Assembly Local Government Committee

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony through the positional portal on the committee's website.

Yeah. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Once again, welcome. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goals of the hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearings include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comments may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise imputes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We have 32 bills today on our agenda with four items on consent. Those items are SB 607 by Senator Wiener, SB 992 by Senator Nilo, SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon, SB 1439 by the Senate Local Government Committee. In addition, Assemblymember Pacheco will be presented SB 1312 on behalf of Senator Richardson. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All remaining witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. We do not have a forum as of yet, so we will operate as a staff committee until we are able to establish forum. First bill up today is item number seven, SB 802 by Senator Ashby. When you're ready, Senator.

Please proceed.

I know in authoring California's Mental Health Services Act in 2004, the tax on millionaires, that was my my initiative. Generating thirty five plus billion dollars from mental health in California, all the money goes to the county and purposefully because they're the health and human services subdivision of the state of California. But I ask this question to you, Mr. Chairman, under what theory of good government does it make sense for the cities and county to govern the issues of homelessness separately, especially when in many instances, especially for people who are the most chronically homeless, there is a crossover between the need for shelter, tiny homes and housing and the need for intensive services. And if we're honest about it in Sacramento, and I think this is true throughout California, we have all done a good job city and county together building more shelter beds and building more housing, temporary and permanent housing for people. But where we are still falling short collectively is ensuring that people who are the sickest of the sick, those who the public complains most about, who are languishing in tent encampments, walking down, up and down our streets and sidewalks barefoot and obviously in tremendous need. When it comes to the numbers, I know this following the Mental Health Services Act, 220,000 full service partnerships since Prop 63 passed, and too small of a percentage going to people who are chronically homeless. The services are not getting to people who are the sickest of the sick in large enough numbers. So what this bill would do would require the city and county simply to govern together. Thank you. That's all. That's all. Thank you. Second witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Katie Maple, and I proudly represent nearly 70,000 residents right here in the 5th District of the City of Sacramento. I wear many hats in this work, but perhaps the most important is that I've lived this issue from multiple perspectives. When I was 16 years old, I left home. There were times I lived in my car, trying to finish high school, work in restaurants, and simply find stable housing. My story is not unique. In fact, it has only become more common as housing costs have continued to rise in our city and, of course, across the state. Years later, before I was elected to public office, I spent much of my free time doing mutual aid work in Sacramento as well, so serving those who are living on the streets, including delivering meals, survival supplies, and basic necessities to those who are living in parks under overpasses and beyond. And what I got to know as I talked to folks who were in those experiences was that the biggest obstacle was not that they didn't qualify for the help. It was that they couldn't figure out how to get it. Someone would tell me to call one agency. That agency would send me somewhere else. families would spend months waiting for housing and other needs, and I'm sure this story can be replicated across California. So that system wasn't really built to help individuals in the true sense. And so as I navigated that work and then finally ran for office I thought at the time wow you know this is really disjointed It doesn appear to me that these entities are working well together And as I been now on the inside elected to office for the last four years I realized that it's actually worse than I thought on the inside. And so I discovered that there's not one single entity that's responsible for Sacramento's homeless response. It doesn't mean that people aren't working incredibly hard. It's actually the opposite. We've got really hardworking people everywhere from the continuum of care to our agencies, from the county to the cities and beyond. Every day they're working and they care deeply. But they're working within a system that was never designed to function as one. And so also in my work, I serve on several regional boards. I help oversee our transit system. I serve as the vice chair of the Air Quality Management District and the Public Library Authority, among many others. And what I've realized in all of that work is that we've created these joint powers authorities, these boards that we sit on, that have representatives from cities and counties, sometimes multiple counties or one county in the cities, and they serve one function. They recognize that when there's a policy issue that doesn't know jurisdictional boundaries, we need to come together as one and create one place where we can share resources, and most importantly, where individuals from the public can come and learn about the work that we're doing and petition their government when they are unhappy with it. And so that is what this bill aims to do. A lot of what has already been mentioned by Senator Ashby, I won't go into detail, but I will say that there is a local process happening on the ground now. I've been advocating for this for many years, and I can say that that would not be the case if not for this bill. I am also very concerned that if this bill doesn't move forward, that we won't have what we need to make sure that it actually comes to fruition. So yes, we've started the conversations. Yes, we have the letter of intent that's signed. And yes, we have some conversations that are planned on the calendar, and yet we do not have a signed agreement. And so it is my respectful request for your aye vote to continue this bill moving forward so that we can continue that work on the ground. And with that, thank you. Thank you for that. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Hello, Chairman. I am Councilmember Lisa Kaplan. I replace our Honorable Senator Ashby as the council member representing that area. I'm in strong support for all the reasons said. Please support. We need to move this forward. Thank you. Hi, Chairman. My name is Elisar Hujesh. I'm here on behalf of Council Member Eric Guerra. He's unable to make it today, but he's in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Ben Avey with WellSpace Health, the region's largest provider of health care services to people experiencing homelessness, in strong support. Good afternoon, Crystal Strait, representing the Steinberg Institute in support. Daniel Conway here as former chief of staff to Mayor Johnson, co-founder of the LA Alliance for Human Rights, co-founder of Sacramentents for Safe and Clean Streets, in strong support of regional cooperation. Thank you all for your leadership. Monica Lee on behalf of Vice Mayor Karina Talamante is in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Madeline Knoll with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a property-based improvement district serving over 100 blocks in our central city here in downtown, in strong support. Thank you. Nolan Gray for California MB, in strong support. John Vignocchi, CEO of the Sacramento Regional Business Leaders Council, in strong support. Thank you. Eldridge Jackson III, Inside Circle, strong support of SB 802. Sumitri Mehta Natomas Unified School Board Trustee strong support of the bill Thank you for your leadership Sati Sati Kaur Commissioner on Sacramento Disability Advisory I strongly support it's better to work together than in silos. Thank you. Lynn Lindsay, President, North Otomans Community Coalition. We are in strong support of this coordinated approach and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tiffany Scott, President and CEO of Paratransit, Inc., NPI Housing, a new nonprofit that's building public, private, attainable housing and in strong support of SB 802. Good afternoon. Karina Raimundo on behalf of the Midtown Association in support. Good afternoon. Jasmine Avincola, Sacramento Asian Chamber in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for your leadership. Dominique Denae, local education advocate and strong support. Mr. Chairman, members, Jason Gonsalves representing the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova. We are neutral, but it feels like sponsorship to get to that point. So thank the author and all the supporters. Thank you. Chair Carrillo, thank you. Good to see you. My name is William Freco. I'm the commander of the Veterans Affiliate Council. We're here in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jasmine Asher. I'm representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League, and we are in support. Thank you. Thank you. Any primary opposition in this measure, please come to the desk. And each of you also get three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the committee. I'm Siobhan Katari, Deputy County Executive for Sacramento County, and I'm here today to respectfully oppose SB 802. Sacramento County sees the impact of homelessness in our communities every day. The county, our cities, and the COC each bring something different to this work and we have agreed to work together with urgency on this critical issue. This isn't a choice between the status quo or SB 802. Our board has already voted in support of this regional model and has appointed members to this task force shaping it. A letter of intent signed by our county CEO and our city managers commits us to finalize this structure by year's end. Our continuum of care has already been chosen as a willing partner in this model. SB 802's mandate for the COC to participate doesn't strengthen this partnership. It only risks overriding the federal authority that governs how COCs operate. We appreciate Senator Ashby's recent amendments to SB 802 reflected in the work on the model that we are building. but they don't yet resolve our core concern. The type of legal structure that governs this region must be locally determined, not written into state statute. SB 802 breaks the core principle that makes JPAs work. JPAs function because participation is voluntary and partners join with shared goals and mutual accountability. SB 802 would create the first mandatory JPA in California history and sets bad precedent by taking away local authority We ask that the Senator and this committee give local elected officials the opportunity to see this through or to accept amendments giving us the latitude to design this locally We respectfully ask that you vote no on SB 802 as currently written. Thank you. Chair Carrillo, members of the committee, thank you for having us today. My name is Justin Rathol, and I'm serving as the mayor of the city of Folsom. I care to respectfully oppose SB 802 on behalf of my city. The Sacramento region has a proven track record, as you've already heard, of working together to solve regional challenges. Folsom participates in eight joint powers authorities, and we successfully collaborate regionally each and every day. We have signed the letter of intent to form a JPA, and I will personally be serving on that committee once it is formed. Folsom and the Sacramento region are also leaders in building housing. The SACOG region has outperformed all the other metro areas in the state for the last eight years in per capita housing production, and 18 of the last 24. Folsom has built over 1,000 affordable housing units using our local affordable housing trust fund. And to say that we need a special statute in order to build housing just doesn't match the data that we see. Folsom, Sacramento County and our neighboring cities are already at the table, designing a regional approach that reflects how we want to work together. If the state proceeds with the creation of the first mandated JPA in the history of California, there's a strong chance this JPA is litigated and the JPA formation is actually delayed. Since this bill lacks funding for the mandate, we'd also have a claim to recoup costs from the state of California when our regional entities should be the one paying those costs. JPA's function because participation is voluntary. Partners join with shared goals and mutual accountability. And if you take away that voluntary framework, you undermine our collaboration. While I appreciate Senator Ashby's efforts to highlight the need for regional collaboration, we'd ask this committee to let our local government process finish before locking a structure into the state statute. The City of Olsen respectfully opposes SB 802 and asks for your no vote today. Thank you for that testimony. Any others that want to add on in opposition, please tell your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Jean Hearst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California in respectful opposition due to the precedent-setting nature of the bill. Thank you. Linda Wheaton from SAC Act, also in respectful opposition for the reasons stated in our letter and lifted up in your ledge analysis. Sacramento is not unique. Thank you. JPA is not a magic bullet. Thank you. Meg Gunderson with Sacramento area congregations together, respectfully opposed. Laurel Hollis, also with SEC Act, respectfully opposed. Thanks. Karen Humphrey from Sacramento Act, former mayor of Fresno, and a big fan of many of the people here. But I must oppose this. Coerced collaboration is a collaboration. Thank you very much. I'm Jan Charlis, and I oppose for the reasons given in the SAC Act. I'm a member of Westminster Presbyterian Church. We have a respite program with about 122 homeless people that we serve every week. Thank you. Hi, Alicia Dean, also from Sacramento Act, respectfully opposed SB 802. Hi, I'm Trent Simmons, interim CEO of Sacramento Steps Forward, and I oppose for legal concerns that I have with the bill related to the CDC program. Thank you very much. Committee members, questions, comments? What's in front of us? Assemblymember Ward. I'd be happy to kick off the conversation. I want to thank Senator Ashby for working really hard on this, and it's great to see. I'm not sure if Mayor or Senator is a higher title. Formerly Honorable. Formerly Honorable. Daryl Steinberg with us again here today. I appreciate your efforts, not just on really trying to tackle this issue, but sincerely the overarching nature of being more manually responsible around our solutions to homelessness. And I remember from my time as a city council member and the chair of my COC, and the dysfunction and discoordination that we had at that time down in San Diego, that coordination was everything to be able to make sure that your counties, your cities, your nonprofit organizations, and others, and all of a sudden I'm chair, so that everybody is on the same page. and they are talking about these issues really with a concerted effort right now, and that's how you make more responsible decisions, and Senator Ashby certainly gets that, that this is like an idea that, like, of course is already eligible and available for the Sacramento region. But, you know, homelessness does not stop at your city boundaries. It does not stop at the river line. It does not stop even in our county boundaries. But when you can find that area that we are all kind of governmentally, federally, statewide, and regionally, like, trying to be able to kind of coordinate these better, that is a more optimal structure. and the win is out there in some form, but the win is also out there for the locals to come together and be able to do that the right way, and I know that that is your intent right now. 802 is just a vehicle, and however we get there is the end goal that you're leading on right now, and I'm glad you're in the driver's seat really soaking that question because something's got to be able to break for the matter, I would say, of using our funds more responsibly, having better outcomes, but most importantly, helping out people's lives. Yeah. And I know that that is like, you know, it's really driving you to really soak that conversation. And 802 is really going to press that question in a much more direct way. So I'm happy to be able, as I had a chance to review this in the Assembly Housing Committee. And I'm here to sort of offer thoughts here in this committee right now to continue to support your efforts. Because a lot of work can be done over the summer recess. Yeah. And I know that's your intent. So happy to be able to support that today. When we have a quorum, I'll be happy to make a motion to move the bill. Thank you. Thank you for your efforts. And I thank you for being here again. Thank you so much. Any other committee member questions or comments? Of course. I am no longer chair. Thank you. So if you indulge me for a moment to close, and I can maybe address a couple of the things that came up in my close, if that's all right. And then thank you, my colleagues, so much for your comments and your input and your time and your patience. And I know this is an issue that many of you have heard a lot about from a lot of folks in this room. And hopefully you can tell that I know everyone says it's respectful opposition or respectful support. This truly is. We're trying to find our way forward, and everybody is working on it. But for 26 years, we've been working on it. And the county has the opportunity to do this right now. They don't need to wait for me. They can do it in July. They could have done it in October. They could have done it last year. In 2010, long before anybody up here, I think besides me, was in play in local government, this guy was busy leading this building we took a vote The county took a vote and the city took a vote to form a JPA for housing and homelessness That how Sacramento Steps Forward was created But the JPA was never formed. They could never come to the agreement. They spent years negotiating. Two grand jury reports later, one ballot initiative, an excellent mayor who spent eight years trying and actually wrote the foundational document, a partnership agreement that could be used to advance this, but there's no legal framework to use it. A lawsuit from the district attorney, still pending an outcome. All of those things have happened during the time that we said we were working on it together. That's why this bill is so important. The pressure of the bill has moved us faster than anything else has in 26 years. It is way past time, way past time for the regional leaders in this community to come together on this issue. there was a question about latitude and giving them latitude, giving the county latitude to do this. I want you to know I am the number one cheerleader for you to be the person that brings this forward, for the county and the cities, all of them, to agree to this without me. I just don't believe after 26 years of watching the negotiations that it will happen without that pressure. And that is what I am trying to create here. As to the legal issue, Legislative Council put together an 11-page response that I am happy to provide to any of you that very clearly lays out the legislature's ability to do what 802 proffers. I feel very confident that the Ledge Council spent a significant amount of time on that finding. And I'm sure if you read it, You too will agree with Ledge Council's work. I want to reiterate some of the folks who support this bill and then respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have a quorum later. LA Alliance for Human Rights. This is the group that's gone before us and made mistakes that we're learning from to try to push for something different in Sacramento. Well Space. That's not just a small name. That's the largest mental health provider in Northern California to people who are experiencing homelessness. Greater Sacramento Urban League, the businesses are united here. All of the business groups, so are all of the neighborhood groups. Every neighborhood group that's weighed in has weighed in in support. California YIMBY, SEIU California, the majority of the Sacramento City Council, including their vice mayor and their mayor pro tem. You heard from one of the lobbyists today representing the small cities. They started out deeply opposed, held a press conference. They have moved to neutral. I've taken every amendment they've asked me for. I've taken every amendment that any group that has reasonably asked me to amend it, that doesn't change the integrity of the idea of creating a JPA and having accountability, I've taken those amends. Because my goal here is not to dictate to them how they do it. My goal here is for them to come together on their own. Youth Forward, AARP, two ends of the life spectrum who want the same thing, people to be served in their community. SAC advocates for transit and many, many, many former local elected officials who have tried hard also over the years to move this ball down the field. We are all rooting for Councilwoman Maple who carrying that ball for all of us right now When I introduced 802 the three of us were standing alone As you can see that is no longer the case because we spent the last year of our lives with our minds and our hearts and our ears open, taking in input from everyone in this region. I'll end with this. I believe deeply in Sacramento's ability, Folsom, Rancho, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, all of them. I believe in you. I believe in the elected officials who are serving right now in this region. I know they can do this, but they need a governance structure that will help them, just like they have in transportation, just like they have when they're dealing with sewage or the library or anything else of import in this region. We cannot solve our region's largest and most persistent problem without working together. When you have a quorum, Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Yes, I want to thank the Senator and I want to really appreciate your patience, your dedication, and your passion. I had a meeting with you, and I want to tell you the truth that your passion, your dedication really convinced me. I was mayor before. So I understand. I was mayor for 10 years. I understand completely, 100% of all the concerns from the city and from the local agency. But at the end of the day, the senator really want all the city to work together, to sit out together. Because if we don't have any second point, how can a city willing to sit out together? And at the state, we want a city to sit out together to come up with a solution. So I really appreciate your time, your dedication, and your patience. I'm strongly, strongly supporting your view. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you. So we have the next bills, SB 226. I would have forgot. Oh, I'm sorry. We go by the fine order. Right? Is that right? SB 226. No, 222. 222. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry. Yeah. I'm really sorry again. Okay. Senator? You may begin, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm here to present SB 222, the Heat Pump Access Act, which will make cost-saving heat pump, water heater, and HVAC installations faster, simpler, and more affordable by streamlining the permitting process, thus helping to reduce people's energy bills. Heat pumps are a highly efficient, zero-pollution option for HVAC systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer, and more affordable. Heat pumps are so energy efficient that they reduce electric use for heating by up to 75 percent and allow customers across the state to experience significantly lower energy bills. Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump eliminates harmful pollutants as well We know the Californians face sky energy costs and we have significant air pollution Heat pumps will help. Streamlining the permit process for heat pumps will help us meet Governor Newsom's aggressive goal of installing 6 million heat pumps by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. We are on our way to meeting that goal, but have a long way to go. The current permitting process, it's all over the maps, city by city. It can require multiple permits. It can take a long time. The inspection process can be onerous and the cost can be very high. SB 222 will help to streamline that process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me to testify as Alan Obs with the Bay Area Air District. I'm Vince Segrew with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abs. I'm the legislative officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the board of which is comprised of 24 county supervisors and city mayors and council members in the nine-county Bay Area region. The air district is a co-sponsor of SB 222, and we thank Senator Weiner for his leadership on this issue because fossil fuel appliances are a significant source of smog-forming pollutants, and switching to heat pump technology reduces regional smog pollution. California has set an ambitious goal of 6 million heat pump installations by 2030, and streamlining the permit system is just one step toward achieving that goal. Permitting affects one's decision to change from a fossil fuel device to a heat pump, and the more difficult that process is, the greater the chance that someone either sticks with a fossil fuel device and or installs a new device without a permit. Currently, permit fees and requirements can vary substantially from city to city within the same region, including multiple different fees and percentage-based fees added to the basic cost. Permits also generally take longer than fossil fuel devices, and in some HOAs, aesthetic and other restrictions add time or outright ban their installation. In the end, if a homeowner that wants to switch to a heat pump has these types of immediate barriers just when they think about it, they end up being encouraged to stick with fossil fuel devices, which we don't want to have happen. SB 222 seeks to make this choice easier by automating permitting for certain heat pump installations, establishing a more transparent permit fee process, and establishes limitations that prevent heat pump installations in residences within HOAs. HOAs. SB 222 does establish a soft permit fee cap, but also allows jurisdictions to exceed those permit fee levels through a public process. You may hear reference to cities you represent with low fees, and I think that actually emphasizes why we think other cities can follow their examples and have similar low fees. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right, thank you so much. My name is Vince Segrew, State Legislative Director from Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm before you today in strong support of SB 222. Our members are on the front lines of California's clean energy transition. Sheet Metal Workers are the skilled HVAC technicians designing, sizing, installing, and maintaining the heat pump systems that California homeowners are being asked to rely on for their comfort, indoor air quality, and energy efficiency needs. But for the clean energy transition to work, the process has to work in the real world. What we hear from our union contractors and technicians is consistent. The permitting process for residential heat pump installations is often fragmented, inconsistent, and slow. Standards It's very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Timelines are unpredictable. And for contractors and technicians trying to do the work the right way, that lack of standardization creates delays, added costs, and makes an unfortunate excuse for low-road contractors to avoid the permitting system altogether. SB 222 helps address that problem by creating a more standardized and efficient permitting process for qualifying residential heat pump installations while still preserving important safeguards. This bill will help streamline permitting while still recognizing that proper design, sizing and installation are all essential to system performance. It preserves local authority to apply workforce labor standards, including prevailing wages and the use of approved apprentices. And that matters because heat pump installation should be made more accessible and efficient without compromising safety, quality, or craftsmanship. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support. All right, thank you so much.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support.

Madison Vander Clay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund is a proud co-sponsor. I also ask to register support from our co-sponsor SPUR, as well as the California Environmental Voters, Sierra Club California, Center for Biological Diversity, the Sausalito Sustainability Commission, the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, the U.S. Green Building Council California, Association for Energy Affordability, and Efficiency First California. Thank you. Marky Skeen Mason, that to resource defense counsel and support. Thanks so much. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thanks. Craig Scholler on behalf of Ava Community Energy in support. Good afternoon. Kai Klaassen on behalf of Ceres in support. Thank you. Mark Fenstermaker for Justice in support. Margie Lee Samson, advisors here on behalf of A.O. Smith Corporation, in support. Chair and members, Alicia Priego on behalf of the City of San Jose and San Jose Clean Energy, in support. Stephen Sanzler on behalf of Permit Power and the Abundance Network, in support. Tim Dack on behalf of Climate Future California, in support. Arvida Repichan on behalf of Daikin U.S., in support.

Excuse me. Don Kepke on behalf of the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and Green Building Initiative in support.

Hello, Mr. Chair and members. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We've shared our thoughts with the author's office and the sponsors. We're very supportive of the state making ambitious and aggressive maneuvers to transition our way from dirty fossil fuels into cleaner energy-efficient appliances. However, we have to really ask ourselves, what problem are we trying to solve here? We've looked at if the issue is the permits, the costs of permits, than as a barrier for widespread adoption, then we have to look at permit fees across the state. We've pulled all the permit fees across the state. They roughly average around one to 4% of actual cost of installation of these projects. We've also gone to state agencies. We looked at the CPUC the CEC and they have consistently shown that the number one barrier to adoption is the high upfront costs We've also pulled data from multiple industry installation surveys from respondents that are contractors that install heat pumps and HVAC systems. They say this is the number one profitable installation for them, and the number one barrier is upfront costs, and government fees don't even hit the top ten barriers. So this bill is misplaced, unfortunately. But what it does do is it requires locals to acquire a streamlined, automated system. That costs money. And currently, across the state, local permitting authorities treat these installations as over-the-counter, same-day installations. So why the need for automating something that's already same-day? And so for those reasons, we respectfully oppose.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County Representative in California, would like to align our comments with that of Cal Cities in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mark Neuberger on behalf of the California State Association and Counties. Also, I'd like to align our comments to those of Cal Cities, and we're also opposed as well. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, and respectable opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. One thing I do just want to point out, in the analysis, and I know it was corrected, it said that the pipe trades were opposed. That's not accurate. They have removed their opposition. And I know I've appreciated the committee corrected the analysis, but just to make sure there's no confusion about that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

SB 677. 677. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, colleagues. SB 677 will help California to continue to efficiently build more housing, particularly affordable housing in the face of our state's housing crisis. I want to start by accepting the committee's amendments, excuse me, as outlined in the analysis. We've worked very hard over the last decade or more to cut red tape, streamline housing approvals, and fund more affordable housing construction. However, folks who don't want to see housing get built continue to find new and creative ways to undermine that process. And this bill addresses two very discreet challenges. The first is that opponents are abusing the Subdivision Map Act parcel map appeal process and filing appeals that really have nothing to do with the subdivision process and everything to do with them just not liking the project. We've seen this happen several times in san francisco the appeals have been rejected but it uh creates delays and so at times jeopardizes the financing of the of the project so this bill will uh limit ability to appeal for interested parties in infill development The second thing has to do with the TEFRA project the approval of tax-exempt bonds under federal law. They have to be approved. It is typically a pro forma process because the money is not coming from the local entities. And we have seen in some cities where they simply will not hold a hearing to try to slow play or even kill the project. And so the bill, as in print, defines that as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. We are changing that language. We've requested a committee amendment and we appreciate that committee amendment moving forward to shift it over to the treasurer. And we're going to continue to work with stakeholders and the committee over the summer to make sure we're getting it right so the process is as good as it can be. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today to testify is John Lovell with Mission Housing Development Corporation and Garrett Borges, Vice President of Real Estate Development at Cypress Equity Investments.

All right. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support?

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? I see none. Anyone else? Oh.

Thank you so much. Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

All right. Any questions or concerns from members from the committee? I see none. Senator, would you like to vote?

Thank you so much, Senator. And you have one more bill. Final bill. The shortest one of them all.

Thank you, colleagues.

one area where we still run into consistent challenges is with arbitrary and subjective restrictions on what kind of windows we can put in buildings. At Mission Housing, besides the new buildings we've built over the past 10 years, some of our proudest accomplishments have involved the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing stock. In many cases, these are buildings that either Mission Housing built herself back in the 1970s and the 80s, or that were built by the Housing Authority and are in dire need of repair in the same decade. What should be fairly straightforward window replacements in cases like these can still get tied up in red tape with arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions on what kind of window materials we're allowed to use. Often it seems like the point of these rules is to treat a building that was built within the lifetime of many of us in this room as if it was a Victorian building that survived the 1906 earthquake. That to me makes absolutely no sense. This is a consistent challenge with new construction as well. The city approved as recently as 2024 what it called objective design standards that outright prohibit vinyl frame windows on any part of the building that can be seen from a public right of way. Despite these rules, vinyl frame windows are often substantially less expensive than their aluminum counterparts and are superior at insulating heat, which leads to lower energy usage over time. On one of our recent new construction projects, we were only able to get vinyl frame windows approved by using one of the five density bonus waivers were allowed under the state density bonus program. While this allowed us to save six figures in hard costs for the project, it really shouldn't take a density bonus waiver to do this. It should just take some common sense. Reliability is also a key concern here. Over the past decade, supply chains have been rocked by a series of disruptions from the pandemic and ongoing volatility in global trade policy. I've even had locally sourced aluminum windows manufactured at a plant in Northern California that were disrupted by wildfires and BG&E power outages. In cases like this, it's absolutely critical for us to be able to pivot to another manufacturer or product without having our hands tied by the arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions of a public agency. And that's why I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Madison Vander Clay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Clifton Wilson on behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie in support. Thank you.

Welcome back, Mr. Chair, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Taw?

Taw, aye.

Aye.

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye.

Ransom?

Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Now, there is only one such district in California today, and that is on Treasure Island in San Francisco. But it follows in the long line of other tax increment financing districts that have been important in California. This bill is intended in part to clear the path so that California's bid for the next Major League Baseball expansion team can proceed. Major League Baseball has announced that in 2028 they will select two new expansion cities in the country, one in the west and one in the east. This is California's principal candidate will be just across the river in the city of West Sacramento as a Sacramento regional proposal. And in order to assemble the package of various financing instruments necessary to make this happen, an infrastructure revitalization district is part of the equation. Now, you may know there's already a baseball stadium there. That was my first project as mayor, and it is financed through other bond districts. And then there's an enhanced infrastructure financing district overlay on the entire area, except for the stadium itself, because the stadium was in public ownership. And so there is an opportunity uniquely in that city because of its property tax share agreements with the county and with other taxing agencies and the existing property assessed valuation in that city to be able to finance a substantial portion of the infrastructure related to the stadium itself. And so this is an essential part of that in order to layer on top of the existing EIFD with an IRFD as well. Now, West Sacramento has been one of the state's leading cities in terms of tax increment financing, and much of what's there today is as a result that this district would only take effect if we were selected and we were prepared to go to construction on this project. In the absence of that stadium project and the new team, it wouldn't generate this tax revenue anyway, and so 100 percent of the value of this will be captured and then deployed for the benefit of the project and for the citizens of the community That is all So current law provides for commercial facilities but does not specifically say sports and entertainment And although I think those of us who have been city government and we these are commercial facilities we want to be absolutely sure because the risk is simply that litigation will tie up the project or threaten to tie up the project which will put this California proposal at a disadvantage relative to cities and other states That the sum total of what the bill does I have with me today Doug Drost who the deputy

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. As the Senator said, I'm Doug Drose, Deputy City Manager for the City of West Sacramento. The Senator gave a comprehensive summary of the bill, but I'll just add a couple points from the City's perspective. As he said, we have identified an IRFD as a prudent and feasible mechanism for the City to support the stadium project in the expansion bid. The certainty provided by this bill will be key to attracting a majority ownership group for the proposed franchise, as well as increasing the competitiveness of Sacramento's expansion bid. Just to be clear, the tax increment generated by the district will only come from the stadium itself and the immediately surrounding development once they are constructed and will have no impact on the city or state's general fund. Additionally, the district would not impact Yolo County or our local school district's share of property tax revenues from the district. We're excited about the opportunity to put Sacramento forward as a viable site for an MLB team, and we believe that a stadium in West Sacramento will catalyze the dense urban infill development that we want to see along our riverfront while providing significant private investment, jobs, housing, and public infrastructure improvements. SB226 will solidify the city's ability to execute on that plan. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank Senator Kvaldin for introducing this critical legislation.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ross Buckley, I'm back to the city of Sacramento in support. Daniel Conway once again here as a former chief of staff to Mayor Johnson, who knows what this man can deliver and cheering you on. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yeah, Julie Malnasky Ball, California Hotel and Lodging Association, pleased to support. Hi, Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also in support. Thank you. Richard Robelgava, baseball fan, in support.

Thanks, Senator Baum, for bringing this measure forward. We had a lot of dialogue in the Assembly Housing Committee as well. I really appreciated all the thoughtful answers. I know this can be an incredible tool to be able to help realize the vision that you're setting forward, and I wish you the best of luck.

That was your committee.

Yeah.

No, I simply ask for an aye vote.

Ta? Aye.

Johnson?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom?

Stephanie.

Aye.

Ward.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. May I turn to SBA 2H?

Mr. Chair, today is the one-year anniversary of the massive explosion in Esparto, California, where seven people were killed when an unlicensed fireworks warehouse in my district exploded. The warehouse was storing one million pounds of illegal fireworks and pyrotechnics without proper zoning, without permits, and with a licensee who was ineligible for the equivalent federal license due to a prior criminal conviction. This didn't have to happen. State and local officials were unaware of what was sitting in that warehouse because the law didn't require anyone to tell them. It didn't require the state and the county and the fire district to share information. It didn't require anyone to tell folks in Esparto that a raid in Commerce, California, just weeks before had uncovered fireworks and pyrotechnics destined for Esparto. SB 828 closes those gaps. It requires fireworks licensees to disclose where they are storing fireworks, prove that they have the local permits and that they're not disqualified from holding the license their activities already require. It empowers local fire agencies to inspect storage facilities at least once a year and gives local law enforcement the explicit authority to seize illegal fireworks, authority that, remarkably, they did not have. And it increases fines for fireworks, ordinance, infractions to levels that actually reflect the public safety risk involved, up to $5,000 for repeat violations with a five-year look back. These are reforms that were developed by the Office of State Fire Marshal's own Public Safety Fireworks Enforcement Task Force, supplemented by our own experience and investigations in Yolo County as a result of the fireworks disaster. This is not the end of the story. We have much more work to do to intercept, attack, and shut down the sometimes criminal and organized rings that are threatening public safety across the state and really across the country and across the globe. But these are important reforms to assure that the state and local failures and gaps that helped to contribute to the explosion in Esparto do not happen again. I'm very pleased that today we're joined in support of SB 828 by Steve Aubert from the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, and I would ask for an aye vote. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Steve Aubert. I'm here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. And we respectfully urge support and thank the senator for bringing SB 828. It does close those critical gaps in fireworks licensing and storage laws that eliminate the ability of local fire marshals to effectively oversee a high hazard fireworks facilities. Obviously, we've seen real-world examples where fireworks and explosives were stored without local permits, without inspections, in some cases without fire departments, even knowing the hazard existed until the emergency occurred. These gaps place firefighters, first responders, and surrounding communities at serious risk. SB 828 reinforces that central role of the local fire in building officials by requiring that verification of local land use and permitting approvals as a condition of a state licensure. The local permitting process allows fire and building officials to review the proposed structures construction features and fire protection systems before any explosives are stored This proactive review is critical to ensuring the compliance of Fire and Life Safety Codes and preventing unsafe conditions that could otherwise result in catastrophic incidents. SB 828 is a prevention-focused, common-sense measure that strengthens oversight, supports firefighter operations, and enhances public safety. For these reasons, California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California

Michelle Robalcaba with Nielsen Merkstrom on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support. Good afternoon Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members Doug Zubers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support. Seeing no one else, any primary opposition, please come on in. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I apologize for being late. Paul Gonzalez here in support of the bill on behalf of TNT Fireworks. We look forward to continuing the conversations with the senator, and thank him for his continued conversations thus far. Thank you. No opposition, primary

mr. chair member senator good afternoon my name is James Eadie I am a state licensed pyrotechnic operator speaking on my own behalf respectfully I must oppose Senate bill 828 unless amended because the bill penalizes licensees for failing to produce a permit that their local jurisdiction has no process the issue. Thank you. Thank you for that. Anybody else? See nobody? Committee

much, Mr. Chairman. So that horrible tragedy one year ago today, seven Californians, most of them my constituents, but some constituents of even folks at this dais whose young people were doing a summer job at a facility that they thought was safe because the government must have taken care of that. Or communities that were physically rocked by the explosion and then their community torn apart, who had no idea that such an explosive a facility even existed within blocks of their home or their farm. That should never happen to any communities in any California. And SBA 208 will go a long way. We have more work to do, but it's an important start in order to assure that we're protecting the safety of every California. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That's all I need. Right.

Chair and members, I appreciate your time. This is going to be a little bit long just because of the fact that this is my own district bill, if you will. So SB 1193 is how we prevent waste, fraud, abuse, favoritism, and conflicts of interest before they become scandals. Public money is not a favor. It is not a political prize. It is not a private account for public officials to use without meaningful oversight. It is the hard-earned money of working families, seniors, renters, homeowners, and small businesses. Every dollar should have a clear public purpose, a public record, and a public benefit. That is how we prevent waste, fraud, abuse, favoritism, and conflicts of interest. Alameda County is wealthy, highly educated, and has a large tax base. It is the fifth wealthiest county, the seventh largest county, and the highest tax county in California. Yet the outcomes are uneven. Many residents still face homelessness, crushing housing costs, food insecurity, delayed public services, and a child welfare system that has repeatedly failed to meet basic standards. Many of you guys know that I grew up in the foster care system. I specifically was a ward of Alameda County's foster care system. The question is whether, you know, the question is not whether Alameda County has needs. It clearly does. The question is whether a county with this level of wealth and public spending is delivering the transparency, urgency, and measurable results that residents deserve. The county's own social services budget tells an important story. The preliminary budget increasing appropriations by roughly 1% while staffing is essentially flat. At the same time, 98% of the agency's revenue comes from federal aid, state aid, and state realignment funds. That does not mean Alameda County contributions contributes nothing. It just means that the locally controlled dollars that the county does have must be guarded carefully. And when flexible dollars are available, they should be directed toward real needs, not a black hole of spending, political access, or favored relations, let alone the documented ceremonies, luncheons, after parties, and so much more, all of which can be paid for by personal funds or political accounts. That is the problem, and the need for SB 1193 is undeniable. On January 1st, 2024, Alameda County had 916 youth and child welfare placements. The California State Auditor found that Alameda County was late in initiating 956 non-immediate child abuse and neglect investigations in the fiscal year 2023-2024, that is nearly 50% of those referrals compared with an 8% statewide average. Really want to highlight that. Statewide, 8%. Alameda County, 50% late in child abuse cases. How is one of the wealthiest counties such a failure in doing their core job of providing safety to children at risk? The auditor also found that 59% of non-immediate investigations were closed late, let alone a lack of documentation and so much more These are not merely administrative delays These are children waiting for safety children in violent homes dealing with drug use sexual abuse trafficking and more. They are families waiting for help. They are social workers carrying impossible caseloads. They are taxpayers asking whether public resources are reaching the people who need them most. That is why transparency matters. In 2017, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury documented serious concerns regarding discretionary funds. The grand jury concluded that large amounts of county money could be directed to nonprofits without a competitive process, written contracts, or meaningful independent oversight. It also found that a county employee held dual roles as both a county employee and a leader of a nonprofit receiving discretionary funds, with a grand jury described as a failure of good governance and a conflict of interest. and we are specifically talking about millions of dollars being directed. The board had an opportunity to adopt stronger safeguards. Instead, it rejected the grand jury's recommendations regarding discretionary spending. That is why SB 1193 is necessary. Over 10 years, there have been numerous reports and investigations tied to Alameda County's governance, spending services, or accountability. In fact, 10 civil grand jury annual reports, 30 county-related grand jury chapters, one major state auditor report, one major DOJ investigation, four major court cases and lawsuits, and a number of different media and internal investigations, and repeated concerns about governance spending, services, and accountability. This is not about one old incident. It is about a pattern we are seeing. Alameda County needs stronger systems for accountability, documentation, and public oversight. A recent San Francisco Chronicle review reported that Alameda County supervisors directed roughly $51 million in discretionary public funds over seven years to nonprofits and community organizations without a competitive selection process. Not every award was improper. Not every nonprofit is undeserving. and SB 1193 does not say otherwise. But the public should not need to prove that every dollar was fraudulent before demanding a system that makes waste fraud abuse harder to hide. Without transparency, discretion can become power without a receipt. Without oversight, public funds can be a slush fund. And without clear ethical rules, ethical nonprofits are forced to compete in a system where relationships matter more than results. SB 1193 changes that. It requires a majority of vote for the Board of Supervisors before discretionary funds are awarded, requires funds to serve a clear public purpose, requires an online public spending log to show who received taxpayer dollars, how much they received, why they received it, and how they actually plan to spend it. It prevents discretionary rewards from being rushed through special meetings or buried on consent calendars. And it documents the whistleblower process so the public and county employees know where concerns can be raised. These are not radical reforms. These are the bare minimum standards the public deserves. SB 1193 does not eliminate non-profit funding. It protects legitimate nonprofits by ensuring that funding is visible, fair, and tied to a public purpose. It gives ethical organizations confidence. It gives taxpayers information, and it gives the public a way to see whether taxpayer dollars paid for more meaningful services or simply access visibility, ceremony, marketing, or political convenience. Alameda County had an opportunity to regulate itself. It not only failed to do so. blatantly refused to adopt the safeguards necessary to restore public trust. This legislation is of its own making. When local governments fail to establish basic accountability after years of documented warnings, it becomes the responsibility of the state to step in. SB 1193 is a promise to Alameda County taxpayers. No secret spending, no buried awards, no taxpayer-funded favoritism, no public dollars without a public purpose. With me today is Kirsten Scove, a District 1 resident, who will share her personal experience and concerns regarding the use of discretionary funds. And I will highlight for our communities, for nonprofits doing honest work, and for every taxpayer who deserves to know where their money goes, I do hope that everyone votes yes on SB 1193.

Is there anybody else that wants to add in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Seeing no one else any primary opposition please step forward You can have a seat on the desk please And you each also have three minutes Thank you

Thank you for that. I've seen no one else coming up. Committee members, comments, questions? Yes, please, Assemblymember Ransom.

Did you want to add something?

You know, I'm going to be very transparent here. This is a county-specific bill, Alameda County, and I noted that it not just a grand jury report from a while ago but every single year there has been a concern of transparency In fact in this last month there have been literally half a dozen articles written about concerns there including our lead witness and her concern There is a lack of transparency In fact, the Grand Year Report highlighted a specific individual, and there is no good argument in opposition to this bill. We do not limit funds. They can place it on the calendar. They can vote. In fact, to the opponent's main point of a four-fifths vote, I'm happy to take that amendment and make it a four-fifths vote. So more than happy to do so.

Yes. So this bill has been supported by Alameda County's Democratic Party. I do want to highlight that a number of folks have shared their concerns, especially as things have been exposed more and more. We do have, you know, Alameda County is home to a wide variety of concerns around corruption. In fact, FBI raids have taken place at different levels of local government in Alameda County. And this is just one effort to shed some light on what is happening when we are talking about millions of dollars. Again, the millions of dollars regarding social services has always been filled by the state and the federal government. So when we're talking about local dollars, they do deserve to be spent locally. And based on the local needs, The community deserves to know exactly what those dollars are spent on. And to be very clear, even if you ask Chet GPT, they will even say that roughly $50,000 was spent on galas, $40,000 on luncheons and dinners, and a wide variety of money spent on things that all of us get invited to and we spend either campaign funds or personal funds for. These are dollars where kids are literally dying, being trafficked, and they are not putting any real money into that problem. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assembly member, thank you. Thank you for presenting today. I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Senator Padilla for allowing us to go out of order. I know the Supervisor Barker has a flight to catch back home. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start by thanking the committee for working with us on amendments that I will be accepting to make this bill's moratorium applicable to 2030, as well as providing for affordable housing development in that same time period as defined. SB 1090, the Keep Altadena Lands and Altadena Hands Act, will impose a three-year moratorium on state housing density laws in Altadena until 2030. This bill is community-driven and in response to a call to action from Eaton Fire survivors demanding equal protection afforded to the communities impacted by the 2025 Palisades January Fire. Among the challenges raised during the Eaton Fire recovery process is the increased presence of investors aggressively pursuing business opportunities to seek out impacted properties, often at below market rates, for the purpose of building dense market rate housing. Property purchase trends in Altadena show an increased trend of investor activity following the Eaton Fire. A report by Sage found investors purchased close to 49% of properties sold between February and July 2025, compared to approximately 10% during this same period in 2024. Following a major disaster, communities like Altadena are vulnerable to being permanently displaced as families are facing insurance shortfalls, rising construction costs, and prolonged displacement that outside entities will use to make unsolicited pushes to get people to succumb to these challenges and elect to sell their homes, even if they did not intend to move. In response, there has been strong community advocacy to demand action to protect Altadena, which has a uniquely high concentration of Black homeownership compared to the rest of the state. The threat of post-disaster community displacement has largely been brought on by unintended consequences of urban info laws that do not contain sufficient safeguards to protect a community recovering from a major disaster and only account for areas designated as very high fire severity zones. zones. SB 684 and the subsequent bill, SB 1123, included provisions that exclude their application in areas that are high fire hazard severity zones. Separately, Executive Order N-32-25 by Governor Newsom granted local governments authority to temporarily adjust SB 9 implementation rules specifically within Eaton and Palisades burn scar high fire severity zones. Among the reasons that the governor elected to pursue this particular executive order was acknowledgement that SB 9 was, quote, not tailored for circumstances like the present situation in Los Angeles, end quote, including accounting for public safety and infrastructure concerns. After this executive order was passed, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued an executive order suspending the application of SB 9 in Pacific Palisades within the City of Los Angeles. Likewise, the County of Los Angeles suspended the application of SB 9 in unincorporated Sunset Mesa and the aforementioned foothill areas of Altadena. So to summarize that this executive order provided exemptions from SB 9 in the Pacific Palisades Sunset Mesa Malibu and a very very slim portion of Altadena Unfortunately these same protections were not extended to most of the community of Altadena because most of Altadena is not designated as a high fire severity zone, which I think probably comes as a surprise to most people given the devastating impacts of the Eaton Fire. This lack of equal protection raises significant equity issues for a working-class community of color that is still going through the recovery process. As I started my presentation, this bill is a community-driven initiative focused on providing relief for my constituents from being pressured to sell their property, not at an appropriate time, especially when they are still working to rebuild their lives. This is a narrowly tailored bill that only applies to the zip code of Altadena and is just seeking fair and equal treatment that has been afforded to those that live in the Palisades and in the Malibu areas. In closing, I do want to share that most recently my office was approached with clarifying questions and concerns raised by stakeholders, and my office will continue to discuss those matters with opposition. We're very open to doing so, but as I mentioned before, this is a very local district-specific measure given the fire recovery process. With me to speak in support of this bill, I have L.A. County Supervisor Catherine Barger, as well as Altadena Town Council President Nick Ardenson. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chair and members, and thank you for letting us go out of turn.

Thank you, Supervisor. Three minutes.

Your second witness, please. Three minutes.

We're just tired. We are doing everything that you are doing in your lives. And in addition, we are rebuilding. We are remediating. We are fighting with insurance companies. we're exhausted, but we're here in your halls and behind me because we know this is important. I would argue that in the past year and a half as a leader in Altadena, I've seen more desperation in the past three months, and I have never seen the community coalesce before or after the fire the way they have on supporting SB 1090. I'm in support of that. You have a unanimous alliance of individuals, organizations with wildly different lived experiences and perspectives. We got renters, property owners, community land trusts, developers, scientists, lawyers. They're all passionate about me being with you today, and we need this bill. We needed it a year ago, and we strongly desire an urgency clause to protect us as soon as possible. I'm asking that you vote in favor of this bill for a community still deeply traumatized and desperate to protect some semblance of what we once were We just need a pause to recover and breathing room to do it right Please vote yes on SB 1090 to keep Altadena land in Altadena

affiliation, and position on the bill. Good afternoon. Eric Lauer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, as well as on behalf of the Pasadena Foothill Association of Realtors, who were greatly affected by the fires as well. Thank you. Marvin Dion with the County of Los Angeles, speaking on behalf of the remaining supervisors in support. Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. We are a support if amended, so we look forward to reviewing these amendments. Thank you. Hi, David Bullog, LA County resident and constituents of the great supervisor we have, we are in support. I am in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Marcelle Del Saver-Hughes. I'm an Eden Canyon survivor, a local real estate agent invested in my community. We are urging that yes vote as well as under 50 clause. Thank you.

Hi, Antoinette Raines, 58-year resident of Altadena, urging you all to please give us to aye vote and not let our community be devastated more than what it already has on SB 1090.

Darlene Green with the Great Altadena Town Council asking for your aye vote on SB 1090. Noelle Minor with Altadena Recovery Watch asking for your aye vote. Thank you. Shauna Dawson-Beer, beautiful Altadena, asking for your aye vote with amendment, with urgency clause. Thank you. Hans Allhoff, Chair of Altadena Heritage, asking for your support with an urgency clause. Thank you. Eric Pusto, Total Law Survivor, proud Altadena, asking for your support with urgency. Thank you. James Rissolo, Altadena Community Member in support. Thank you. Roxanne Nazario, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs for HPP CARES, and we are also in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the Assembly Local Government Committee. My name is Azeen Khan Malik. I'm the Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA. I'm a Los Angeles resident with multiple family members, close friends, and staff that lost their homes in both the Pacific Palisades and Altadena. The road to rebuilding those homes in these cherished communities has been and still is arduous, marked by barrier after barrier. But the prospect of a neighbor down the street building one or two or three more units is not one of those barriers. Instead, many displaced households may be asking, how do I pay my mortgage and my rent on a temporary apartment while I try to rebuild? Or how can I afford to rebuild my home when the payout from the California fare plan is not nearly enough to build what was there before? These questions are not theoretical. These are the questions that I attempt to help my mother-in-law, whose fare plan payout is not enough even to build a structure 1,000 square feet smaller than her previous home, and who is trying to pay rent and a mortgage while on a fixed income to answer on a daily basis. They are the questions that I discuss with my uncle, my cousin, and my close friends over dinner. Displaced households are contending with inadequate insurance, lack of resources, and the high cost of construction. Unfortunately, this legislation does not address those barriers. On the contrary, tools that allow homeowners to build an AEDU or two or to split their lot can be a financial lifeline for folks that require additional equity to pay for the cost of rebuilding. This legislation will not only not provide any material assistance to those displaced residents, but may also close off access to a tool that, in the absence of a meaningful dedication of financial resources, may help some residents afford to rebuild their homes. If we seek to help disaster-impacted communities remain intact and flourish, we must help residents rebuild their homes and return. That requires monetary resources and financial assistance, not bans on a modest amount of new housing. We can ban SB 9 and SB 1123 tomorrow, and nothing would change in the material or financial circumstances of those looking to rebuild their homes faster. I would welcome the opportunity to work with Senator Perez and Supervisor Barger, whose vision and tenacity to continually fight for their communities I deeply admire to craft a strategy that achieves those aims. Thank you very much for your time. Good afternoon. My name is Caroline Paulus. I'm an Altadena resident living in a standing structure within the burn zone. When I first moved to Altadena, I was warmly welcomed by my neighbors who were a unique and individualistic and very caring community, and I felt like it was somewhere that I wanted to stay for my entire life. After the fire, which devastated us, everything changed, and the neighbors that used to meet me in my driveway to chat were scattered cities or counties or even states away. While it's true that many people excitingly on my block have begun to rebuild, about half of them haven't even been touched. And that's because they don't see any feasible way to get home, mainly because of the financial reasons that were mentioned. So nominally, the point of SB 1090 is to protect Altadenons from greedy developers. But what I believe it actually does is prevent Altadenons from being able to house themselves and from being able to house each other. For example, even before the fire, to help address the chronic housing crisis that then became acute in Altadena, I co-founded a construction technology company that builds naturally affordable bungalow courts or cottage communities. And this has been a very popular option for people to consider when rebuilding in Altadena to house themselves and others. In fact, actually, this morning I got another call from a neighborhood captain asking if he could rebuild six units on his property to house his neighbors. And I'm not sure what I'm going to be able to tell him, but I hope that the answer is yes. So we are going through an unprecedented moment of pain and change, but I'm asking that in this time of crisis not to block Altadena's real path back home. And for that reason, I urge you to reject SB 1090. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephen Sanzar on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in opposition. Look forward to working with the author.

Chris Manisterian on behalf of Kensington Group and Stone West Homes in opposition. Sean Beto on behalf of Bowes Capital in opposition. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Thank you for the amendments, and we'll work with you on additional ones.

Nolan Gray, California EMB, and on behalf of Council of Info Builders, Bill Casa, Intercity Law Center South Pasadena Residence for Responsible Growth and YIMBY Action respectfully in opposition Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of the Casita Coalition respectfully opposed Thank you

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and I will be supportive of this bill today. And there was a woman that just testified in public comment, Shawna, I think. And I went down to see the Altadena fires for myself, and I spent two hours in her home. Not in Altadena, hi. And she, you know, just to see what happened in the devastation through someone's eyes who was living that, I just have a lot of respect for those that have turned out and shared their experience with us, and I'm happy to support the bill today.

You want to make it a second, Assemblymember Pacheco? Second.

Yeah. Well, one, appreciate, Chair, all of your work on this. I know we've had many discussions about this bill. You know, at the end of the day, this is about bringing fairness to this process. As I mentioned before, there has already been an executive order in place that has provided exemptions for both SB 9, SB 1123, for the Palisades and the Malibu area that has not applied to Altadena. And so my constituents have been patiently and persistently asking for these exemptions to be able to apply to Altadena while we are going through the rebuild process. And so that is exactly what we're trying to do with this measure. Our supervisor, Catherine Barger, has been nothing short of incredible in making sure that we are approaching this housing issue in particular in a way that's mindful and takes into account the needs of the community. She has made sure that folks are able to rebuild ADUs so that they can move into ADUs while they are waiting for the full rebuild of their home. And it's policies like that, those kinds of local policies that are taking into account those local needs that I think are most effective in these situations. So I respectfully ask you all for your aye vote. Thank you.

Cario? Aye. Cario, aye. Ta? Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rubio? Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson?

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to present this bill. One of the most complex topics in California housing policy is our housing element law, also known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or ARENA. I've had many conversations with cities in my district, advocacy groups, and many are frustrated with the current process. Here, time and time again, the planning departments are stretched thin, trying to comply with their requirements under threat of litigation. and it can be very costly. All these cities at the same time going out using the same consultants. Twelve cities alone in my district spent nearly $12 million on consultants in the last arena cycle. And that's also time they can't spend on other actual approving plans. Many of these costs stem from the arduous parcel-by-parcel site inventory analysis. That's a component of the housing element, which meant to analyze the realistic capacity of a city to accommodate its housing allocation. However, the lack of standardization analysis means that every city uses a different method, often even differing between parcels. The result is a process that has frustrated both cities and HCD alike. Meanwhile, over 40,000 affordable housing projects remain unbuilt statewide. We need more realistic targets. Without more support from the state, we are setting our cities up to fail, I worry. I've talked extensively with housing advocates, local governments, developers. the other way our current approach needs to change. At a time when housing costs are squeezing California families, the last thing we need to do is hold up planning efforts from a wall of red tape and ambiguous requirements. We need to empower our cities to take action, and they should be certain that if they make good-faith efforts to follow law, they won't be punished. SB 457 would mandate HCD develop and publish economic models that would allow jurisdictions to quickly and accurately estimate the realistic development of any given site at any level of affordability, all grounded in real data. To be clear, this bill does not intend to tell cities how to zone it. It does not exempt cities from developing their housing element with input from the public and does not remove requirements that cities affirmatively further fair housing. We've had incredibly productive conversations with the opposition. I'm confident we can address their concerns in collaboration with the committee staff as the bill moves forward. By providing cities with the tools to successfully plan for their housing allocation, we can unlock local capacity to focus on delivering real results for communities. Here today to testify is Michael Lane, the State Policy Director for SPUR. Mr. Chair and members, Michael Lane with SPUR, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. The site inventory analysis is a component of the housing element by which a city or county demonstrates it has sufficient land, properly zoned and realistically developable to accommodate its assigned housing allocation. However, the ambiguity of what constitutes realistic capacity has been a persistent source of frustration for both HCD and local jurisdictions, generating conflict and litigation without improving the quality of site assessments. To address this problem, SB 457 would require HCD to identify and approve specific economic models to assess site capacity and probability of development. This approach will save HCV considerable time on review and give local jurisdictions predictability and certainty in the review process. Use of the formula would be voluntary and those jurisdictions that properly apply it would be found to be compliant and insulated from lawsuits arguing that their housing plan does not provide sufficient capacity For these reasons, we respectfully request an aye vote.

Stephen Sensor with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Nolan Gray, California MB in support. Thank you.

Hi, Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of CBIA. We want to thank the author for his leadership on this issue. We appreciate him working with us and we anticipate reaching consensus.

You have a second? Motion by Assemblymember Pacheco, seconded by Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you. I would definitely answer an aye vote.

Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? No. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Ward? Wilson?

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Pleased to present on SB 594. I want to begin by thanking you and your staff for all your work on this bill. will be accepting the committee's proposed technical amend. This bill would allow federally recognized Indian tribes to receive the same information from short-term rental facilitators as currently provided in statute to city and county governments. Under current law, city and county governments can enact ordinances to require that short-term rental facilitators provide information, such as addresses and zip codes on short-term rental properties in their jurisdiction. This information is used by city and county governments to help facilitate the collection of their transient occupancy taxes. However, short-term rental properties are not located only within these typical jurisdictions, but also within sovereign tribal lands, although on a much smaller scale. Tribes have the authority, as we know, to enact and administer TOT on their properties, but however, the current statute excludes them from their right to access this information. Without this access, tribal governments have a more difficult time administering and collecting such assessments. As you well know, they are very important to funding essential governmental services, including public safety, environmental protection, and fire and emergency response. This bill extends existing law, ensuring that these governments have the same powers as cities and counties have under the Facilitator Act of 2025, and can access this vital assessment information. I'm joined today by Anthony Purnell, Vice Chairman of the Tribal Council for the Agua Calientes Band of Cahuilla Indians. And available for technical questions is Rashaan Tilford, Deputy General Counsel for the same tribal government. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chairman Carrillo and members of the Committee on Local Government. My name is Anthony Purnell. I serve as the vice chairman of the Algo Caliente Band of Coy Indians. For those of you who may not know, our reservation is located in the Coachella Valley and share boundaries with the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage, as well as parts of unincorporated Riverside County. Algo Caliente is proud to sponsor SB 594, a bill that is fundamentally about parity and fairness. Under current law, California city and county governments may receive limited information, such as the address of a property, from short-term rental facilitators. This information is vital for city and county governments to impose and administer transient occupancy tax on those short-term rental properties located within their jurisdictions. However, short-term rental properties are not just located in cities and counties. They can also be located on tribal land. And while federally recognized California tribes may lawfully exercise their sovereign authority to enact and administer transient occupancy taxes on lodging facilities located on tribal lands, state law currently excludes tribes from receiving the same information from short-term rental facilitators that can be provided to city and county governments. As a result, it is much more difficult for tribal governments like mine to receive the information they need to administer and collect transient occupancy taxes for these properties. Tribal transient occupancy taxes revenue are vital for the funding and essential government services, including public safety, fire and emergency response, infrastructure, environmental protection and tourism management. These services benefit the reservation community, consisting of both tribal and non-tribal members, as well as visitors to the state of California. SB 594 would only apply to federally recognized tribes located in California and only when the tribe imposes a transient occupancy tax. It does not expand regulatory authority or alter jurisdictional boundaries. It simply recognizes tribal governments for the purpose of administering a tax function equivalent to that of cities and counties. As the bill promotes parity, fairness, revenue integrity, and advances California's policy for cooperative intergovernmental relations, I respectfully ask for your support today. I'm happy to answer any questions. We have with me is our Tribal Deputy General Counsel, Rahsaan Tilford, and for any further questions.

Yeah, Julie Malinowski, Bob, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, pleased to support.

Any comments?

Not comments.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I will be supporting the bill.

Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo? Aye. Ta? Johnson? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ransom? Ransom? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Stephanie? Ward? Wilson?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff and the chair for the work on this bill. Senate Bill 922 upholds a local government's long-standing ability to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair caused by public service operations such as waste hauling. Local governments are responsible for maintaining most local streets and roads, heavy-duty service vehicles, including those providing essential solid waste and recycling services, regularly use local streets and contribute significantly to pavement deterioration. For decades, and I repeat, for decades, it has been a standard practice to integrate the cost of repairing the damage into rates, fees, or franchise agreements associated with providing those utility services. A recent court decision in Rogers v. the City of Redlands disrupted this longstanding practice. This bill clarifies that the relevant code section prohibiting weight-based fees for the privilege of using local streets or highways does not apply to these public service fees. And as a result, this bill restores what was there for decades. Cities, labor groups, and service providers like waste haulers are in joint support of this effort. Waste haulers, the primary payers of this cost, are in support of the bill. They want certainty along with the cities and the counties. Because there's a difference between a fully loaded car at 4,000 pounds and a fully loaded utility truck at 60,000 pounds. That weight damages streets, and this bill just allows local governments to recover some money against that damage. This bill is not a backdoor way for cities and counties to impose new fees or taxes. One opposition letter said this provided an unchecked expansion of local authority. No, it just goes back to where it was for 35 years and allows that to continue. It will not impose additional construction or development fees. It simply upholds the longstanding practice of integrating road maintenance costs into utility service provider agreements. The bill is sponsored by the League of Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the rural county representatives of California. And here with me to testify in support is Ben Trifo, representing the League of California Cities, and Arthur Wylene with the rural county representatives of California for technical questions. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ben Trippo with the League of California Cities, proud to co-sponsor SB 922. SB 922 is about clarifying a longstanding and common sense practice used by cities and counties across the city of California. Everyday essential public services like solid waste collection use heavy service vehicles while on local streets. These public service activities lead to a significant deterioration of pavement conditions, resulting in ongoing repair, which cities and counties are responsible for. For decades, cities and counties have worked collaboratively with service providers such as waste haulers to account for the street maintenance impacts of these vehicles through existing rates fees and franchise agreements These agreements are familiar predictable and transparent for both local governments and service providers However a recent decision in the court case Rogers v City of Redlands created uncertainty around this established practice

Thank you. Please.

Thank you. Those in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Thank you. See no more support. Any primary opposition? See no primary or anybody in opposition? Committee members, comments, questions, a motion? Assemblymember Pacheco?

I just appreciate all the support, although I wish I'd heard Santa Cruz and Downey in that, along with the others. But I think there's broad-based support. This is a good bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Ta, no.

Johnson, no.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Wilson?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank Senator Durazo for letting me jump in ahead of her. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate all of you being here today. It's a long, long day. So good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am pleased here to present Senate Bill 1274. I'd like to start again by thanking the committee staff for working with me and accepting the committee amendments. California is home to a small number of unique cities, which have a higher daytime workforce population than they do at night and even more so than residential. These cities also often have a higher rate of industrial zoning than residential zoning. In these cities, the number of jobs exceed the number of residents. The number of people that come into their cities, it's into the thousands. Each day, hundreds of thousands of workers and their heavy vehicles enter the city in the morning and leave late at night. As you can imagine, this heavy traffic causes extensive heavy wear and tear on the roads, making transportation difficult not only for the workers and the businesses, but for the residents in the cities that surround these communities. Unfortunately, because many transportation funding formulas rely heavily upon the city's residential population, industrial cities in California do not have the funds they need to keep their roads aligned with state safety standards. Senate Bill 1274 creates a new definition in state code to legitimize industrial cities. These cities are unique. Their transportation needs are unique. Their housing elements are unique. Their daily population changes are unique. This uniqueness should be recognized by the state and state law. This bill does not modify existing formulas or change any requirements that might impact existing formulas. It does not manipulate existing zoning designations or advocate either way on future development projects. The intent of the bill is solely focused on the unique status of current industrial cities and their communities and empowering their future advocacy on transportation funding formulas. With me today to testify is Duncan McFedridge and on behalf of the Coalition of Industrial Cities, sponsoring the bill is Josh Nelson, City Manager for the City of Industry. And when appropriate, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Anybody else that wants to add any support please take your name affiliation and position on the bill Rene Bobadilla City Manager City of Santa Fe Springs and we support this bill

We have a motion. Assemblymember Johnson. Seeing no one else coming in support is primary opposition on the bill. Seeing none, no opposition at all. Assemblymember Pacheco.

You're welcome, 150%. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. My city's not here, but I have the city of Irwindale, which also fits the criteria. I used to represent the city of industry, and I worked for the city of Irwindale at one point. So I would love to be a co-author as well. And with that, I can make a motion. Second. Second.

Yes. Thank you so very much, and I appreciate your support. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Rubio?

Stephanie?

Ward, well said.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rule is all open.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, did you say 1085?

Okay.

Hi.

Okay. 1085, don't want to mix it up with that. Okay.

And you have three other measures, so please proceed.

Mr. Chair and members, my name is Debbie Michael, and I'm a legislative affairs representative for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. EB Mudd is pleased to be here today as the sponsor of SB 1085. We are grateful to Senator Durazzo for authoring this important statewide measure on water supply assessments. I'd also like to take a moment to thank the chair and committee staff. In 2001, there were two bills that furthered the link between local government land use planning and water supply planning. Known as the Show Me the Water bills, EB Mud co-sponsored both SB 610 Costa and SB 221 Kewel. One of those bills is why we're here today, SB 610, and the water supply assessment process. The water supply assessment focuses on identifying the water supply needed for large-scale developments. Once the assessment is completed, it goes to the city or county to inform their land use decisions on the project. Early coordination with project developers through the WSA process ensures that the water supplier can highlight the infrastructure, improvements, and related costs that may be necessary. Any conservation measures in place and whether recycled water is available to serve certain projects. Without the WSA, those discussions would happen further along in the land use process. SB 1085 allows the WSA process to continue even if the large-scale development isn't subject to CEQA. Recent CEQA exemptions have called into question whether a WSA is still required. So the legislature at the time this original policy was put in place in 2001 did not contemplate CEQA exemptions for 500 dwelling unit projects. SB 1085 modernizes the water supply assessment statute and recognizes its importance especially in light of the impacts of climate change we respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1085

Good afternoon. Alvarado Redondo on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. On behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in support. Good afternoon, Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Subbers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support. Good afternoon, Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Jack Wurston from Nausman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Elevenheim Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Brian Sanders at the City of Sacramento and also on behalf of my colleague Ryan O'Jacken at the Sacramento Regional Water Authority, all in support. Thank you. All in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mariela Rocha with leadership council for justice and accountability in support. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks in support. Good afternoon. Kyle Jones on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Clean Water Action in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Paul Olson on behalf of the California Special District Association in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Unite here in international in strong support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members. Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council here in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I just wanted to thank Senator Durazzo for bringing this bill forward. Like many of us that have served in local government for a very long time, this is a critical planning tool to economic development. It's stunted without it. without it, not having critical water identified as certainty in the process before you bring a major development forward is literally the definition of insanity for any city. So I just want to say thank you. This is smart, it is responsible, it's refreshing, and it's a great way to ensure that infrastructure is supported with responsible growth. So thank you. And I'll move the bill, Chair.

It was President, a second.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We did that?

Okay.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical and capacity programs and advocates for policies and delivers capital to create and preserve affordable housing for low-income families. As the senator was mentioning, the U.S. is facing a housing industry-wide insurance crisis with an acute and unique impact to the affordable housing sector in California. An analysis of over 130 low-income housing tax credit properties within the Enterprise Community Partners portfolio found that insurance expense increases averaging 70% over the last five years. For some providers, we have seen increases as high as 500%. Housing providers are facing limited availability significant premium and deductible cost increases and reductions in the scope and quality of coverage within property liability and billage risk insurance Unlike market housing in which owners can absorb increased operational costs affordable housers are required to keep rents affordable and their missions to do so, and they are also generally operating on very low, very narrow margins. Affordable housing financing is a carefully balanced act of underwriting, and when a cost like insurance deviates significantly from the projections, it can create financial distress for many of the properties, putting at risk thousands of units and also the investment that the state has made. This is why SB 1170 is such a critical piece of legislation. Providing alternative risk financing options presents an opportunity to address the existing challenges and can also provide different ways of addressing the crisis in front of us. For these reasons, we ask for your support and your approval of this policy. Thank you.

Moved by Stephanie.

Second by Ramos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just ask for your support.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Rubio?

Repio, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Ward, Wilson?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Last year, I authored SB 707, which comprehensively modernized Ralph Brown Act rules for government bodies to improve transparency and allow public access to their governments. And I worked with several of you on this bill. The bill allowed governments to better serve their communities and increase the public's access to meetings, especially for disabled, working, and non-English-speaking communities. That bill, 707, included language access provisions related to the translation of agendas, human translators, and conducting additional outreach that are slated to go into effect immediately on July 1st. Now, in effect, due to concerns from language access advocates, this bill, as recently amended, removes the language access provisions, adds findings, and adds an urgency clause.

I want to start by commending Senator Durazzo for her tireless efforts on the Brown Act over the past couple of years. The Brown Act is often a challenging and unforgiving space given the critical importance of public meetings, public accessibility, and the real-world challenges of local agencies. Last year, the legislature passed comprehensive modernization of the Brown Act through Senate Bill 707. That bill was authored by Senator Durazzo and shaped by members of this committee and consultants in both houses. SB 1187 responds to concerns raised by some advocates and some local agencies regarding the language accessibility provisions in that law. SB 1187 removes prescriptive standards, mandates, and other directive language for translations and language accessibility at local meetings. Nothing in this bill prevents local agencies from providing language accessibility at public meetings. Cities, counties, and special districts are already providing, voluntarily providing translated meeting agendas, live interpretation, alternative language captions, and other accommodations of language accessibility at meetings. SB 1187 is a helpful change to the law and a thoughtful response to the concerns raised by advocates on both sides. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Those that want to add on, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Thank you. See no one else in support. Is there any primary opposition? Seeing opposition, we have a motion by Assemblymember Johnson. Seconded by Pacheco. Committee members, comments, questions? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you for presenting your bill. We will be adding an urgency clause as the bill leaves committee, and I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended. Secretary, please call the roll.

Curio?

Curio, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Johnson?

Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Ransom? Rubio?

Rubio, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Ward? Wilson? That measure is out 7-0. Bill Salk, congratulations. You do have one more bill. The last bill of the day.

And that is agenda item number 27, SB 1361.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here to speak in support of SB 1361 as a bill sponsor. Metro is leading the nation's largest capital program, investing $120 billion over 40 years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent and to meet the state climate, VMT reduction and housing goals. LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive federal, state and local funding and build transit projects throughout the region. We have a long history of working very cooperatively with our municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane infrastructure and transit signal priority. LA Metro did not take a position on SB 79. However, we believe that SB 79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County. By linking increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit projects, transit stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground. Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects. SB 1361 removes the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis solely of opposition to the increased density requirements in SB 79. We believe this will better support our common goals of advancing both housing and transit in the state of California. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to taking any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction and Trades Council. I'd like to paraphrase the words of a friend of mine who sits in the back of this committee. They often says housing is the question of our generation. I would also throw in that the transportation that supports that housing is the other half of that equation. And 1361 seeks to make sure that we're able to provide that housing, but also the transit projects that are going to serve that housing development. As we continue to look at the impact of greenhouse gas and a changing climate, it's important that we're able to coordinate and to meet that need by providing the transit opportunities to move people to jobs. And 1361 seeks to address that. I'd ask for your support and happy to answer any questions at the end. Thank you.

Nolan Gray, California, M.B. in support. Thank you. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Connor Gossman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Not primary, just a me too. Mr. Chair, Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Burbank and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. Is there any evidence that cities have actually been doing what you're saying? I say this because I live by what's going to be the Southeast Gateway line which is in the city of Downey and all the cities surrounding me are supportive of this light rail. When I was mayor in Downey I spoke in favor of the light rail. The cities have actually been trying to get funding and they're as the analysis points out they're trying to obtain federal funding. So I'm curious to know if there actual evidence that cities are trying to get out of complying with SB 79 by not building light rails when I know in my district it wanted it needed and the cities don't support SB 79, but they're supportive of the light rail and they know why they need to have it. So I'm curious as to where the evidence is as to why it's needed.

Yes. And so to answer your question directly, Assemblymember, you know, the city, we have had some communication with the city of Paramount. In particular, they had been really much at the forefront of pushing for that federal funding. And because of the implications of SB 79, they have an existing transit stop and they would have another one with the Southeast Gateway line you mentioned. they had pulled back from that push for federal funding. You know, they are still supportive of the project. But another example we have in the region is the city of Burbank, who actually sent us a letter saying that they would like us to go back and redo the environmental process for a bus rapid transit corridor in their area. And that they, because it explicitly said, because of SB 79. As you know, the SB 79 is effective as of today. We've had a number of projects that have gone through our board to choose a locally preferred alternative. Our regional MPO, SCAG, has put out the maps now, and folks are reacting to that. So we do anticipate not only what we've seen now, but potential in the future. And I just want to add, as the senator said, this is a very narrow tool, I think, hopefully as our L.A. regional members know. Metro tries to work very, very closely with cities to advance these projects. We work with our cities and the region to really push for federal funding, for state funding. And this would just be a narrow tool for us to use if any specific conditions arise in the future. I know the city of Norwalk also opposed this bill as well. And the city of Norwalk is in my assembly district. I don't remember. There may be a stop in the city. I don't think there. Actually, I don't think there may be. There's a stop in the city of. At least this with the southeast gateway line. I know there's definitely going to be a stop in Downey, which is the south side of Downey, and then there's one in Paramount, and it goes all the way to Artesia. I'm very familiar with the sign because, again, I was on local government. But I guess I'm just trying to understand what happened from when I left city council, which was only four years ago, to now when all the cities were supportive. In fact, the cities recently just came to visit me about a year ago, making sure that I wrote a letter in support for them to receive funding. And then I've seen them go to D.C. to try to get federal funding. So I know the cities really, really want this, at least near my assembly district or in my assembly district. And I read the letter from Norwalk and their concern is they always feel like they're left out of the conversations and they're just being told what to do and they're not being included in the conversations And I remember that was like one of the issues that I had when I was a city council I felt like we weren involved in the conversations when we should all be working together And so my concern is we not working together but I trying to figure out also what happened where Metro now feels that cities aren supportive of light rails

And I know my cities were not supportive of SB 79, but I know they are supportive of the light rail, and they understand that there will be high-density housing near the light rail. And, in fact, in some locations it makes sense. The location in Downey, it does make sense, and I know the city was looking into building housing near the light rail. the stop in Downey. But those are all my questions. Thank you.

I'll make one more comment. So actually, in all fairness, none of my cities reached out to me personally. So I will be supporting your bill today. But I'm going to just check in with my cities before it gets to, just to make sure I get input from them. I feel like I would do a disservice to my cities by not reaching out to them. So I will be supporting your bill today, but I will be reserving my vote when it gets on the floor. I appreciate you. I know we haven't had an opportunity to speak, but I would really, really love, maybe we can talk later, because I feel like we should all work together. So thank you so much, and thank you.

Senator, would you like to close? Respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you, everybody.

For item number 27, SB 1361, the motion is do pass. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta. Ta. Not voting. Johnson. Johnson. No. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Ransom. Rubio. Rubio. Aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie. Aye. Ward. Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone, all members.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I am here today to present SB 9A3, a bill that authorizes the Port of San Diego to utilize job order contracting or JOC for their repair, remodeling, and repetitive work. The Port of San Diego is a special district spanning 34 miles along the San Diego Bay and across five cities. It manages a wide way of infrastructure, including 23 public parks, six museums, two cargo terminals, and two cruise ships. Currently, when maintenance is needed on the port's property, the port must go out for competitive bidding for each individual project. This can result in major delays and can interrupt port operations. Instead, job order contracting establishes long-term contracts with pre-qualified contractors. This reduces the time and resources spent on procurement activities, offers flexibility in project scope and timing, and is particularly beneficial for addressing unplanned or emergency repairs efficiently. The legislature has granted this authority to other special districts. Specifically, this bill does the following. Establishes a pilot program allowing the Port of San Diego to use. JOC requires that the maximum amount of dollar that may be awarded on any single job order not exceed $1 million requires that contracts may be executed for an initial contract term of no more than 12 months and may be extended or renewed for two subsequent annual terms. Sunsets the pilot program January 1, 2037, among other provisions. We've had several productive conversations with labor organizations, including the building trades and the ILWU. We've made a lot of progress and will continue in those discussions here with me today is Jonathan clay on behalf of the bill sponsors San Diego unified port district Thank you

All right. Thank you so much. Anyone who would like to support the bill, can you please come up?

Thank you so much. And are there any witnesses in opposition? I see none. Anyone else who oppose the bill? I see none. Any question? From the committee member? Okay.

All right. Roll call vote, please.

All right, so we have the next. Okay, so that will be on call. 321. And then the next bill, SB 1115 from Senator Rove.

My name is Jason Britt. I'm the County Administrator for Tulare. I am here today to ask the committee to support SB 1115. Tulare County has been experiencing varying degrees of disruption to regular business because cemetery boards have not been able to conduct orderly meetings, have a quorum, or simply have individuals who take their roles as a cemetery trustee seriously. On a variety of occasions, this disruption has threatened the district's ability to maintain adequate insurance coverage, provide for proper and correct burials, and carry out the services they are tasked to provide. In most instances, the dysfunction starts with an individual cemetery board member, and because no mechanism exists to replace that individual, over time the board itself devolves into dysfunction. I would like to point out that cemetery districts are different from independent special districts where the Board of Supervisors appoint cemetery trustees. They are not elected. SB 1115 is the middle ground in a system that forces the County Board of Supervisors to either do nothing while dysfunction threatens the respectable burial of the dead or completely take over a district that might otherwise self-correct. 1115 gives Tulare County a narrow and streamlined option to remove an individual trustee and to appoint a replacement to ensure the district can function effectively and optimally for the constituents they serve I would also like to emphasize that this bill as it is today applies only to Tulare County I thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your support I be happy to answer any questions. Chair and committee members, Israel Sotelo, Chief of Staff, Tulare County Board of Supervisors. Thank you. We share the committee's desire to safeguard the independent nature of cemetery districts in Tulare County and appreciate your thoughtful amendments to that effect. We're confident that the for-cause requirement for removal of a trustee by the Board of Supervisors, as well as the inclusion of the existing public protest process, provides the transparency and public input our constituents are accustomed to and the transparency they deserve. Our aim is to ensure that the business of cemetery districts stays in the hands of independent boards comprised of individuals well-suited to take on the task of laying to rest the dearly departed. The county has no interest in assuming control of cemetery districts, which is why we request this narrow option that would allow either the district themselves or the board to remove a dysfunctional or disengaged trustee before their dysfunction threatens the district's ability to operate effectively. We respectfully ask for your support and happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon. I'm Marcus Dettweiler with the California Special Districts Association, here to respectfully urge your no vote on SB 1115, as it will not be amended to address our concerns. SB 1115 would improperly grant the Tulare County Board of Supervisors the inappropriate, unprecedented, and perpetual power to remove individual public cemetery district trustees. This is important because it violates safeguards between independent public cemetery districts and dependent public cemetery districts. It would have likely made a situation worse in Tulare County, and it ignores the fact that existing law was adequate to remedy the situation in Tulare County. So SB 1115, or rather, independent public cemetery district trustees are appointed to fixed terms. Contrast this to dependent special district governing officials who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Dependent districts governing officials, therefore, are sort of expected to be under some sort of level of influence of the appointing authority, whereas independent public cemetery district trustees are expected to exhibit their independent discretion without political fear or favor. SB 1115 upsets this intentionally crafted balance between independent and dependent public cemetery districts by subjecting their service on these Tulare cemetery districts to the favor of the Tulare supervisors, something that they can revoke should the individual district trustees exhibit their independent judgment and make decisions that are within the best interest of the public cemetery district, but not necessarily in alignment with the Tulare supervisors. SB 1115 also ignores the fact that existing law was sufficient to remediate the situation that occurred in Tulare County. Tulare County supervisors leveraged existing health and safety code to depose the former board of trustees at the Tulare County Public Cemetery District and were able to take remediating actions when they did so. This included the firing of the former general manager, who was the one who was in charge of the maintenance of the grounds and the improper interment procedures being observed at the Tulare Public Cemetery District. We also have the benefit of hindsight and being able to evaluate that if the Tulare County Board of Supervisors had this power they may have likely targeted an individual serving as a trustee who believed themselves to be a whistleblower having identified improper financial transactions having occurred at the district. For these reasons, we would respectfully urge your no vote on SB 1115.

Absolutely, sir. Thank you, Madam—or excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your—and your staff's amendment to make an additional backstop so that we don't have the issues that were addressed by the opposition. this when it was when it was admitted or said by the opposition completely inappropriate, unprecedented I would submit to you that what happened at the Tulare County Cemetery District and what happened to the loved ones that are buried there and all the problems that we had that is inappropriate and completely unprecedented with any type of district so with your additional amendment your staff's suggestion and me accepting that amendment creates an additional backstop other than the due process and the notification in the appeal process. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Max Dribler. I'm a city planner and a policy manager at California Yimby. California's ADU reforms to lead the nation, having spurred the construction of tens of thousands of new units annually without disrupting the look and feel of existing neighborhoods. The fee exemption for ADUs under 750 square feet has contributed to this success by lowering costs for homeowners. However, one policy design issue remains. The structure of the fee exemption creates a cliff where the 751st square foot can put a homeowner on the hook for up to tens of thousands of dollars in impact fees. This reduces design flexibility, discourages family-sized units, and can make it harder to build units for seniors with disabilities. SB 1117 addresses this issue by waiving the first 750 square feet of impact fees for the first two ADUs on a property, so homeowners only have to pay fees on the square footage in excess of the fee-exempt area. This is a straightforward, sensible policy reform that will help build the kind of housing we need in the places that we need it. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulating Planning and Policy. Thank you. Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, Internet Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate in support. Thank you.

Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of the Casita Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. Respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1117. What this code section was, this policy was set in 2019 by Senator Wachowski's bill SB 13. It gives discounts to homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, and it goes against the Mitigation Fee Act, which has set the boundaries on how the fees are determined, how they're collected, and how they're spent, and all of the accountability that goes with it. As we pointed out seven years ago during that discussion, where these provisions were contemplated, this statewide issue that we trying to address deserves a statewide solution and backfill and rather than just having it to be funded by the constituents of local agencies that may not always be in the best position to do so many of our agencies are heavily reliant on the impact fees to produce the infrastructure required to service the increasing density. The more that ADUs are successful, the more calls for service and the more capacity will be needed on that infrastructure. Often with limited access to revenue, special districts don't enjoy general taxes or sales tax, but are still obligated to service these new constituents. In order to have sustainable growth, we find that we can't separate the increase in housing from the remainder of the ecosystem required to have it, which is your parks and fire stations and fire engines and libraries and such. So as we plan for this growth, it should also come with a plan to fund the services and the infrastructure required for that. So we applaud the efforts to tackle the statewide problem from multiple angles. We'd also like to see the solutions for the infrastructure required with the same multiple angles. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Gerden on behalf of the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. First, I wanted to thank the committee for the amendments that is helpful in addressing our concerns around AB 956, which is moving. But we do remain concerned about the foundational issue, which is the reality is the impact fees go to providing the cost of infrastructure and public services that we need to support residential growth. And although the proponents argue that this would increase the amount of larger ADU developments, that could be a reality. but also at the same time, the problem is that the reasons that ADUs aren't being built isn't because of impact fees. It's because of the ability to get financing and to cover those upfront costs that you need to have. Now, impact fees are a very, very small portion of the development of ADUs. So whether that's going to actually increase the amount of development of larger scale ADUs is to be determined. I also think that it's important to acknowledge that all the fees are set based on evidence and the cost of service. Just like developers have to pay labor and the cost of materials, local governments have to do that as well. And so a lot of times when you see these impact fees, it is to cover the cost of providing that service. And the need for those services do not go away just because you push the impact fee onto someone else. So that is a challenge local governments are struggling with. The reality is if we don't have those funds to cover it, until we find a way to backfill the upfront costs, especially as local governments continue to struggle with their general funds, as we've seen across the state. We need to find a way to support these, whether that's through state funding or through another route that is helpful for local governments to ensure we provide the public services and the infrastructure we need to provide equitable, thriving, and livable communities. So with that, we respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Mark Newberg California State Association of Counties want to align our comments with those provided by Cal Cities and CSDA We also opposed to this bill Thank you Good afternoon Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the City of Belmont, Burbank, Foster City, Redwood City, San Marcos, Thousand Oaks, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County representatives of California, also in opposition. Good afternoon, Chair and members of Beth Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. We have an opposing less amended position. We do continue to have conversations with the author and stakeholders on this bill, so we just look forward to continuing these conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. I want to thank Senator Cervantes. I think that this is a double-edged sword. ADU bills are an incredible bite at the apple at addressing affordability in our housing crisis. So thank you for doing that, especially from where we come from. We know that this is popular across our whole state, but back home, it's also very important. One of the things I think I want to clarify, and I have spoken to opposition, is that I think we have to be clear that by cutting this fee and making it more affordable to do this, we're cutting a fee that is counted on for existing services. So as we build denser communities, our existing services are not going to stay the same. And I think it's really important that we have to just note that. I am in support of the ADUs, but I'm also concerned that this is going to have an impact on, as you heard, some of the opposition, our education, our public safety, all the infrastructure special districts. So I am going to be supporting today, but I did ask the opposition very directly what's the compromise, how do we get there, and I'm not sure that there's a magic wand that fixes that, but I want to note that we all should be concerned about the existing services shrinking as we're cutting those fees. Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Eddie Torres. I'm the Policy Director with the Oakland Coalition for American Justice. For nearly two decades, IC4AJ has engaged in policy advocacy, community organizing and education, and rapid response to the ICE and Border Patrol operations in San Bernardino and Riverside County. We're a proud sponsor of SB 1367. The urgency of SB 1367 is underscored by the well-documented inhuman conditions that persist across the immigrant detention system. According to Detention Watch Network, more than 68,000 people are currently detained in ICE custody, the highest number in U.S. history. which is driven by the rapid expansion of detention infrastructure. This growth has directly worsened conditions inside of facilities where advocates and detained individuals consistently report overcrowding, medical neglect, lack of adequate food, and unsafe living conditions. The Trump administration has spent over $500 million in contracts with warehouses across the country. Beyond warehouse-style facilities, immigration detention has increasingly expanded onto a wide range of privately owned land across the United States. federal contracts with for-profit prison companies have enabled the use of former prisons, county jails, rural compounds, and even retrofitted commercial or industrial site for immigration enforcement. Facilities like the Adelanto Ice Processing Center, a privately operated detention center built on remote desert land, illustrate how private land is leveraged to isolate and detain immigrants far from legal resources and community support. Just last month, the federal government passed a $70 billion spending package for ICE's detention and deportation operations through 2029. In the IE, we have already seen a significant increase in ICE and Border Patrol operations over the past several weeks. The threat of detention expansion is not theoretical. We are seeing it in practice today. SB 1367 says that these projects should not bypass state and local oversight. When detention facilities move into industrial areas, the increased demands on roads, utilities, emergency services, public resources, while providing relatively few long-term community benefits. They also expose neighboring workers and residents to increased surveillance and federal enforcement activity that undermines trust in local governments. California has repeatedly affirmed that our state should not facilitate the expansion of immigration detention. This bill aligns local land use decisions with these values, while respecting the authority of cities and counties to make informed planning decisions. Our communities deserve transparency, Local governments deserve clear authority. Residents deserve a voice before detention infrastructure is built in their neighborhoods. SB 1367 ensures that California's planning process reflects our values of accountability, public participation, and responsible land use. On behalf of immigrant families throughout California, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Hello, Jose Madera from the Pasadena Community Job Star, which is part of the National Day Labor Organizing Network, in support of this bill. Hello, Nancy Mesa, also with the National Daily Labor Organizing Network, and Nilon in support. Hola, mi nombre es José David y vengo en representación de la ley 1103. Muchas gracias. Hi, Cal Soto with the National Daily Organizing Network attorney and also in support of the bill. Thank you.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Blanca Flores Morales. Del Comité 403 y apoyo a esta ley.

Good afternoon. My name is Fatima Garcia, Executive Director of Sembrando Semillas here in Sacramento, in strong support. Thank you.

Cristina Álvarez, Sembrando Semillas, State Labor Workers Center, here in Sacramento, in support.

Aye.

Ta, no.

Johnson, no.

Ramos?

Ramos, aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I'll be as quick as possible here. A bunch of colleagues lined up. Their time is precious as well here. So if I may, SB 1283, this is an electric vehicle infrastructure expansion bill. California leads the nation in this technology, as you know. Ambiguity in existing law has prevented local governments from streamlining the approval of EV charging stations to have official additions. So that is what this bill is ultimately about. It is about also on-site storage and the ability for us to meet our goals across the rest of the state. The state still needs hundreds of thousands of EV stations for us to achieve our 2025 zero emission goals. I'm sorry, to achieve our emission goals. SB 1283 expands existing requirements for ministerial approval of EV charging stations to include essential additions like canopies and on-site energy storage, which is particularly important when you are far from the city centers. I have with me a couple of support witnesses, Reed Addis from the Electric Vehicle Charging Association and Bill McGovern from the Coalition for Clean Air. And when you are ready, sir, we will be very brief with our comments.

Thank you, Chair and members.

Thank you. Anybody that wants to order in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Seeing no one else coming in support, is there any primary opposition? Seeing none, we have a motion by Johnson. Second by Pacheco. Seeing no one else coming in opposition, would you like to close another?

Thank you for working on this measure to continue expediting the EV infrastructure that we need in this state.

With a motion and second, the motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 25, SB 1283, the motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Ta?

Johnson?

Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ramos, aye. Ransom, Rubio, Stephanie, Ward, Wilson. Measure is on call. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. Senator Stern, you are next. We're going to go to agenda item number 31, SB 1423.

You can't object. No standing.

Senator, please.

Am I accepting amendments today or did you do I have amendments for you to accept?

I don't even think I can accept them.

Okay.

I guess I'll turn to lead witnesses in support.

No, Isabella. Sorry, you're after 630.

In the interest of time, I'm going to be super short.

Thank you. Anybody who wants to add on, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

They might be up. Hey.

and is Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. By way of background, I used to be a GIS data specialist before I got involved with legislature, and I also became familiar with some of these data sets as the Assistant Director of Division of Land Resources Protection and in various positions at Resources Agency and Department of Conservation. CBIA opposes SB 1423 because it could result in misguided planning constraints that limit housing opportunities opportunities in the midst of a severe housing shortage. The bill elevates specific data sets for planning documents. In many cases, these data sets were not intended for this purpose and could misinform the public and decision makers. Notably, the data sets appear to be intended to identify where not to build using broad inaccurate strokes. SB 1423 conflates hazards and risks, failing to recognize that safe development can occur in specified areas through mitigation measures. and compliance with existing building codes. For example, the bill includes the 500-year floodplain maps, which don't account for certified levies and other safety measures that would make those areas perfectly safe to build, such as downtown Sacramento, where we're sitting right now. Additionally, The description of CAL FIRE's maps explicitly state that they show hazard, not risk, and do not account for mitigation such as modern building codes, vegetation control, or previous burned areas. Additionally, the description administratively, SB 1423 just recreates the wheel by taking existing data from jas.data.ca.gov. So there's already a centralized data source at the California Department of Technology. This bill would just move that over to LCI and then have LCI provide technical assistance to local governments, even though they weren't the entity that generated those data. Finally, the standardization ignores years of work by GIS experts at various state agencies who have already created the California Open Data Publishing Handbook, which creates minimum quality standards for geographic information systems that are added to GIS.ca.data. Thank you very much. CBI opposed this bill and encourages a no vote.

Thank you. I just want to acknowledge the opposition's testimony and pledge to sit down with them before we get too much further down the path. I do think there are some valid points raised in terms of being overly specific about exactly what data sets we're calling out, for example, to only, say, look at very high fire severity zone data, which I wrote the law to establish those maps. There is actually a data commons that we've been developing at CAL FIRE that does take into account landscape, level resilience, fuel breaks, you know, where these things may be. So should the bill pass today, I do want to say that it will evolve before, hopefully, with the chair's input and this committee's input to make this actually a useful tool and not one that could be either misused, misconstrued, or otherwise get in the way of our housing goals. So I'll make that pledge today. Look forward to sitting with my good friend Ben here, and we'll get into it. But in the meantime, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Ta, not voting.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I really appreciate those very, very kind words. It's bittersweet. As I finish up my last bills and as I finish up the hearings on the last bills. So thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 1116, which is a follow-up to a bill that I authored a couple years ago, the Starter Home Revitalization Act, which created a streamlined ministerial pathway to build small-scale housing, up to 10-unit projects on infill site. First, I'd like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work, and I will be accepting the—well, and a big part because they accepted the amendment outline at the beginning of page 9 of the committee analysis, so thank you for that. These amendments provide oversight relief for local governments and clarify once a parcel is subdivided using the provisions of the Starter Home Act, any remainder parcel cannot be further subdivided. These amendments were offered to committee to help address concerns raised by local government representatives. While these amendments don't fully address their concerns, I remain open to hearing alternatives that balance their needs, so long as they balance the need to reduce unnecessary burden or guardrails that prevent this bill's goals. It's really very simple. We're taking small infill sites and allowing increased density so that they can be good starter homes, or about 1,700-square-foot homes. That said, since the initial bill's enactment in 2024, we've seen a really strong interest in using the details of the bill, but there are implementation challenges that limited its full potential. This bill reflects two years of real-world data and feedback from local government planners, builders, and housing advocates. The original bill created the framework, but differences in how the law was interpreted created implementation challenges and made projects infeasible. SB 1116 makes several important changes. One, it clarifies development standards, such as height, setback, and density, to prevent local rules from reducing the allowable housing. It reinforces ministerial approval and clear timelines to provide certainty for the applicants. It updates subdivision standards to allow more flexibility for small lot developments and addresses private restrictions, including HOA and deed provisions that can block housing. And finally, it improves reporting in order to be able to track outcomes and production. Taken together, these challenges are designed to remove barriers, provide clarity, and ensure the law produces the housing it was intended to deliver so we can build small-scale homeownership opportunities across California With me here today to testify is Nolan Gray Senior Director of Legislation and Research with California YIMBY and Sylvia Aguilar Program and Operation Manager with Casita Coalition

Thank you for that. Anybody that wants to add in support, please come forward to your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Any primary opposition to this measure, please come forward. I can have a seat on the desk.

Opposition? Seeing no one. Committee members, comments, questions? We have a motion by Johnson, seconded by Pacheco. Seeing no other comments. Do you want to respond to some of the Comments made?

Yeah, please do that in your close.

Yes.

Thank you for closing, Senator. We need a motion and a second. Oh, we do have one. I'm sorry. So with motion by Johnson, seconded by Pacheco. That's right. Thank you. Senator Cavallaro, thank you for presenting your bill today. You understand that there are still outstanding concerns, as we heard from the opposition, and by the local government representatives. Please continue to work with them over the summer.

With the amendments that will be supporting your bill, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 16, SB 1116, the motion is through pass as amended and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?

Taw?

Johnson?

Pacheco?

Ramos?

Ransom Ransom aye Rubio Rubio aye Stephanie Ward Ward I Wilson That measure is here Thank you Senator Now you have a second be like in that number 21 SB 1171. Senator, please.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing that you have no primary witnesses, anybody that wants to add in support, please come forward. Seeing no one, how about anybody in opposition to this measure? Seeing no opposition any comments questions motion Motion by Pacheco second by Rubio Senator thank you for bringing this measure again As you know, that's something that is personal to me with what's happening in the detention facilities. Having one in Adelanto and not being able to even be allowed to go in and see what the conditions are and what has been happening. So thank you for bringing this measure. We will be adopting your amendments as committee amendments today. and I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 20, SB 1171, the motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? No. Ta? No. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Thank you. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie, Ward, aye. Wilson, the measure shall 6-0. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Before we have Senator Jones come up to the desk to present agenda item number 23, SB 1256, please come in. For those soccer fans, we just heard that the US has scored with Bosnia, so they may be advancing to the next stage. Thank you.

Welcome back.

Now we celebrated the score of the US.

1-0 would be a really strange score for a basketball.

I didn't know if you had some nice comments to me. We're going to miss you, too. We are going to miss you, too.

Thank you.

Thank you Senator Jones Thank you Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Matthew Henderson and I am an attorney representing RCS Harmony Partners and Harmony Grove Village South with regards to this project And I'm here, my tagline, but it happens to be true, is I'm trying to talk myself out of a job. If these lawsuits go forward, my law firm is handling the litigation, we will benefit. So I'm actually speaking against my own financial self-interest here because I actually believe in getting housing built in my native state of California. This project is exactly the kind of housing development California needs and should be encouraging and prioritizing. It has 453 units, including an affordable housing component with renewable energy aspects, and it's close to jobs and services. And as Senator Jones said, it has union support. It was first submitted to the county in 2015. So over 10 years ago, it was subject to extensive environmental review, including traffic and fire safety. And the county approved the project in 2018, at which point the project was sued. And the project went through additional environmental review and came back for review by the Board of Supervisors again in 2025 and was again approved, but is still subject to litigating the same issues. Despite the 2025 re-approval, the project today continues to face this additional litigation and delay. It's been more than a decade, and we're still not close to breaking ground. I wish I could say that this is unusual in my practice as an attorney, but unfortunately it's not. And at some point, we as a state have to ask, when is government review enough, and when do we allow housing to actually be built? It is endless litigation like this that helps explain the housing crisis that we all know exists. SB 1256 isn't about eliminating environmental protection or public participation. Far from it that we've had extensive amounts of both in this case. It's about providing certainty and finitude to the process after a project has been thoroughly reviewed and lawfully approved. We are not asking for special treatment, only for the opportunity to help provide California what it desperately needs, which is more housing. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

I think the witness's testimony was fantastic, and I'll use that as my close.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye.

Ransom?

Rubio?

Rubio, aye.

Ward?

Thank you. And good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Today I am presenting Senate Bill 1312 on behalf of Senator Richardson. On behalf of Senator Richardson, I want to thank the chair and committee staff for all their hard work. And to clarify, while the amendments presented in the committee analysis will not be taken today, Senator Richardson's office is committed to working with the chair and staff as the bill moves forward. When a cemetery is abandoned, the people intern and the property are subject to vandalism and theft, desecration of burial plots. There are 187 private cemeteries in the state of California that are subject to abandonment. These cemeteries that have already been abandoned are due to the fact that once a cemetery is full, it no longer generates sales and internments are no longer profitable. Further, the endowments paid in past years are no longer sufficient to cover ongoing expenses. When cemeteries lose owners, they are without protection. Abandoned cemeteries quickly become public nuisances. They are distressing to families, pose public safety risks, and negatively affect nearby property values. We must act now to adopt lacking policy to address the growing issue and ensure that these sacred spaces are preserved with dignity and respect that they deserve. Senate Bill 1312 is a follow-up bill to Senator Richardson's SB 777 to address the issue of abandoned cemeteries. This bill would seek to implement the Bureau's recommendations by focusing on multiple critical points. First, it would formally define an abandoned endowment care cemetery. It would then establish a mechanism for a city, county, or city county to declare an endowment care cemetery abandoned to begin the process of title transfer to a new entity. Also, the bill would establish that when a court determines that a cemetery's certificate of authority has lapsed or has been suspended, surrendered, abandoned, or revoked, the court shall name the Bureau as a conservator of the endowment care fund and take specified actions to take actions as it deems appropriate to ensure the continued care maintenance and embellishment of the property. Again, Senator Richardson is committed to working with all the parties to ensure that this bill reflects the ongoing conversations and addresses the problem of abandoned cemeteries. And I have two very important witnesses who are here to testify and answer any technical questions. So I'll pass it over to them. Good evening, Chair Carrillo and members. My name is Talia Smith, Deputy County Executive of the County of Marin, here in support of Senate Bill 1312. I'd also like to thank Senator Richardson for her leadership in this very important issue of abandoned private endowment care fund cemeteries. And I served on the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau's working group for SB 777 last year. So I just want to start by saying the county of Marin is grappling firsthand with an issue that a number of other communities have had to deal with around the state, which is we have a neglected, abandoned private endowment care fund cemetery in Marin. The Bureau actually revoked the cemetery license in 2025 following egregious financial mismanagement operational failures and neglect at Mount Tamalpaya Cemetery in Marin County Still currently overgrown vegetation damaged grave sites significant public safety concerns and little to no ongoing maintenance is done at the site Mount Tamalpaya Cemetery is the only cemetery in the state to continue active burials after its license has been revoked. This is for individuals with pre-purchase plots. This spring, the county received more than 200 letters from residents, family members, and community stakeholders expressing frustration, grief, and concern regarding the ongoing conditions of the cemetery. So if passed, this bill would establish the first of its kind, a process for local governments to formally declare abandonment and encourage responsible long-term stewardship by nonprofit organizations or responsible licensed cemetery operators. The bill's liability protections, authority to utilize endowment care funds, and compliance flexibility for successor operations are critical in order to prevent a local government from having to step in to take over these sites. The county is especially supportive of the bill's recognition that in order for successful transitions to occur, it requires some incentives for successor organizations. and we believe that the framework established in SB 1312 appropriately balances accountability with practicality and creates meaningful opportunities for communities to secure long-term stewardship. Finally, we appreciate that the bill is structured as a permissive May framework rather than a mandate for local governments. So thank you again to Senator Richardson and for all of you in your consideration of support of this bill. Thank you, Chair and members. Jerry Desmond with the Cemetery and Mortuary Association in California. Also participants in the stakeholder process, the working group, and our association supports the measure. And I'd like to point out one provision that hasn't been discussed today that we think is critical, and that is in 7653.10, in Section 4 of the bill, a new BMP code provision that will provide tools for the Bureau, the licensing Bureau, and the courts to identify a problematic cemetery prior to abandonment based on seven specific criteria that are quite broad and are quite enabling of a court. to actually then make a determination that a cemetery has been abandoned before its COA is revoked. And actually, there would still be jurisdiction in the Licensing Bureau, still of the court, to direct actions to be taken to conserve the property, as mentioned, and to provide for the potential sale or transfer. And those criteria are so broad, they include things like if the cemetery no longer is providing access for an authorized internment. if they're not allowing access to the public to the property, if they're not responsive to the public, if they haven't paid property taxes, if the endowment care funds are not available, and we find that they're not available for their intended purpose. So there are seven specific criteria that we think are also landmark and key to actually not only address after abandonment, but to prevent abandonment in the first place, which we know was so important to Senator Richardson and the Bureau and Department and the different committees. And so with this, we ask for a support vote, a yes vote on the bill today.

Yeah Yeah Yeah Good evening Chair and members Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association. Here we are in respectful opposition to SB 1312, unless it is amended to address our concerns. SB 1312, among many other things, would permit an operator of an abandoned private endowment care cemetery to walk away from their obligations and drop the financial albatross that is these abandoned public cemeteries on local agencies, or in other words, the California public. Therefore, public cemetery districts are uniquely and disparately harmed by the approach articulated in SB 1312. In the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau's 2024 Sunset Review report, It is sort of argued that cities and counties, by virtue of having permitted and zoned these areas for the operation of these private endowment care cemeteries, bear some sort of responsibility for the perpetual and ongoing care of these abandoned cemetery sites. A distinction here is therefore warranted. Cities and counties are involved in these permitting and zoning decisions. Independent public cemetery districts were not. And therefore, under this logic, it is wholly inappropriate to assign responsibility for these abandoned cemeteries to public cemetery districts. Also distinct from cities and counties is the fact that public cemetery districts do not receive general purpose revenue. The revenue for public cemetery districts comes from taxes and assessments or fees for service. Therefore, they are ill-equipped to absorb the sudden financial shock that will be associated with the involuntary assignment and transfer of these abandoned private endowment care cemeteries to a public cemetery district. However, it is not unreasonable to think that there are some public cemetery districts that may be in a position to fold in these abandoned sites into their operations. And therefore, the amendment that we have been seeking is that under no circumstances should a public cemetery district be required, even on a temporary basis, to assume responsibility for the care and ongoing maintenance of these abandoned endowment care cemeteries without their express affirmative consent. And absent these commitments from the author, absent these amendments being included in the bill, we would urge your no vote on SB 1312. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gene Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California with a concerns position. While we appreciate that the bill does include language to make it at the city or county's discretion to take on an abandoned cemetery, we think there are significant shortcomings with the language, many of which are outlined in the analysis, and we'll continue to work with the author on the bill. Thank you.

Sir Decade on behalf of the rural county representatives of California, we also have a concerns position with issues about how implement implementable this will be in the current form. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Eric Lerr with the California State Association of Counties. I have a concerns position. I'll align my comments with those of my colleagues at the rural and urban counties. Thank you.

Yes. Sorry. I just wanted to get an important clarification. Is this a mandate? Would this bill create a mandate? I heard the witness say may not shall but it seems as if this is something that would be mandated to go to the public cemeteries And I also believe that the presenter started off by saying that the amendments are not being accepted. So there's a couple of concerns here. One is, is this something that, like, what if the counties or the public cemeteries don't want this obligation? Are we saying it has to go somewhere so that it goes to them, or is it if they want to have this? This is a process they can accept.

The current bill process, a county would have to choose to move forward with the process, and if they did not, then it would not create a mandate if they did not go forward in declaring a cemetery abandoned. I'm sorry.

The cemetery district. The cemetery district, the public cemetery. Well, there are two sections to the bill. And under the section, I think you're questioning, there's a may and then a shall. The county does not have to agree to declare it abandoned under current law. And if it doesn't declare it abandoned, it does not have that responsibility. If it chooses and selects to declare it abandoned under the new chapter added by the bill, then there is that obligation. And in addition, under the previous 7653.10 that is also being added to the BNP code, There is an ability for anybody to petition the court, have the court say one of the seven criteria don't exist. It's declared abandoned. The Bureau would be required to conserve the money, can appoint a temporary manager, and can initiate a process to transfer title to another governmental entity or a private sector or a nonprofit and can even divvy up the portions of the property that have been abandoned. So there is not an absolute mandate. The mandate is if the county chooses that option. And under current law, there currently is that option for the county, but none of the counties desire to do that. And it initiates a potential state-mandated program if the state were to require the county to do that, which has its own set of issues that we understand.

Under option one, if the county or a public citizen or a family goes to court and says these seven criteria, Two of these seven criteria have been circumvented or not complied with. The court then directs the Bureau to conserve the money in the endowment care fund, appoint a temporary manager, provide for interments to take place, and consider the transfer of title. And when it considers the transfer of title to a governmental entity or a private sector company or another cemetery operator or to a nonprofit, those entities would have to accept it.

The second portion of the bill that I think the witness is talking about, because we've all been engaged in this, because it is an issue we all want to try to address. The second option, which is the new chapter added by the bill, would add an opportunity, a may, for a county to decide to declare abandon. That's a separate declaration of abandonment by the county under existing law that it has today. And then if it does, there is an obligation then on the county to take action to either turn into a, I guess, a park or combine it with a cemetery district or establish a new cemetery district. And I think that's where the concerns come in.

Did the presenter, did you want to add anything?

Thank you. See no one else that wants to comment or ask a question. Is there a motion or a second? No motion or second.

Say that again. Is there a second?

You need a motion. Motion by Pacheco, second by Wilson. You want me to close? You want me to go ahead and close?

If you want to close on behalf of Senator.

Thank you, Assemblymember Pacheco, for presenting on behalf of Senator Richardson. Thank you. The on-conversation will keep on going. The senator is committed to do that. And although the bill won't be amended today, the Senate is committed to continue to work as the committee as the bill moves forward.

We have a motion and a second. Secretary, the motion is due to pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 26, SB 1312, the motion is due to pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Ta?

Ta, not voting. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, not voting. Rubio Aye Rubio Aye Stephanie Ward Ward not voting Wilson The measure is on call The measure is on call Thank you Thank you. With that, we move on to agenda item number 29, SB 1383, by Senator Araguin.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 1383, which is a narrowly tailored amendment to the State Density Bonus Law to make clear that projects which qualify for incentives and concessions in exchange for providing on-site affordable units cannot waive any locally adopted labor standards. I just want to clarify this amendment does not affect any state adopted labor standards, including those in recent state housing legislation. And as you all know, I've been a very strong advocate for housing production, and I believe that we need to do more to build housing, free bill, all income levels in our state. I strongly support the density once law as a critical tool to help get not just deed restricted affordable housing, but to make projects pencil. We want developers to include on-site affordable housing and use the many incentives that the density of ones provides to build housing in California. But this should not come at the expense of critical labor standards to protect the construction workforce and provide living wages. And so that's what this bill seeks to address, making sure that while we're building housing, that we're also making sure that we are honoring the ability of local governments to pass standards to ensure fair wages and working conditions for the people that are literally building the housing in our state. I want to close by acknowledging that since this bill was introduced, we have been in continued conversation with the Home Builders Alliance, CBIA, and a number of the groups you'll hear from today about the potential impacts of local policies on housing production. I'm committed to continuing these conversations over the next month and work with the various stakeholders to land on a set of amendments to this bill. If this bill moves out of committee today, in addition, the chair and I had a productive conversation yesterday about this, Will, as well, and I understand your concerns around not creating a situation where labor policies are used as a way to by communities that don't want housing built to undermine the production of housing. I think we have a shared commitment to seeing more homes built, and so I'm committed to continue to work with the chair and this committee. If this bill moves out today to land on a set of amendments, we We weren't able to land before today's hearing, but you have my full commitment to work with you and with the various stakeholders and obviously our sponsors to come forward with a set of amendments if this bill moves to the assembly floor. So with that, I want to introduce my co-sponsors, Andreas Kluver, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Alameda Building Construction Trades Council, and Vince DeGruh, State Legislative Director for Sheet Metal Workers Local 104.

All right. Well, good evening, Chair Carillo and members of the committee. My name is Andreas Kluver. and I'm here representing the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council, and we're here in strong support of SB 1383. For many years in Berkeley and across our region, Labor has worked collaboratively with policymakers, stakeholders, and other constituents to craft what became known as the Hard Hats Ordinance. This policy was developed carefully, deliberately, and with clear goal to protect construction workers with health care standards and support the apprenticeship pipeline while ensuring that housing projects still pencil out We understand the balance that needed to be struck We knew housing must get built, but we also knew that the men and women building that housing deserve basic protections in the most dangerous profession. But what we are seeing now is deeply troubling. In Berkeley, we site proposed 20-story tower where the developer was successfully able to use density bonus concessions to waive core labor protections, including preventing wages, health care, and apprenticeship standards. On a building of that scale, 20 stories, where workers are operating at heights and in high-risk conditions, those protections are not optional. They are essential. That is not good faith. That is not what the law was meant to do. Developers are exploiting the density bonus laws in ways never intended, using it not just for zoning relief, but as a loophole to strip away worker protections. SB 1383 is about restoring the balance. It clarifies that concessions cannot be used to strip away essential labor standards and ensures that we can continue to build housing without compromising worker safety, training, or fair competition. Let me be clear. We support housing. We want to build more of it, but we want to build it the right way. SB 1383 ensures that we can do both. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you, Chair and members. Good evening. My name is Vince Agroo, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, in strong support of SB 1383. Construction is hard, dangerous work. Everyday workers put themselves at risk, high above the ground, around heavy materials, in conditions where one mistake can change a life forever. When something goes wrong, the consequences aren't minor, they're life-altering. Last year alone, 78 construction workers were killed on the job in California. Tens of thousands more are injured every year, many of them seriously, falls, crushed limbs, and incidents that take workers out of the workforce, making construction the deadliest industry in the state. Our union has worked closely with enforcement agencies in the aftermath of a variety of these cases. In housing construction, too many contractors still fail to provide even basic health coverage, so when workers get hurt, the cost doesn't disappear. It gets pushed onto the public and onto families already dealing with crisis. That is why construction labor standards set a necessary baseline in an industry where without clear rules, standards can erode quickly. These standards directly impact the quality and durability of the housing we are building. There is a gap in California housing law that creates confusion in how these standards apply, particularly under density bonus. And we're beginning to see that used to justify lowering standards. This creates a race to the bottom. That was never the intent of the law. The goal was to build more housing, not do in a way that compromises safety or quality. SB 1383 fixes this. The people building our housing deserve to go home safe at the end of the day. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, member, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Proud to co-sponsor the bill for dry support. Mr. Chair and members, Martin Vindial on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify again. My name is still Nolan Gray. I'm still Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California EMB. Before anything else, I want to start by thanking Senator Adeguene and the sponsors for their openness to working with us on this bill. We know the goal here is to protect workers, and we take that goal very seriously. Our concern is narrower than the bill's intent, and it's about really how the bill is going to interact with the state density bonus law. Density bonus law has been the single most successful and widely used housing production tool in the state in recent years. This committee and this legislature have spent years narrowing its exceptions precisely because cities have a long history of finding ways to say no to housing, even without saying no directly. Our fear with SB 1383 is that it opens up one of those ways of blocking housing. By shielding local ordinances from density bonus concessions, it lets the city adopt standards that sound like they work for workers, but in fact actually just make projects infeasible. And this is not hypothetical. Cities have already started floating adopting local labor standards to undermine recent legislation. While Berkeley adopted a local labor standard completely in good faith, Many cities are currently considering using local labor standards as a more subtle way to block housing. And even in Berkeley, it's important to maintain feasibility to ensure that we get both maximum housing production and the creation of good jobs. We're not asking the committee to choose between housing and labor. We're asking for two changes in particular right now that we're happy to negotiate over. The first is an exemption for projects under 85 feet. and this is consistent with the labor standards that have been reinforced by SB 423, AB 130, and AB 2011 to varying degrees, and then require that jurisdictions that adopt such standards take steps to make sure that they're not undermining housing feasibility. Again, we're grateful to the author and the sponsors for working with us. We want to get this right. At a committee earlier today, you said you like it when Yimba and Labor work together. We like it too, and so we're hopeful that targeted amendments can move us to our neutral or support position, but for the time being, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. The situation that we see in SB 1383 is the unexpected consequences, which the author correctly addressed, I think, or identified. You heard earlier testimony today by Senator Weiner. We have been passing bills in this legislature to expedite and enhance housing for 10 years. And it seems every time we pass a bill, we spend another 10 years trying to figure out how to stop people taking advantage or utilizing that bill to not build housing. Senator Caballero made a similar reference. You pass a bill, we make the rules, and then we have to fix, fix, fix, fix, because they're not exactly the way it works in the field, and the developers are not – they have to want to build housing. So this particular issue, and it was identified correctly, we're not against standards, and we're great. We were part of the Berkeley conversation about standards. We think standards for workers are very important, including wage standards, but also training and safety. But it's not public works. Let's start with that. Most of the housing is private, and not everybody has the same standards as they do in the Bay Area. So we want to start with that. These are good, solid standards. Yes, we should protect them, but the bill itself opens up the opportunity for people to use higher standards to stop construction. And that's the point that was made by the senator. I'm glad to hear he's willing to work it over, but we are opposed until that is clarified. The whole idea of building four large towers without wage and labor standards or labor standards is really somewhat of a misnomer. Wage standards, yes, but there are safety standards. And the things that have been developed over the years in the housing bills that we've been passing are continuing refinements of safety and utilizing skilled workers. And one of them was anything above 85 feet, and I'm not sure which bill it was put into, but that's where the safety and the construction standards change. It's not wood framing, it's steel, etc. So there's a whole different set of standards. Those won't change in terms of safety, but you cannot just walk in and say, well, we want density bonus, so we're not going to abide by safety laws. You can have a conversation about wages. We want to protect wages. But as we've seen over the years with these bills, perfect is the enemy of the good in developing housing. We have people who have protected wages and then found that in the private sector, those houses aren't getting built. So other places in the state may have a different attitude about where that wage standard should be. And this is a little premature to say that we've established a very protective standard in Berkeley, and that we shouldn't allow anybody to overcome that standard. So that's a new rule. We say, let's take what we've done. Give me one more second what we've done already and keep it that way. But let's not have that say to other areas that you're going to have to meet these higher standards in terms of labor. So it's not going to work. and we don't want to open up the door to abuse.

Hello, I'm Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We have an opposed and less amended position and look forward to working with the author to resolve our concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, we look forward to the conversations over the recess. Thank you to the senator. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance. Respectfully impose a less amended align our comments with California. Thank you. Look forward to continuing the conversation. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and the Bay Area Council concerned is aligned with the opposition. Thank you. Graciela Castillo-Cringes here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. We look forward to additional conversations. Thank you. about the implementation.

Assemblymember Pacheco. Thank you, and thank you for being here. To the Senator, I know you made a commitment to work with the opposition. It seems like a lot of opposiveness amended. So I'm looking forward to conversations happening over the summer. I'm sure you're going to perfect this bill. I will be supporting your bill today, but looking to see how it turns out when we get to the floor. But I go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and move the bill. Thank you.

Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, once again, for the conversation we had yesterday and the commitment and continued work between myself and this committee and Assembly Wicks and the opposition The ordinance that led to this issue coming to my attention was an ordinance that we worked on in partnership with the carpenters and the building trades to make sure that we had a pipeline of skilled apprentices who are doing construction in Berkeley and health care And I agree that we want to make sure that we are building housing and we're not using this as a Trojan horse to prevent homes from being built. But we also need to make sure that we're keeping workers safe as well. And that's the goal. I look forward to the continued conversation with opposition. Respectfully, Asranaivo.

Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present SB 1414. This bill would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County, ensuring that lines are drawn through a fair and transparent process. In 2020, the San Bernardino County established Measure J, which created an advisory redistricting commission. This was an important step forward for public participation and transparency for San Bernardino County's redistricting process. However, the current commission is advisory only, and that means that the Board of Supervisors retain final authority over district maps. Furthermore, the members of the Advisory Commission are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, meaning it is not a fully independent redistricting commission. SB 1414 builds on this local measure by creating a truly independent commission to provide citizens with an opportunity to draw lines independent of those who would otherwise benefit. Independent redistricting commissions are already used successfully in several California counties, including Los Angeles and San Diego and will be implemented in the counties of Orange Kern Fresno Sacramento San Luis Obispo and Riverside in 2030 SD 1414 would bring San Bernardino County in line with this growing statewide standard and create a process that is transparent and truly independent. Here to testify in support are our sponsors, Dora Rose on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California and Skye Allen on behalf of Inland Empire United.

Good evening, Chair and Committee members. My name is Skye Allen. I am the Executive Director of Inland Empire United, a civic engagement collective impact table serving San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Working at a civic engagement table, census and redistricting nearly became a personality trait for me for a while. I spent a year and a half convincing any nonprofit I could find to get the word out about the 2020 census, and then I spent the next year and a half talking to their members about communities of interest. Our coalition gathered dozens of communities of interest testimonies. We were active participants in the discussion about what that should mean for our neighbors over the coming decade at the state and local level. We saw firsthand how that process worked really well with the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. We also saw firsthand how our local process differed and how that changed the way residents engaged with it. I do believe the San Bernardino County Advisory Redistricting Commission made a good faith effort to recommend fair districts to the Board of Supervisors. I also saw how an advisory commission appointed behind closed doors can struggle to be seen as unbiased I applaud the advisory commission for scheduling so many community hearings But I be remiss not to mention that the advisory commission ultimately presented a menu of options to the board of supervisors of which they ultimately decided the final one after making some amendments to it, right? So as much as we encourage public participation, the reality that these elected officials ultimately get to choose their final maps undermines the process and makes engaging in the process feel less welcome. But we already know that there's another option, that independent commissions work. They produce high-quality maps that voters trust and residents engage with. Passing SB 1414 is the truest way to ensure that crucial input in the redistricting process happens and that the maps are fully reflective of community voice and insulated from political interference. I hope you all will support this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity to share.

Oh, I'm supposed to give the Me Too of Common Cause also a sponsor. I apologize. I forgot to do that. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, Chair Carrillo, members. My name is Benjamin Pratt. I currently serve as vice president. Is that better? All right. Good evening. My name is Benjamin Pratt. I currently serve as vice president of IBW Local 477, located in San Bernardino County, representing about 2,000 electricians and their families. IBW 477 joins other labor, business, and local government partners in opposition to SB 1414. Through Measure J, we feel that a transparent and inclusive process of redistricting has already been implemented. In 2021, we were pleased with the many opportunities for public engagement and transparency. We are unaware of any public outcry or legal challenges regarding the current process. San Bernardino County is unlike any other region in California. Each supervisorial district is unique and has different needs. IBW 477 works closely with the board on planning and implementation processes for projects ranging from infrastructure to utility-grade solar and green energy. In order for the economic development and infrastructure needs of our members and their communities to be properly served, it is imperative that this redistricting remain under local control. And lastly, I would just say, due to our longstanding spirit of cooperation and friendship with the author, IBW 477 registers our opposition respectfully.

Good evening. My name is Supervisor Dawn Rowe. I'm the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for San Bernardino County and also the 3rd District Supervisor. And I heard it said earlier, what were we trying to fix here with a different bill? And I wondered the same thing, because we did work really hard through our voters on an independent, as best as we could author that through our redistricting commission, through a charter reform. And it is a unique thing that San Bernardino County has as a charter county that we put it to our voters and we wanted to see what they wanted in terms of redistricting. And I agree with the spirit that as independent as we can possibly get, that is what we were hopeful to achieve. We believe we have achieved it. So as we looked in 2020, and I was a part of that process, I have no idea who my person was, we took applications. We did it publicly. We vetted them publicly at a board of supervisors meeting where we took input from the commissioners and then we assigned them. Our presiding judge also appointed two independent judiciaries from the retired bench or he could have chosen to do otherwise. They went out. They had 16 meetings all over the county. We offered them virtually. We took writing. We took them in person and they tried to get all of those different and it's really challenging with the county as large as San Bernardino. So we accumulated their input, they provided the maps to us, and we did at the Board of Supervisors meeting in a very public process with public input, have the ability to make tweaks to that. And we did it publicly, not behind closed doors at all. And those two tweaks that we made were to adjust communities of interest, the community of Rosina Ranch, where they had infrastructure that was better served in the fifth district, and the community of DeVore, where they asked not to be split in half. And those are the only two tweaks that we made to the maps. And I'm here to tell you that my district went from 3,900 square miles to almost 10,000 square miles. So if it were me voting in my personal interest, I would not have voted to adopt the map that they presented because it just is selfishly an enormous amount of geography that I have to cover. But that was what they presented, and we did that. So I would say that it works well. I don't think that there's anything to fix here. it wasn't challenged at all by any community. And so we believe it works well. The only thing that I will say with this is that 1414 creates an onerous prescriptive statutory requirement for the county. We're predicting it's about $2 million that we don't have, and we just think that it works well and would prefer not to implement taxpayer dollars and spending something to fix something that isn't broken. So I thank you for your consideration on a no vote.

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the City of Ontario in respectful opposition. Good evening, Chair and members. Elisa Arcidiacono on behalf of the cities of Chino Hills, Upland, and Hesperia in opposition.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Skylar Wanakon on behalf of the Commercial Real Estate Development Association of Inland Empire in respectful opposition.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Leah Fletas on behalf of California Business Properties Association in respectful opposition.

Good evening, Emma Jungwirth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Good evening, Phil Jonas from San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employees Benefit Association in opposition. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Dylan Lasowski on behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in opposition.

Thank you Mr. Chair serving on the County Board of Supervisors prior I know that we ran several measures locally on issues such as this this measure J was was one of those and so you know talking about now at the state level is this something that should be better used are better presented to the locals in San Marino County since they voted on measure J just recently and so are we overriding that local control voice by implementing a state law And in the analysis itself it talks about the bill raises concerns under Article 4 Section 16 of the California Constitution as it singles out San Bernardino County without clearly demonstrating the unique circumstances required to justify special legislation Absent evidence that the existing process has failed, the need for such a mandate remains unclear. And I want to just be clear that I think that by moving forward on this without sending it back to the local voters at San Bernardino County, I think we're overriding their voice of what was implemented with great respect for the author and what she is trying to achieve here. but I think it deserves to be back at local control and let the local people of San Bernardino County decide how they move forward on this issue. I'm serving on the board as chair of the County Board of Supervisors. I know we have the makeup on the board. We have Latino representatives there with Joe Baca Jr. and Armadieres, myself that was there. So we ran these measures locally. So the question is, Mr. Chair, should this be back at local control before the state overrides the local voice of the people?

Yeah, that's a question.

Would you mind repeating the question? Starting on page. No, I'm just kidding. So the question is, Measure J was done by the will of the vote of the people in San Bernardino County. Is now this piece of legislation overriding the will of the people who voted on there in San Bernardino County? And should this go back to local control to decide this because it's the voters in San Bernardino County that moved it forward?

That is correct.

Can I ask a clarifying question on that for not being from the area and not being fully aware of Measure J beyond what was noted in the analysis? The question before the voters, was it put on by the Board of Supervisors?

Okay. And the question that you asked the voters was, can we create a commission that's appointed by the supervisors and that? But you did not put, was there a competing question or a question ever, whether there should be an independent commission?

And it's not just the supervisors, as mentioned the presiding judge also. There's that. But I guess I was clarifying the point of the question before the voters was, should there be a commission? And not whether there should be an independent commission for that.

No, and I appreciate your comment.

And that phrasing, as best as you can, could the supervisors vote to create, to put on the ballot an independent commission?

We could. But we could put it on the ballot. But then because we a charter county then our voters would they would have the opportunity to vote that in or not But you know that the best we can to make it independent So I saying the question before the voters was crafted by you

You decided not to, and I'm not relitigating that at all. I just want to make sure I understand as a voting member of the local gov that you guys put the best question that you thought was, as the board, as a part of this charter reform towards, to the voters. That was the question you asked. There was not a competing question about that. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to understand before I voted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and with also great respect to our colleagues as well. I'm sort of torn here between, I think, kind of two competing thoughts. But I'm guided by the fact that we have kind of the same conversation on a lot of these bills that come forward by various colleagues as well that want to look at the county of Fresno or the county of XYZ. And sometimes this works out well, and it has been initiated and implemented locally. I know that in my home county of San Diego, it actually came through a citizens initiative process because that board was unwilling to be able to adopt a county redistricting commission, and that's the way it's another mechanism. Yes, it really originated locally, but we had that put into place, And so that's been in place for a few cycles now. And it's doing its work. I mean, the hour being late in my mind, trying to be clear with my thought, I was commenting to one of my colleagues here that maybe one of us, an author out there may actually want to realize that we're starting to have a lot of common thread here right now between these bills as they come forward and as we're thinking about working with our Fidea counties or sometimes even with our large cities as well. And it's not, for me, so much an issue of local control because there are areas of local distinction on certain issues. If you think about land use control, there's a valid argument there about different circumstances that sort of think about those one-size-fits-all. But when I'm thinking about redistricting, you know, there's a strong degree of commonality about, I think, what we are trying to be able to set up there when you're thinking about how we are establishing a process, how we are – who gets to decide when a local elected board does and does not get to weigh in or participate in some kind of a decision. And so I recognize that what you're trying to do in 1414 is reflective of what we have authored and passed in other legislation for other counties as well. Someone may want to consider some time doing something, doesn't necessarily be for all the counties, but for large counties or any county over a million or something. And so I want to be consistent with what we have seen for a best practice in place, I guess, that we're starting to recognize right now. You had some counties go first, elective, locally, test out that model. That model seems to be working well from a good government perspective. And those parameters are being established and really reflected in other counties. And sometimes when you're seeing other counties in the state unwilling to really adopt various same good government principles and really copy a lot of that setup, then we're, you know, vis-a-vis a local representative, an author, an assembly member or a senator, that somebody's coming forward and really trying to enshrine that as well, to bring those good government principles to your local, and I know that's what you're trying to do. It's obvious that this is difficult, and we have some disagreements between two great representatives from that same county as well They thinking about it from very different sets of principles as well that independently are really righteous I do want to stay consistent though and see the work that we trying to do statewide and how we are sort of you know continuing to. So I'm going to reflect votes that I've always done on this very same issue as well too and I want to thank you for working on that right now but recognize that we have always a lot more work to be done to to help to respect and bring along our affected local bodies as well. And I know you'll be able to continue to do that too if this moves forward into law and as 2030 approaches. Thank you.

Thank you. And I do have issues when we do a top-down approach and we're mandating what locals do And I do have concerns that there's so many cities within the county, San Bernardino County, that are opposed. We have a supervisor here that's opposed. So I do have concerns about that. So I'm curious to know, and I did read the analysis, what are we trying to solve? What are issues that you have seen in San Bernardino that call for this bill?

So my understanding is, because I know Measure J was passed, so you don't think Measure J went far enough because it's not independent?

Because I know the Board of Supervisors select members to be on the board, on the commission.

And this is a question that's kind of touching upon my colleague from San Bernardino, Assemblymember Ramos. So I know Measure J went to the voters. So I'm curious to know what are your thoughts on if an independent, given that it just recently passed in what looks like 2020, given that it just recently passed, what are your thoughts on having the voters decide whether they want an independent redistricting? I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on that.

My brain's not working anymore. Assemblymember Soria. We voted on a bill similar to that So I do want to be consistent but I do have serious concerns about like placing mandates on counties and doing a top approach I would like to see conversations with the county, conversations with the cities. So I am voting for the bill today, but I am going to reserve my vote when we get to the floor because I do have serious concerns. And this area isn't an area that affects me. I'm in L.A. County. But maybe we could have further conversations about it. But I have very, very serious concerns when it comes down to legislating bills that will impact our counties and our cities. And we're seeing a lot of the cities come out and oppose a bill. So I do have concerns, but I just want to let you know that I am supporting your bill today.

Assemblymember Ransom.

So the county elections official screens the applicants and identifies 60 of the most qualified, but it's the auditor controller who randomly selects one commissioner from each existing supervisorial district. So there's a sort of tiered process there. But I also wanted to simply...

Thank you. And I hope we do get to the point where we do it across the state. Having had experience with a redistricting commission when I was a council member in the city of Palmdale, the city of Palmdale was ordered to go into districts for the first time. And when I was a council member there, we created an independent redistricting commission. And at the end of the day, what that commission did, just make recommendations for the council to vote on, which is the same thing that Measure J is effectively created to do. Should SB 1414 become law then, if it creates this independent commission, who gets the final say in those recommendations? Is it a recommendation to the board ultimately? Or is it just created by this commission and who gets to adopt those maps?

But do they do that at a public hearing setting where this is open to the public for that creation? Absolutely. So that's my point. And it has to be transparent. The citizens need to know who's on the commission, who's selected. They need to know what maps are being considered, what issues are being considered, and where the maps are finally. And then, just like the California Independent Redistribution Commission. And that was my point for you to say that, because that's exactly what we did. We created public meetings where this commission had dialogue, and someone was hired to make those recommendations based on different factors. So with that, if you want to address some of those concerns in your closing, we'd be happy to do that.

Thank you, Senator. We do have a motion and a second. Thank you for your work on this issue.

The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 30, SB 1414, the motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Curio?

Curio, aye. Ta?

Johnson? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos?

Ransom?

Rubio?

Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Stephanie?

Ward?

Wilson?

Wilson?

The measure is out. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you all very much. We still have a couple of add-ons, but we also need to do the consent calendar. I need a motion for consent items. Moved by Wilson. Seconded by word. Please call the roll. This is on consent calendar items. Consent calendar items. For the consent calendar, item 5, SB 6-7 by Senator Weiner. The motion is due pass as amended. Item number 12, SB 992 by Senator Nilo. The motion is due pass. Item number 13, SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is due pass and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. And item number 32, SB 1439 by the Senate Committee on Local Government. The motion is due pass.

Aye.

Ta?

Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye.

Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Rubio, aye.

Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward, aye. Wilson, aye. Wilson, aye. Consent calendar items are out. 9-0. We're going to do add-ons to item number one. Motion for item number one. First and second. For item number one, SB 222, the motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on the Currio? Aye. Currio? Aye. Ta? Aye. Ta? Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Pacheco? Not voting. Pacheco, not voting. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Stephanie, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Narayimisad with seven votes. With eight votes. We need a motion for item number two, SB 226. We think we have that. Oh, add-ons for number two. For add-ons for item number two, SB 226, the motion is due pass, and the current vote is 6-0. Ramos?

Ramos, aye.

Aye.

Rubio?

Rubio, aye.

Aye.

That measure is out 10-0. For add-ons for item number 3, SB 457, the motion is due pass and reaffirts with the Committee on Appropriations, and the current vote is 5-1. Ta?

Ta, not voting. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Ward, aye.

Aye.

The measure is out 8-1. For add-ons for item number 4, SB 594, the motion is due pass as amended and the current vote is 6-0. Ta?

Ta, aye.

Aye.

Ward?

Ward, aye.

Aye.

That measure is out 10-0. We need a motion for number 6, SB 677 by Wiener. Moved by Pacheco. Second. Second by Ramos. For item number 6, SB 677, the motion is due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?

Ta?

Johnson? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye.

Aye.

Ransom?

Rubio?

Rubio, aye.

Aye.

Ward?

Ward, aye.

Aye.

The measure is sub-9-0. We need a motion for item number 7, SB 802, by Ashby. Move. Move by Ransom, seconded by Rubio. For item number 7, SB 802, the motion is due, pass, and re-referred the committee on appropriations.

Aye.

Ta?

Ta?

Johnson? Pacheco, aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward aye Wilson aye That measure is 790 For add for item number 8 SB 828 the motion is due pass and reaffirts the Committee on Appropriations and the current vote is 6 Ramos Which one? SB 828. Aye. Ramos aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson aye. That measure is 790. For add-ons for item number 9, SB 908, the motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and the current vote is 6-0.

Aye.

Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Aye.

Wilson? That measure is... Number 9.

Wilson, aye. That measure is 10-0. For item number 10, SB 922, the motion is due pass as amended and the current vote is 5-2. Ransom?

Ward? Ward, aye. Ransom, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, aye. The doubt measures are 8-2. For add-ons for item number 11, SB 983, the motion is due pass and the current vote is 3-1. Currio?

Currio, aye.

Aye.

Ransom?

Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

Wilson?

Wilson, aye. That measure is out of 9-1. For add-ons for item number 14, SB 1085, the motion is due pass and referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and the current vote is 7-0. Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Ward, aye.

Aye.

That measure is out 10-0. For add-ons for item number 15, SB 1090, the motion is due pass as amended and the current vote is 8-0. Ta?

Ta, aye.

Aye.

That measure is out 10-0. For add-ons for item number 16, SB 1115, the motion is due pass as amended and the current vote is 6-0. Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Aye.

Ward?

Ward, aye.

Aye.

The measure is out 10-0. For add-ons for item number 16, SB 11-16, the motion is due pass as amended and re-referred the committee on appropriations, and the current vote is 8-0. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

The measure is out 10-0. For add for item number 18 SB 1117 the motion is do pass as amended and re to the Committee on Appropriations And the current vote is 5 Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Not voting. Wilson, not voting. Then measure south 9-0. 1117. Measure South 8-0. Ransom not voting. For add-ons for item number 19, SB 1170, the motion is due, pass, and the current vote is 7-0. Ransom?

Ransom aye.

Aye.

Wilson?

Wilson, aye. That measure is out 10-0. For item number 20, SB 1171, the motion is due pass as amended and re-referred the committee on appropriations, and the current vote is 6-2. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

That measure is out 8-2. For item number 21, SB 1187, the motion is due pass as amended. and the current vote is 7-0. Ransom? Aye.

Ward? Aye.

Wilson? Aye.

The measure is 10-0. For add-ons for item number 22, SB 1193, the motion is due pass, and the current vote is 7-0. Ta? Aye.

Wilson? Aye.

Measure 7-0. For add-ons for item number 23, SB 1256, the motion is due pass and the current vote is 6-0. Ramos?

Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

The measure is out 8-0. For add-ons for item number 24, SB 1274, but the motion is due pass as amended and the current vote is 7-0. Ransom? Aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. The measure is 0. For add-ons for item number 25, SB 1283, the motion is due, passed, and reaffirmed to the Committee on Appropriations, and the current vote is 4-0. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Damage, Michelle, 9-0. For add for item number 26 SB 1312 the motion is due pass and referred to the committee on appropriations and the current vote is 4 Stephanie

Stephanie, aye.

Wilson, aye. That measure is 6-1. For add-ons for item number 27, SB 1361, the motion is due pass, and the current vote is 5-1. Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Ward, aye.

Aye.

The measure is out 8 to 1. For add-ons for item number 28, SB 1367, the motion is due, pass, and re-referred to the committee on appropriations, and the current vote is 3 to 2. Ransom?

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Rubio, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, aye. The measure is out 8 to 1. 802, I'm sorry, 802. For add-ons for item number 29, SB 1383, the motion is due pass and the current vote is 9-0. Johnson? Measure South 9-0. For add-ons for item number 30, SB 1414, the motion is due pass and be referred to the committee on appropriations. Johnson? Measures out 6 to 2. Add-ons for item number 31, SB 1423. The motion is due, pass, and re-preferred to the Committee on Appropriations, and the current vote is 3 to 2. Ransom?

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Rubio, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, aye. That measures out 8 to 2, and that concludes our hearing for today.

What?

For this, before we go to the precess, yeah. We may have another one in August when we come back.