CA SB 639
enactedZoning: Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 639 pass?
Yes. CA SB 639 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-13. Latest recorded action (2025-10-13): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 777, Statutes of 2025.
What is CA SB 639 about?
Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.
Who sponsors CA SB 639?
Ashby is the primary sponsor of CA SB 639.
Description
Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-20
- Latest action
- 2025-10-13 — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 777, Statutes of 2025.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Ashbyauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-20
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-21
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
2025-03-05
Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and L. GOV.
referral-committee
2025-03-12
Set for hearing April 8.
2025-04-02
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-04
Set for hearing May 7 in L. GOV. pending receipt.
2025-04-08
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 708.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-17
May 7 hearing postponed by committee.
2025-04-22
Set for hearing April 30.
2025-04-30
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 969.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-05-02
Set for hearing May 12.
2025-05-06
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-05-12
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-05-13
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
reading-1,reading-2
2025-05-15
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 1091.) Ordered to the Assembly.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-15
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2025-06-16
Referred to Com. on W. P., & W.
referral-committee
2025-07-08
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on W. P., & W.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-16
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 15).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-17
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-08-20
August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-08-29
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 29).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-02
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-09-03
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2869.) Ordered to the Senate.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-09-03
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
2025-09-08
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2606.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-16
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
executive-receipt
2025-10-13
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2025-10-13
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 777, Statutes of 2025.
became-law
Versions
- 02/20/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-20Compare
- 04/02/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-04-02Compare
- 05/06/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-05-06Compare
- 07/08/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-07-08Compare
- 07/17/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-07-17Compare
- 09/10/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-10Compare
- 10/13/25 - Chaptered — 2025-10-13Compare
- SB639Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government]
2025-04-08 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Stern: yes
- Allen: yes
- Laird: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Limón: yes
- Grove: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-04-30 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Arreguín: yes
- Laird: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Choi: yes
- Wiener: yes
Consent Calendar 2nd
2025-05-15 · pass · 34-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Becker: yes
- Laird: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Grayson: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Allen: yes
- Limón: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Choi: yes
- Jones: yes
- Niello: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Stern: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Padilla: other
- Alvarado-Gil: other
- Grove: other
- Rubio: other
- Cervantes: other
- Reyes: other
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-15 · pass · 11-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Boerner: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Papan: yes
- Hart: yes
- Alvarez: other
- Bains: other
Do pass.
2025-08-29 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Ta: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Solache: yes
SB 639 Ashby Senate Third Reading By Gallagher
2025-09-03 · pass · 79-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Pacheco: yes
- Flora: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Lee: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Berman: yes
- Davies: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Bains: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Krell: yes
- Chen: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Addis: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Haney: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Solache: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Patel: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Hart: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Ward: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Soria: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Ta: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Papan: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Fong: yes
Unfinished Business SB639 Ashby Concurrence
2025-09-08 · pass · 39-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Wahab: yes
- Niello: yes
- Jones: yes
- Laird: yes
- Choi: yes
- Rubio: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Limón: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Allen: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Grove: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Becker: yes
- Stern: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
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 639. 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.