SB 700 does two, separate things in a single bill: it repeals Division 23 (commencing with Section 80000) of the Financial Code, which statutorily established the Bank on California Program; and it adds Section 104210.3 to the Health and Safety Code to prohibit cities, counties, or consolidated city-counties from preventing firefighters or fire departments from voluntarily participating in certain grant-funded studies.
The repeal removes the statutory foundation for a state-led financial inclusion initiative housed in the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation; the added Health and Safety Code provision creates an affirmative protection for firefighter participation in grant awards made under the existing California Firefighter Cancer Prevention and Research Program. The bill therefore affects state regulatory structure for a consumer-facing financial program and local-government control over access to personnel and facilities for specific research projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals the statutory language that created the Bank on California Program within the Financial Code and adds Health and Safety Code Section 104210.3, which forbids local governments from preventing voluntary firefighter participation in studies funded under Section 104210.1. The added section explicitly includes access to facilities and the use of equipment as protected activities.
Who It Affects
The repeal primarily affects the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, banks and credit unions that partnered with the Bank on California initiative, and community outreach partners. The Health and Safety Code change affects city and county governments, fire departments, firefighters, the University of California and other grant recipients conducting the research, and institutions that host studies or provide equipment.
Why It Matters
Removing the statutory basis for Bank on California ends a named, state-established vehicle for financial inclusion outreach unless replaced administratively, potentially altering partnerships and funding flows. The research-protection clause reduces a local government’s ability to block firefighter participation in cancer research, raising questions about operational safety, liability, and how employers and unions will reconcile the mandate with workplace rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 700 eliminates the statutory establishment of the Bank on California Program by repealing Division 23 of the Financial Code. That division contained the declaration of the program and brief definitions placing the program within the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI).
Repeal removes the program’s express legislative authorization; it does not itself enumerate transitional steps for contracts, grant agreements, or collaborations that may exist under the program’s prior operation.
Separately, the bill inserts Section 104210.3 into the Health and Safety Code. That provision says a city, county, or city and county may not prevent a firefighter or fire department from voluntarily participating in a study awarded under Section 104210.1 — the legislative authority for the California Firefighter Cancer Prevention and Research Program — and explicitly includes permitting access to facilities and equipment for purposes of the grant.
The protection is phrased narrowly: it covers voluntary participation and activities tied to grants made under the statutory research program referenced in Section 104210.1.Taken together, the two moves change two distinct legal regimes. One strips the named statutory program that supported bank-and-credit-union outreach and account-opening assistance; the other constrains local authority over whether firefighters and fire departments may work with researchers in state-sponsored cancer-prevention grants.
Because the bill addresses different code sections in different ways, implementation will fall to different actors—DFPI for the financial-code repeal and the University of California, local governments, and local fire agencies for the Health and Safety Code change—and will raise separate operational and legal questions for each.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 700 repeals Division 23 of the Financial Code (beginning with Section 80000), which statutorily established the Bank on California Program.
The bill removes the statutory placement of the Bank on California Program within the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) by deleting the program’s definition and establishment language.
SB 700 adds Health and Safety Code Section 104210.3, which prohibits a city, county, or city and county from preventing a firefighter or fire department from voluntarily participating in a study funded under Section 104210.1.
The new Health and Safety Code language explicitly covers allowing access to facilities and the use of equipment for grant purposes and limits the protection to voluntary participation in studies tied to the statutory grant program.
The bill does not include transitional instructions for existing Bank on California contracts or grants, nor does it add enforcement mechanisms, liability rules, or labor-law exceptions for the new research-participation protection.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Removal of the Bank on California statutory framework
Section 1 repeals Division 23, which is the statutory text that created and named the Bank on California Program. Practically, the repeal erases the program’s legislative authorization and the short definitional provisions that tied it to DFPI. The statute does not itself cancel contracts, end funding lines, or direct agencies on how to wind down partnerships — it simply removes the program’s statutory home, which creates an administrative gap that DFPI, budget offices, or partner organizations would need to address separately.
What the deleted language said and why that matters
The removed text contained the Legislature’s findings that the initiative is a voluntary collaboration and included two operative clauses: establishment of the program within the department and brief definitions (department = DFPI; program = Bank on California). Deleting those clauses ends a named state program but does not automatically prohibit similar activities from continuing under other legal authorities. That distinction matters for banks, credit unions, and community groups that relied on the program’s statutory branding and for any budgetary items tied explicitly to Division 23.
Prohibiting local blocks on firefighter participation in specified studies
The bill adds a narrowly worded preemption: cities, counties, and consolidated city-counties cannot prevent firefighters or fire departments from voluntarily participating in studies funded pursuant to Section 104210.1, and they must allow access to facilities and equipment necessary to meet grant terms. The provision ties its scope to the statutory research program (the California Firefighter Cancer Prevention and Research Program), so it does not broadly mandate participation in non‑statutory studies and does not itself describe remedies, penalties, or enforcement processes where a locality fails to comply.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- Firefighters: The statutory addition protects their right to volunteer for specified cancer-research studies and access to equipment or facilities needed for that research, reducing the risk that local ordinances or policies bar their participation.
- University of California and grant recipients: Researchers administering grants under Section 104210.1 gain a clearer path to enroll participants and use local fire facilities, which can reduce barriers to recruitment and data collection.
- State public-health researchers and advocates: By limiting local blocks, the bill helps ensure continuity of studies aimed at measuring biomarkers and occupational exposures in the fire service, preserving the integrity of statewide research efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- City and county governments: Localities lose some discretion to restrict access to personnel, facilities, or equipment for specific grant-funded research and may incur administrative or scheduling burdens to accommodate studies.
- Fire departments: Departments may have to allocate time, space, and operational equipment for voluntary research participation, which can create staffing and logistics costs and raise safety and liability questions.
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and program partners: Repeal of Division 23 removes a statutory program DFPI administered; DFPI and private partners may face costs to transition, rebrand, or renegotiate partnerships previously connected to the Bank on California name or authority.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 700 balances two conflicting impulses: a top-down protection for firefighter involvement in state-backed cancer research (favoring scientific access and public-health data collection) against local government authority to control access to personnel, facilities, and equipment for operational, safety, or policy reasons; at the same time, it removes a named state program for financial inclusion without providing transition steps, trading statutory clarity for administrative discretion. The bill solves short-term barriers to research participation while creating uncertainty about program continuity and about how local operational safeguards and labor protections will be reconciled with the new statutory right to participate.
The bill stitches together two unrelated policy moves without addressing the practical seams. Repealing the Bank on California statute strips the program’s legislative imprimatur but leaves unanswered whether existing contracts, outreach agreements, or budget allocations tied to Division 23 continue, must be renegotiated, or will simply lapse.
Administrative agencies and private partners will need to decide whether to preserve program activities under other authorities or terminate them; the statute provides no transition mechanics, which could produce abrupt service disruptions for community outreach and financial-access projects that used the program’s brand.
On the firefighter-research side, the protection in Section 104210.3 is narrowly targeted and leaves multiple implementation questions open. It does not create an enforcement mechanism or specify remedies for noncompliance, it does not address how voluntary participation interacts with collective-bargaining agreements, and it is silent on liability allocation when local equipment or facilities are used for research.
The provision’s linkage to Section 104210.1 limits its coverage to grant-funded projects under that program, but the bill does not define whether closely related or subcontracted research falls within the protection. Operational realities — scheduling, safety protocols, HIPAA/privacy safeguards, and workers’ compensation implications for procedures done under study protocols — will require separate administrative or negotiated solutions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.