans’ property. While the City frequently clears encampments on its property in less than a week, CalTrans takes up to two months to respond to encampments on its property. These encampments are unsafe for the people living in them and unsafe for the motorists using our highways. In San Diego alone there have been more than 60 fires linked to encampments near highways, damaging infrastructure and threatening public safety. CalTrans needs to be working arm-in-arm with local agencies to solve this problem. SB 569 will provide clear direction for CalTrans to improve its coordination with cities and to prioritize encampments that pose environmental hazards, including risks of fire. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support SB 569.”
2. Homelessness in California. California’s 2024 point-in-time count reported that 187,000 people were counted as homeless—an all-time high for the state, and 36,000 (24%) more than were counted in January 2019. Two-thirds of those counted were “unsheltered,” such as people living on the street or in a park. The other one-third were identified as “sheltered homeless,” meaning they were spending the night in an emergency shelter or other temporary housing. California has 12% of the total population in the U.S. but accounts for about one-quarter of the country’s homelessness count.
3. Abatement ramps up. On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that arresting and fining people experiencing homelessness who are camping and sleeping in public spaces does not violate their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision opened the door for cities and counties to begin clearing homeless encampments and imposing penalties for violations. The ruling means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. The decision marked a new era of more aggressive encampment abatement in cities across the state.

Numerous cities have adopted a wide variety of abatement policies. Many of these policies center on location-specific camping bans, such as bans on encampments on sidewalks, parks, and transportation hubs. Some policies detail procedural protections, such as noticing requirements, for individuals living in the encampments. However, some cities have either limited or no protections to ensure due process for people experiencing homelessness. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of abatement polices to reduce homelessness overall, but some of these polices have successfully reduced the number of encampments in downtown areas.

1. Encampments on Caltrans right-of-way. As cities aggressively move people out of encampments, individuals experiencing homelessness are forced with growing frequency along state roadways. Research performed by UCLA found that freeway environments offer certain benefits for individuals experiencing homelessness, including separation from neighborhoods, shelter under bridges, and community amongst those living there. But the report goes on to find that these locations can be dangerous. Specifically, “living close to freeways and major streets raises the chance of getting injured by an automobile; for instance, seven in ten pedestrian deaths in Portland, Oregon in 2021 were of unhoused pedestrians.” Furthermore, “encampments near freeways can create hazards for motorists and those in neighboring residences and businesses and also pose problems for DOTs, including threats to employee safety, damages to equipment and infrastructure, and unsafe debris.”^[1]
2. What does Caltrans do now? In 2022 Caltrans issued “Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 - Encampment Removal Policy” to guide the department’s encampment removal operations on Caltrans’ Right-of-Way.^[2] According to the policy, “removal of encampments mitigates health, safety, access, and concealment issues for Persons Experiencing Homelessness (PEH), the traveling public, adjacent neighborhoods, Caltrans staff and first responders.” Some of the timelines and procedures in this policy clash with the encampment removal policies of certain local jurisdictions seeking a more aggressive approach.

Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 directs Caltrans’ maintenance staff to first conduct a site assessment of the encampment. It is during this site assessment that they must identify encampments that pose an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure. These encampments are marked as “Priority Level 1” for urgent removal and must be immediately addressed. Examples of “Priority Level 1” sites include an encampment that is on or near an unstable structure at risk of collapse or an encampment that is close to traffic and the individuals living in the encampment are at immediate risk of getting hit by vehicles. Unlike with other encampments, no advance posted Notice to Vacate is required for “Priority Level 1” sites. All other sites are deemed “Priority Level 2” and have lengthier noticing and removal procedures.

As part of the initial site assessment for any encampment, the local Caltrans District Encampment Coordinator must contact local homeless service providers and request outreach services for people in the encampment. According to Caltrans, the department prioritizes this step, even if it can delay encampment removal. In addition to coordinating with these local service providers, Caltrans takes the following steps when removing a “Priority Level 2” encampment, among others:

1. Post a Notice to Vacate at least 48 hours before beginning encampment removal. Removal work must begin on the exact date written on the notice.
2. CHP shall be present during the posting of Notice to Vacate and during removal operations.
3. Time-stamped photographs or videos should be taken before, during, and after removal work has been completed.
4. Hazardous Materials (hazmat) trained personnel should evaluate the site to identify and plan for removal of any hazardous materials.
5. Any personal property that is collected should be stored in a secured location by Caltrans for not less than 60 days, then discarded if not claimed.
6. Collected personal property should be time-stamped photographed and shall be inventoried by describing and labeling the items and identifying the encampment location and the removal date.
7. A report should be submitted to the Caltrans Headquarters office handling encampments within one week of a completed encampment removal and retained for four years.

Governor Newsom applauded the success of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1, citing that between July 2021 and July 2024 Caltrans removed 11,188 encampments and 248,275 cubic yards of debris from these encampments along the state rights of way. He went on to issue Executive Order N-1-24 to bring the policy statewide.^[3] The order directed all state agencies and departments to adopt policies generally consistent with Caltrans’ Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 to address encampments on state property.

1. Cities want to move faster. Some cities argue that Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 is constraining and results in delays in removing encampments. For example, the City of San Diego, the sponsor of SB 569, only provides 24 hours written notice to the individuals living in the encampment before abatement begins. In contrast, Caltrans provides 48 hours notice. Another slowdown identified by cities is Caltrans’ partnership with CHP. Cities raise concerns that CHP’s limited availability delays abatement action—a claim that Caltrans and CHP dispute. Some cities contend that their own law enforcement officers should replace CHP’s presence at encampment removals; however, CHP has statutory jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws on and along state highways.

According to some cities, another source of delay stems from Caltrans’ use of hazmat trained staff. As mentioned, Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 specifies that hazmat trained personnel should evaluate the site to identify and plan for removal of any hazardous materials. Cities contend that Caltrans overuses hazmat trained personnel, when non-specialized personnel could perform the abatement instead. For example, the City of San Diego reports that they use Urban Corps, a local young adult conservation corps, to perform most abatements. It is unlear what level of training San Diego Urban Corps members are provided to perform encampment removal.^[4]

The most significant delay, according to both the City of San Diego and Caltrans, stems from the amount of time Caltrans spends coordinating with local homeless service providers and requesting outreach services for people living in the encampment. Caltrans reported that typically the only reason an encampment would take more than two weeks to be removed would be because local service providers requested more time to coordinate services for the individuals living in the encampment. Caltrans asserts that without robust service provider engagement, individuals living in the encampments will move to another nearby area and establish a new encampment in a matter of days.

1. Abatement efficacy up for debate. A recent body of research has brought into question the effectiveness of encampment abatement. The Legislative Analysist’s Office (LAO) differentiates between “encampment resolution” and other forms of abatement by defining resolution as when the people living in an encampment are transitioned into housing. The LAO goes on to report that, “encampment resolution is intended to be a “win/win” both for people living in the encampment (in that they are brought inside with supports they need) and for the general public (which sees the encampment area returned to its original intended purpose, such as a park for recreation). Encampment resolution thus is distinct from encampment “sweeps,” in which people are moved from an encampment (sometimes losing their personal possessions in the process) and remain homeless—and still outside—in a different neighborhood or area.”^[5]

In a study titled Homelessness in State Transportation Environments the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies reported that, “encampments often return, and removals are expensive. Offers of shelter may come with barriers to entry, and the root causes of homelessness remain unaddressed.”^[6] CalMatters spent four months researching encampments for an article titled “Look, there’s nowhere else to go”: Inside California’s crackdown on homeless camps. The article reported that, “experts agree clearing or ‘sweeping’ encampments alone can’t end homelessness. But here’s what we did see over and over as a result of sweeps in those cities: people becoming more likely to lose touch with support services, people losing essential items they need to get into housing (such as birth certificates) or to survive the elements (such as tents) and people still stuck on the streets — sometimes in new locations.”^[7]

1. Delegated maintenance agreements. As defined in the bill, a DMA is a contract entered into by Caltrans and a local government, in which both work together to reduce and remove homeless encampments within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. It is common practice for Caltrans to enter into agreements with local governments for a number of reasons, such as liter removal or construction projects. Currently, a number of cities are actively negotiating the terms of DMAs on encampment removal with Caltrans, including the cities of San Jose and San Diego. The purpose of the DMA would be to delegate some of the Caltrans right-of-way encampment clearing work to local jurisdictions. SB 569 focuses on two sticking points that arose during negotiations: encampment removal policies and reimbursement. Caltrans asks cities to largely abide by the provisions of Maintenance Policy Directive 1001-R1 during this work. Cities, on the other hand, want to use their own policies. This bill authorizes Caltrans to allow a city to use their own abatement policies in a DMA. This means that Caltrans would be able to enter into a DMA that replaces the state’s encampment policies with that of a local government, regardless of the local government’s policies. While some cities have polices to minimize harm to those living in encampments, other cities have no encampment resolution policies and do not ensure due process and dignity for people experiencing homelessness. However, it is unclear to what extent Caltrans will utilize this authority because there is no law currently prohibiting Caltrans from entering into this kind of agreement right now. The bill also permits Caltrans to reimburse cities for the encampment clearing work—as negotiated in the DMA.
2. Past budgets created Encampment Coordinators. SB 569 creates a homeless encampment liaison position within Caltrans. The 2021-22 state budget provided $2.7 million from the General Fund in both 2021-22 and 2022-23 for Caltrans to hire homeless encampment coordinators. The staff in these positions coordinate encampment cleanups with Caltrans’ maintenance staff, local governments, law enforcement, and service providers. The 2023-24 budget provided $4.5 million annually from the General Fund from 2023-24 through 2025-26 for Caltrans to continue and expand its’ encampment coordinator team. Budget trailer bill legislation requires Caltrans to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026, that summarizes outcomes of the encampment coordinator team. The author may wish to consider waiting for the results of the report before establishing a significantly similar position.

previous Legislation:

AB 2338 (Jones-Sawyer, 2024) -- This bill would have required the Governor to appoint a Statewide Homelessness Coordinator within the Governor’s Office to serve as the lead person for ending homelessness in the state. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1011 (Jones, 2024) – This bill would have prohibited sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property upon any street, sidewalk, if a homeless shelter, as defined is available to the person. This bill failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

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

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.)

SUPPORT:

Anaheim / Orange County Hotel & Lodging Association

California Big City Mayors Coalition

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Agoura Hills

City of Artesia, California

City of Chula Vista

City of Corona

City of LA Mirada

City of LA Verne

City of Lakewood CA

City of Riverside

City of San Diego

City of Thousand Oaks

Council President Joe Lacava's Office

Fullerton; City of

League of California Cities

Orange; County of

Paramount; City of

Placentia; City of

San Diego County Lodging Association

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

Tustin, City of

OPPOSITION:

None received.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The City of San Diego, the sponsor of the bill, writes, “Cities across the state are seeing a proliferation of homeless encampments on Caltrans property. The City of San Diego, over the last year, has received on average 300 complaints per month about people experiencing homelessness and tent encampments on state property. While cities and counties throughout California have been able to reduce encampments on their property, cities are not authorized to exercise that authority on state-owned property. To help counter this, California city officials have expressed willingness to enter into “Delegated Maintenance Agreements” (DMAs) with CalTrans to take on the responsibilities of clearing homeless encampments in the Caltrans right-of-way in return for reimbursement of these services. The DMA is intended to remove jurisdictional boundaries, allowing local communities to address encampments and receive reimbursement for their efforts. However, the practical application of Caltrans’ DMA structures is inconsistent throughout the state and overly bureaucratic. Specifically, SB 569 provides Caltrans the statutory authority to allow local governments, under an executed DMA, to utilize local policies and procedures to streamline encampment abatement, as well as streamlining the permit process. These common-sense reforms will improve the applicability of DMAs and help ensure that encampment abatement on our state right of ways is more efficient.”

-- END --

1. Jacob L. Wasserman, Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Hao Ding, Claire Nelischer, The Road, Home: Challenges of and Responses to Homelessness in State Transportation Environments, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Volume 21, 2023,100890, ISSN 2590-1982, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100890. ↑

2. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/maintenance/documents/mpd-1001r1-10-2022-a11y.pdf ↑

3. 2024-Encampments-EO-7-24.pdf ↑

4. About Urban Corps - Urban Corps of San Diego County ↑

5. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5007 ↑

6. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Wasserman, J. L, Ding, H., & Nelischer, C. (2023). Homelessness in State Transportation Environments. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T6J603 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zr2x79n ↑

7. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/02/california-homeless-encampment-sweeps/ ↑