Bill Commons

CA SB 569

introduced

Bikeways: reversions and modifications.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

Follow this bill’s action updates (Atom)

Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.

Quick answers

Did CA SB 569 pass?

Not yet. CA SB 569 has been introduced but has not advanced to a vote. Latest recorded action (2026-08-31): Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

What is CA SB 569 about?

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. 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.

Who sponsors CA SB 569?

Blakespear is the primary sponsor of CA SB 569.

Description

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. 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.

Introduced
2025-02-20
Latest action
2026-08-31 — Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Blakespearauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-08-31

    Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

  2. 2026-08-10

    Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-3

  3. 2026-08-10

    Read third time and amended.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3

  4. 2026-07-01

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  5. 2026-06-30

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 2.) (June 29).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  6. 2026-06-24

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  7. 2026-06-22

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  8. 2026-06-11

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  9. 2025-07-14

    July 14 hearing postponed by committee.

  10. 2025-06-24

    July 7 hearing postponed by committee.

  11. 2025-06-16

    Referred to Com. on TRANS.

    referral-committee

  12. 2025-06-05

    In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

    reading-1

  13. 2025-06-04

    Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1510.) Ordered to the Assembly.

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  14. 2025-05-23

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1204.) (May 23).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  15. 2025-05-23

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  16. 2025-05-16

    Set for hearing May 23.

  17. 2025-05-05

    May 5 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  18. 2025-04-25

    Set for hearing May 5.

  19. 2025-04-23

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0. Page 843.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  20. 2025-04-21

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  21. 2025-04-08

    Set for hearing April 22.

  22. 2025-03-05

    Referred to Com. on TRANS.

    referral-committee

  23. 2025-02-21

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

  24. 2025-02-20

    Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

    introduction,reading-1,referral-committee

Versions

  • 02/20/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-20Compare
  • 04/21/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-04-21Compare
  • 06/11/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-06-11Compare
  • 06/22/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-06-22Compare
  • 06/24/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-06-24Compare
  • 08/10/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-08-10Compare
  • SB569Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-04-22 · pass · 15-0

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Strickland: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Blakespear: yes
    • Seyarto: yes

  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-05-05 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Wahab: yes

  • Do pass

    2025-05-23 · pass · 5-1

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Caballero: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Wahab: no
    • Dahle: other

  • 3rd Reading SB569 Blakespear et al.

    2025-06-04 · pass · 38-0

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Durazo: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Grove: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Jones: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Blakespear: yes
    • Alvarado-Gil: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Strickland: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • Ochoa Bogh: yes
    • Choi: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Reyes: other
    • Wahab: other

  • Do pass.

    2026-06-29 · pass · 13-2

    Member-level votes (16)
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Macedo: no
    • Hoover: no
    • Lackey: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB569

Attribution

Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-02T00:00:39.971868Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Bulk imports for this sessionSession dates and activity

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 569. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.