AB 2718 revises the text of Section 8020 of the California Streets and Highways Code, which is part of the Change of Grade Act of 1909. The bill replaces awkward/archaic wording so the statute reads more plainly that a city council may change or modify the grade of its streets in the manner provided in that part.
Practically speaking, the amendment is editorial: it does not expand or restrict city council authority, add procedures, create new obligations, or appropriate funds. Its main value is reducing a minor drafting ambiguity that can complicate codification, municipal drafting, and statutory interpretation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 8020 to correct and streamline its wording so the provision states clearly that a city council may change or modify the grade of its streets in the manner provided in the part. It does not add procedural rules, standards, or rights.
Who It Affects
City councils, municipal attorneys, municipal code editors, and courts that interpret local-authority statutes are the primary audiences. Property owners and developers are only indirectly affected because the bill does not alter existing change-of-grade procedures or compensation rules.
Why It Matters
Even small, non-substantive edits can reduce confusion in codified texts and lower the chance of needless litigation over grammar or drafting quirks. For municipal compliance and code maintenance teams, this is a housekeeping change worth noting because it will alter the official statutory wording.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the existing wording in Section 8020 of the Streets and Highways Code with a streamlined sentence that removes an odd article and an older locution and states directly that a city council “may change or modify the grade of its streets in the manner provided in this part.” The sponsor describes the change as nonsubstantive: it is a cleanup of grammar and phrasing, not a redefinition of authority.
Because the amendment is textual only, it leaves intact the rest of the Change of Grade Act: the statutory procedures for initiating grade changes, notice and hearing requirements, compensation and assessments where applicable, and any appeal or review mechanisms remain governed by the existing parts of the code. The bill does not create new procedural deadlines or alter remedies available to property owners.Operationally, affected offices are limited to those that maintain statutory texts and municipal codes: the State Law Revision Commission or the Legislative Counsel’s office will incorporate the new phrasing into the official code, and municipal codifiers will align local references.
City councils, public works departments, and municipal attorneys do not need to adopt new ordinances or change administrative processes to comply with the amendment.Finally, while the statutory rewrite is intended as housekeeping, it could have marginal downstream effects during litigation or administrative review: a cleaner, modernized sentence reduces an avenue for arguments that rely on grammatical ambiguity. Courts typically treat such edits as clarifying when legislative history supports that intent, but the change is unlikely to alter substantive outcomes in change-of-grade disputes given the unchanged surrounding framework.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2718 amends Section 8020 of the California Streets and Highways Code—the provision that authorizes city councils to change street grades.
The edit replaces awkward phrasing (e.g.
the phraseology 'any a city' and 'streets therein') with a clear statement that a city council may change or modify the grade of its streets in the manner provided in the part.
The bill does not add procedures, conditions, penalties, or new authorities; it makes a textual/grammatical cleanup only.
The legislative digest flags no appropriation and no fiscal committee or local program impact, indicating no expected budgetary effect.
Implementation is limited to updating the official code text; no city-level ordinance or administrative action is required to comply.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Direct text revision of Section 8020
This section replaces the current sentence in Section 8020 with a single, streamlined sentence clarifying that the city council of a city may change or modify the grade of its streets in the manner provided in that part. The practical effect is to correct archaic or awkward wording; the legislative intent, as expressed in the bill text, is to make the statute read more clearly without changing legal meaning.
No change to the Change of Grade Act's substantive mechanics
The amendment does not reference, alter, or repeal any of the procedures, notice requirements, compensation mechanisms, or appeal rights established elsewhere in the Change of Grade Act. Anyone examining the provision should treat this as a wording change that leaves the statutory framework and municipal obligations intact.
How the edit will enter the official code and affect local practice
Once enacted and chaptered, the corrected sentence becomes the official statutory text in the Streets and Highways Code. The change requires updates to codified texts (state code publishers and municipal code services) but does not create implementation duties for cities. Municipal attorneys and codifiers should note the changed text when citing Section 8020 in ordinances, briefs, and administrative materials.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Municipal code editors and state code publishers — the revised wording simplifies citation and reduces the risk of typographical or grammatical confusion in the official code.
- Municipal attorneys and city clerks — clearer statutory language lowers the chance that technical drafting oddities will create procedural disputes over interpretation.
- Courts and administrative adjudicators — cleaner statutory text narrows opportunities for arguments based solely on awkward phrasing or drafting errors.
- Property owners and developers — indirectly benefit from reduced textual ambiguity, as that marginally lowers the risk of procedural disputes being decided on grammar rather than substance.
Who Bears the Cost
- State code maintenance offices and codification vendors — minimal administrative work to update published texts and databases.
- Legislative drafting and reviewing offices — minor time and labor to process and incorporate the amendment (standard housekeeping throughput).
- Municipal codifiers — a small administrative task to align local references and any cross-references to the amended statutory wording.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the value of clear, modern statutory language and the risk that even a purely editorial change will be read by courts or litigants as signaling a substantive shift; cleaning up text reduces day-to-day confusion but can paradoxically invite litigation about intent when parties find advantage in pressing a different interpretation.
The most salient implementation issue is interpretive: courts sometimes treat textual amendments as evidence of legislative intent, even when the sponsor labels them nonsubstantive. That risk is small here because the edit plainly clarifies awkward grammar without introducing new terms or substantive qualifiers, but litigants could try to use the change to support a different interpretation of jurisdictional words if a close question later arises.
The lack of extended legislative history accompanying simple clerical edits means judges will look to the text and any brief floor or committee statements when deciding whether the change was purely editorial.
Another practical tension is administrative: although the bill creates no substantive obligations, every statutory edit triggers a chain of updates across published codes, electronic legal databases, ordinance references, and internal municipal citations. Those updates are low-cost but not cost-free, and failure to update cross-references can create temporary confusion in legal filings or procurement documents.
The bill does not allocate funds for that housekeeping work because it is expected to be absorbed into routine maintenance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.