Public art vs. public safety: CSLB hears hours of testimony on SB 456 muralist licensure exemption

The Contractors State License Board spent an extended portion of its meeting discussing SB 456, a bill that would exempt muralists from contractor licensure when the work qualifies as "a unique work of fine art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label, or patent, and that is drawn or painted by hand directly upon an interior or exterior wall or ceiling." Staff recommended a neutral position; the board opened the floor to public comment and heard multiple pro and con perspectives.

Why it matters: Supporters told the board the exemption would restore longstanding practice and remove barriers that have stalled public-art projects across California. Opponents said the measure could undercut safety rules and the protections that licensed contractors and their insurance provide for large, complex mural projects involving scaffolding, lifts and multiple workers.

What supporters said Tianna Sessoms, Monterey public affairs manager for the League of California Cities, told the board: "SB 456 does not create a broad exemption or seek to undermine regulatory authority. It simply restores longstanding practices by muralists whose work is artistic, not structural, should not be treated as contractors under the current framework." Sessoms said cities are seeing projects paused or canceled because of uncertainty after recent CSLB guidance.

Local artists and arts organizations echoed that view. A series of speakers — identified in the meeting as local muralists and arts organizations — described murals as collaborative, educational public works that involve community engagement and require flexible, time-sensitive funding. One speaker representing a mural company summarized: "By passing [SB 456] an emerging artist become revolved within the communities and create meaningful public park. All in all, we feel that muralists should be exempt from code section 7026 because it adds another bureaucratic link. This will cause delays and be on location of already limited funding, which negatively impacts our ability to coordinate time sensitive events related to the mural and risks the overall success of the project." (quoted verbatim from public comment in transcript.)

What opponents said Several speakers representing licensed contractors and a C-33 painting and decorating contractor warned the board that the bill "fundamentally undermines the integrity of contractors' licenses, introduces critical security risks, and creates an unfair playing field for established licensed professional muralists in the state of California." One speaker described the training, testing and bonding required of licensed contractors and warned large mural projects can present construction-level hazards: "This work can take place near electrical lines in high traffic public spaces or involve handling of various chemicals and materials... Unlike these individuals, while undoubtedly talented artists, simply won't have a mandated safety training, OSHA, compliance knowledge, or workers' compensation insurance that licensed contractors do." (quoted verbatim from public comment in transcript.)

Board and staff discussion CSLB staff (Miss May) noted that the bill's exemption is narrowly drafted and that staff recommended a neutral position because no widespread consumer harm tied to muralists had been established, but the bill leaves some definitions (for example, what constitutes a "support line" in a separate bill) unclear. Board members asked repeated questions about scaffolding, project value, whether scaffolding and scaffold erection could be treated as part of mural contracts, and how enforcement would occur if awarding agencies (cities/counties) do not require contractor licensure.

Public-agency projects and obligations Speakers described real-world impacts: a Caltrans-funded pilot mural project that required additional registration and fees when state procedures applied, and municipal projects delayed or canceled amid uncertainty. City representatives said the exemption preserves the ability of municipalities to commission artists without imposing contracting hurdles that can consume scarce public-art budgets.

Outcome and next steps At the close of the transcript excerpt, staff maintained a neutral recommendation and the board asked for clarity on definitions and enforcement pathways. A final board vote on SB 456 was not recorded in the provided excerpt. Staff indicated it will continue outreach to authors and local agencies and will track complaints and enforcement leads related to mural projects.