California SB 260: The Critical-Infrastructure Drone Buffer That Is Not Law Yet

California does not currently have a statewide, drone-specific critical-infrastructure buffer. That is still true. Senate Bill 260 (Wahab, 2025–2026) would change it. The bill is not chaptered.

SB 260 passed the Senate on January 27, 2026 (Ayes 38, Noes 0) and was referred on June 8, 2026 to the Assembly Committees on Insurance, Public Safety, and Privacy and Consumer Protection. LegInfo lists it as an active bill in committee process. The last amended text is dated April 29, 2025. Until the Legislature enrolls it and the Governor signs it, proposed Penal Code § 402.5 does not exist as a charging statute. Do not fly as if a 400-foot state buffer is already in force.

This is a pending-bill explainer, not legal advice. Other California material lives at DroneLaws.us /california. Federal operating rules live at DroneLaws.us /federal. Florida already enacted a different critical-infrastructure rule; that current-law piece is What Florida HB 1121 Changed for Critical-Infrastructure Drone Flights.

What the bill would add

As amended April 29, 2025, SB 260 would:

• add Insurance Code § 2036 on residential-property insurer use of unmanned-aircraft images;
• add Penal Code § 402.5, a new critical-infrastructure drone infraction;
• add Penal Code § 402.6, a State Capitol / Sacramento office-building drone infraction;
• amend Penal Code § 626.8 on school-ground drone surveillance; and
• amend Penal Code § 4577, the existing prison, jail, and juvenile-hall unmanned-aircraft infraction.

The rest of this post is the April 29, 2025 bill text, not a prediction of what the Assembly will do.

Proposed Penal Code § 402.5: the 400-foot rule

Proposed § 402.5(b) would make a person guilty of an infraction if the person operates an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft, or drone and intentionally or knowingly does either of the following:

1. allows the aircraft to come within 400 feet of, or below 400 feet above, a critical infrastructure facility; or
2. allows the aircraft to come within a distance of a critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of the property.

The bill text recites the penalty as a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). That figure is the proposed infraction in SB 260. It is not a current California fine for this conduct, because this section is not law.

The first clause is a numeric buffer: 400 feet horizontal, or operation below 400 feet above the facility. The second clause is a facts-and-circumstances interference test with no number. Both would require intent or knowledge under the bill’s wording.

What would count as a critical infrastructure facility

Proposed § 402.5(a)(1) splits the list into three groups.

Group A qualifies only if the location is completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier obviously designed to exclude intruders, or is clearly marked with a posted sign that is reasonably likely to come to an intruder’s attention and indicates that entry is forbidden:

• a petroleum or alumina refinery;
• an oil, petroleum, or chemical pipeline, drilling site, storage facility, or production facility;
• an electrical power generating facility, including geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, and wind, plus a substation, switching station, or electrical control center;
• a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
• a natural gas compressor station;
• a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;
• a port;
• a gas processing plant, including processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas; and
• any facility or property designated by the Federal Aviation Administration as a national security-sensitive facility.

Group B applies if a statewide emergency has been declared: alternate government facilities used in the emergency response, State Operations Centers, and critical access hospitals or other health-care facilities in which a majority of admitted patients are victims of that declared emergency.

Group C has no fence-or-sign condition in the bill:

• a city hall, or a county administration building in which a county board of supervisors meets;
• a bridge that is part of the state or federal highway system; and
• a dam classified by the Department of Water Resources as high hazard or extremely high hazard. “Dam” would take the meaning in Water Code § 6002.

A highway bridge and a city hall are easy to overfly on an ordinary mapping or inspection job. If this text became law, those sites would sit on the list without a posted “no entry” sign as a cue.

The commercial carve-out in the bill

Proposed § 402.5(c) would not apply the infraction to several actors, including:

• the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity acting as a regulator or in the interest of public safety and security, and persons under their contract or direction;
• an operator using the aircraft for a commercial purpose, if the operation is conducted in compliance with all applicable FAA rules, restrictions, and exemptions and all required FAA authorizations;
• a person under contract with, or acting under the direction or on behalf of, an owner or operator of the facility;
• a person with prior written consent of the owner or operator; and
• the owner or occupant of the property, or a person with that party’s prior written consent.

The commercial-purpose exception is in the bill. It is not a blank check. It is written as FAA-rule compliance plus required FAA authorizations. Written consent of the facility owner is a separate carve-out. A Part 107 certificate, by itself, is not the same as either clause.

That structure is worth comparing to current Florida law, not as if California had copied it. Fla. Stat. § 330.41(4), as amended by Chapter 2025-29, is already in force. Its commercial-purpose FAA exception sits on overflight, not on contact or disturbance. SB 260 is still a bill. Do not treat the Florida felony as California’s rule, and do not treat proposed § 402.5 as Florida’s rule.

Proposed Penal Code § 402.6: Sacramento Capitol grounds

Proposed § 402.6(a) would make it an infraction, with the same one-thousand-dollar ($1,000) fine recited in the bill, to intentionally or knowingly allow an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft, or drone to come within 50 feet of, or below 400 feet above:

• the Legislative Office Building at 1020 N Street in Sacramento;
• the state office building at 1021 O Street in Sacramento; or
• the grounds of the State Capitol, bounded by 10th, L, 15th, and N Streets,

or to come within a distance close enough to interfere with operations of any of those properties.

Proposed § 402.6(b) would except emergency law-enforcement and fire response; the Department of General Services when necessary for care and custody of the Capitol grounds; and a person acting under contract with, or with the express authorization of, the Joint Rules Committee of the Legislature. The Joint Rules Committee would establish processes with the California Highway Patrol.

Proposed § 402.6(c) states legislative intent to protect health, safety, and privacy of elected officials, employees, and visitors, and says the section is not intended to regulate aviation safety or airspace efficiency or any other area preempted by federal law. That is intent language in a bill. It is not a court holding.

Proposed Insurance Code § 2036: insurer aerial images

Proposed Insurance Code § 2036 would require a residential property insurer to notify a policyholder at least 30 days before aerial images of the insured property are taken by, on behalf of, or in service of the insurer, using a remotely operated unmanned aircraft. Notice would be mailed to the address of record; electronic notice could be added if the policyholder had agreed to transact electronically. The 30-day notice would not apply if a claim has been submitted or is pending and the images are used only to evaluate that claim.

The insurer would have to provide the images on request, and the notice would have to say how to ask. If a drone inspection gathered sufficient evidence for termination of the contract, the insurer would have to give written notice of the reason, copies of the evidence, what the policyholder must do to comply, and 120 calendar days to remedy. If the policyholder documents that the work was completed within that window, the insurer could not cancel based on that evidence.

The insurer would have to destroy unmanned-aircraft evidence within 90 days, with listed exceptions (security incidents, repair of the aircraft, protected speech, other legal duties, and material to an ongoing investigation). This is insurance-contract procedure in a pending bill. It is not a license to fly over a house.

Schools and prisons: amendments, not new chapters

Proposed amendment to Penal Code § 626.8 would add that a person who uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft, or drone on or above a school building or school ground with the intent to surveil, closely monitor, or record any person, or to threaten the immediate physical safety of any person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The surveil/monitor/record clause would not apply if the person has the express authorization of the school. Existing § 626.8(c) already recites, for a first conviction of that section, a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both. SB 260 does not rewrite that punishment block into a new dollar figure.

Current Penal Code § 4577 already makes it an infraction, punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), to knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch, with employment and prior-permission exceptions. SB 260 would amend that recited fine to one thousand dollars ($1,000). Today’s number in the code is $500. The $1,000 figure is the bill.

What this is not

SB 260 is not a flying ban. It is not an FAA airspace change. It is not Florida’s third-degree felony. It is not, as of this writing, California law.

The California state page still states that California has not enacted a drone-specific critical infrastructure statute. That remains accurate while SB 260 sits in Assembly committees. Other pending 2026 bills on the same page, including AB 1749 on emergency-scene civil penalties, are separate files. They do not enact § 402.5 either.

Federal Part 107, Remote ID, and any LAANC or other airspace authorization still apply on a commercial flight in California whether or not this bill becomes law.

What to do with a California job today

Treat proposed § 402.5 as a watch item, not a charging statute. Confirm the site against current rules: privacy and trespass (including Civil Code § 1708.8), emergency-scene interference under Penal Code § 402, prison and jail operations under current § 4577, local launch and park ordinances, and federal airspace. If you are hired to map or inspect a refinery, a substation, a wastewater plant, a highway bridge, or a city hall, get the owner or operator in writing anyway. That is good contracting. It is not because Penal Code § 402.5 is in force.

Watch LegInfo. If the Assembly amends the 400-foot number, the commercial carve-out, or the Group C list, those amendments — not this summary — control.

Primary sources

• California LegInfo, SB 260 (Wahab), Unmanned aircraft (2025–2026) (status: in Assembly committee; referred June 8, 2026)
• SB 260 bill text, amended Senate April 29, 2025
• Penal Code § 4577 (current)
• DroneLaws.us /california
• Florida HB 1121 / Fla. Stat. § 330.41 (enacted; different statute)

This is general information about a pending California bill, not legal advice. We are not affiliated with the California Legislature, CHP, Cal OES, or the FAA. Verify the primary sources before you fly, and consult a California-licensed attorney about a specific job.