SB 1107 amends Education Code Section 17671 to increase the statutory limit on the cost of complying with accessible path-of-travel requirements for freestanding, open-sided shade structures from 20% to 25% of the project's adjusted construction cost. The change applies to shade structures listed on the Division of the State Architect (DSA) pre-checked designs list and only where the adjusted construction cost exceeds the valuation threshold that triggers alterations or additions rules.
The bill is aimed at making heat-reducing shade installations more affordable for school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community colleges by allowing a larger share of a shade project's budget to cover legally required accessibility upgrades. That shift affects capital planning, grant and bond accounting, and DSA review and will influence whether and how campuses prioritize shade versus other facility investments.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1107 changes the cap on required path-of-travel improvement costs for qualifying freestanding, open-sided shade-structure projects from 20% to 25% of the project's adjusted construction cost. It applies only to projects on the DSA pre-checked designs list that exceed the valuation threshold for alterations or additions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community colleges that install freestanding, open-sided shade structures using DSA pre-checked designs. Also affects DSA review processes, contractors building shade structures, and facility managers responsible for compliance with Title 24 Chapter 11B accessibility rules.
Why It Matters
By increasing the allowable share of a shade project's budget that can go toward accessibility work, the bill reduces the need for separate funding sources for path-of-travel upgrades and may lower the net cost of adding shade. It also shifts how districts allocate limited capital dollars and how DSA applies accessibility requirements to small-scale projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1107 makes a surgical amendment to one line of the Education Code that governs how much of a small school construction project's budget can be used to meet accessibility obligations. Currently, when a freestanding, open-sided shade structure on a campus triggers accessibility work under Title 24 Chapter 11B (because the project's adjusted construction cost exceeds the valuation threshold), the district's required path-of-travel work is limited so that it does not exceed 20% of the shade project's adjusted construction cost.
This bill raises that limit to 25%.
The law applies only to shade structures that are included on the DSA's pre-checked designs list — a set of plans that speeds review because they conform to prescriptive DSA requirements. SB 1107 keeps that tie to the pre-checked list intact, so the change is targeted at relatively standardized, repeatable shade installations rather than bespoke building work.
The statute also continues to reference the Title 24 definition of "adjusted construction cost," so the metric used to calculate the percentage remains the existing regulatory measure.In practice, the amendment changes budgeting mechanics. Districts that use grant funds, bond proceeds, or local capital budgets for shade projects will be able to charge a larger slice of path-of-travel upgrades to the shade project's budget instead of funding those upgrades from separate accessibility or modernization accounts.
That lowers the marginal, out-of-pocket cost to the local agency of meeting accessibility requirements tied to the shade installation, which is the bill's expressed policy objective: reduce the financial barrier to installing heat-reducing shade.The bill is narrowly focused: it does not alter the underlying accessibility standards (Section 202.4 of Chapter 11B remains in force), it does not change valuation thresholds themselves, and it does not create a new grant program. Its effect will be felt in project-level budgeting, DSA plan review and approval workflows for pre-checked designs, and the prioritization decisions facility directors make when balancing shade coverage, accessibility improvements, and other capital needs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill increases the statutory cap on path-of-travel compliance costs for qualifying shade-structure projects from 20% to 25% of the project's adjusted construction cost.
The amendment applies only to freestanding, open-sided shade structures that are on the Division of the State Architect's pre-checked designs list and whose adjusted construction cost exceeds the valuation threshold for alterations or additions.
SB 1107 leaves the underlying accessibility standard intact by continuing to reference Section 202.4 of Chapter 11B of Title 24 for path-of-travel requirements.
The statute references the existing regulatory definition of "adjusted construction cost" in Section 202 of Chapter 2, Part 2 of Title 24, meaning calculation methods do not change with this bill.
The bill includes an express legislative intent clause signaling further action to improve affordability of heat-reducing shade installations on campuses, but this bill itself is limited to the 20%→25% cap change.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent to make shade more affordable
This short preamble states the Legislature's intent to pursue future legislation aimed at increasing affordability for heat-reducing shade structures on school and community college campuses. It functions as policy context rather than a binding programmatic change and signals the goal driving the single statutory amendment that follows.
Raises the cost cap for path-of-travel work from 20% to 25%
This is the operative change: projects that meet the statute's applicability rules will have the allowable cost of compliance with path-of-travel improvements limited to 25% of the shade project's adjusted construction cost instead of 20%. Practically, that increases the share of a shade project's budget that can be applied to required accessibility upgrades, which can be charged against the project rather than funded separately.
Affirms use of Title 24 definition of "adjusted construction cost"
This subsection does not create a new definition. It directs users to the Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2 definition of "adjusted construction cost," preserving the existing calculation methodology for the percentage cap. That ensures consistency across DSA practice and avoids creating a divergent state definition that could complicate plan review or funding calculations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education 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
- Local education agencies (school districts and county offices of education): The amendment lets more path-of-travel improvements be paid within the shade project budget, reducing the need for separate accessibility or modernization funds and lowering the net incremental cost of installing shade.
- Charter schools and community colleges with limited capital reserves: These campuses gain more budgetary flexibility to meet accessibility requirements while adding shade, making heat-mitigation projects easier to afford.
- Students, staff, and families in heat-vulnerable campuses: Easier deployment of shade structures can expand shaded outdoor space more quickly, reducing heat exposure during outdoor activities and potentially improving attendance and comfort.
- Manufacturers and contractors of DSA pre-checked shade designs: The bill incentivizes use of pre-checked products and may increase demand for standardized shade systems, streamlining procurement and construction cycles.
- Facility planners and capital projects managers: Increased clarity and a higher cap simplify project budgeting by allowing a larger, predictable allocation for required accessibility work within the shade project.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local bond and grant programs (indirectly taxpayers): By allowing a larger portion of a project's budget to be spent on accessibility upgrades, fewer funds may remain for purely shade features, or more total project budget may be justified and drawn from bonds/grants.
- Other campus capital priorities: Allocating a larger share of small-project budgets to path-of-travel work could crowd out other small-scale improvements, forcing trade-offs between shade coverage and other needs.
- Division of the State Architect (DSA): DSA will need to apply the new cap in plan review and may have additional administrative and oversight tasks to ensure claims about adjusted construction cost and capped expenditures are accurate.
- Local facilities and compliance staff: Districts will need to update budgeting templates, procurement practices, and reporting to reflect the new cap, imposing administrative workload to implement the change accurately.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill addresses a real conflict: making shade installations affordable (so campuses reduce heat exposure quickly) versus ensuring accessibility upgrades are funded and implemented comprehensively. Increasing the cap lets more accessibility costs be financed within the shade project, lowering the barrier to install shade, but it also reallocates limited capital toward compliance work tied to each small project and shifts decision-making about campus accessibility from systemic planning to a project-by-project basis—there is no clear, cost-free way to have both maximal shade coverage and preserve separate funding for broader accessibility improvements.
SB 1107 is narrowly targeted, but it touches several implementation questions that could affect outcomes. First, the bill does not change how "adjusted construction cost" is calculated; any shift in practice will come from how districts allocate eligible expenditures to the shade project.
That raises the potential for inconsistent accounting across districts: two districts with identical shade installations could report different shares of path-of-travel work charged to the project depending on local budgeting choices or interpretations by DSA.
Second, the statute applies only to projects on the DSA pre-checked designs list and only where the adjusted construction cost exceeds the valuation threshold that triggers alteration/addition rules. Those two eligibility gates mean the change will not help bespoke or very small installations, and it depends on continued availability and breadth of the pre-checked list.
Finally, raising the cap is a blunt instrument: it makes shade installations more affordable in the narrow sense of allowing project funds to cover more accessibility work, but it also increases the share of each project's budget that may be consumed by path-of-travel improvements. That can lead to smaller or fewer shade installations per dollar of available capital if districts prioritize code compliance over shade area or quality.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.