Local Gov — 2026-04-29 (partial)

Senators Durazo? Here.

Choi? Here.

Arian?

Cervantes?

Laird here.

Sayarto here. Do you have a quorum? Okay. Madam Chair? Yes, sir.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Laird. Second. The consent calendar, the motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number 8, SB 1187, file item 10, SB 1388.

Durazo, aye.

Choi, aye.

Ashby?

Laird? Aye.

Sayarto? Aye.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair and members. I am here to present SB983, 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. The port manages a wide array of infrastructure, including 23 public parks, six museums, two cargo terminals, and two cruise terminals. 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 effectively. The legislature has granted the authority to other special districts including to San Mateo County Transit District and to the Los Angeles Unified School District Specifically this bill does the following It establishes a pilot program allowing the Port of San Diego to use the procurement method known as job order contracting requires that the maximum dollar amount that may be awarded on any single job order not to exceed $1 million, requires that the 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 and sunsets the pilot program on January 1, 2037, among other provisions. Before this committee hearing, we took author amendments to strike the reference to construction and the definition of work that is authorized to be completed under JOC. We have had several productive conversations with labor organizations, including the Building Trades and the ILWU, and we will continue to have those discussions to ensure that established collective bargaining agreements are not affected. Here with me today is Jonathan Clay on behalf of the bill's sponsor, the San Diego Unified Port District.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the Port of San Diego. As the Senator mentioned, we are a special act district created in 1962, made up of our five member cities to manage state Thai lands around San Diego Bay. As detailed in the excellent committee analysis, SB 983 would allow the port to utilize shock authority, similar to what cities, counties, special districts, school districts, and other state agencies have currently. The port would like to be able to use this authority. We manage 34 miles around all of San Diego Bay, including operational terminals, public parks, fishing piers. So we're more than just simply a cargo moving. We are managing these lands on behalf of the state for public access, public benefit. Today, small routine projects must go through the same procurement process as a large-scale project. As a result, minor repairs can take six to nine months, and even the construction mainly or the repair and remodeling can only take a few weeks. Costs increase due to the complexity and time of going through that process, and critical infrastructure repairs are delayed because of this. JOC allows for a faster delivery for this critical work. These benefits are immediate, less disruption to the public and the tenants, lower overall project costs, and more reliable infrastructure. Bottom line, this is about giving the port the ability to respond quickly, responsibly, and efficiently to real-world infrastructure needs. It also assures that the process – right now, the process isn't aligned. And when a small waterline repair takes the same procurement as a large-scale new construction project, it just doesn't benefit the public. Real quick, and I'm running short on time, but I just want to say the port has had a small business program going since 1990. And in that, for example, as of our last three years, we've had small business participation ranging from anywhere from 24% to 42%. Also, per Prop 209 back in the, I think that was the 90s, our program is race and gender neutral. But I'll just share some of the numbers of the participating entities.

Yep. The last point then I just say we have a project labor in place since 2024 We have a number of small businesses minority businesses women businesses and non labor participating under that PLA So here to answer any other

in support of SB 983? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are, as the Senator alluded to, working with her on some language as the bill moves forward. We appreciate those conversations with the port and the author. Not in support today, but just wanted to throw that out there

Thank you. Good morning, Senator and members. Richard Markson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. And quite frankly, I'm a little bit confused because the amendments that the author referred to and the sponsor are to remove construction from the authorization for job order contracting. Construction is routinely a part of job order contracting, and I'm not sure how you make the distinction between maintenance and repair that is not construction. So we would certainly be looking forward to seeing that new definition that captures maintenance and repair but isn't a construction trade. The other point, and although the sponsor did refer to the fact that the Port District does have outreach to small businesses, we think that from a local government perspective, JOC is a practical, proven tool that allows agencies to complete small, well, I had construction in my testimony, but obviously construction is not included, but repair and maintenance projects quickly, efficiently, with fewer administrative hurdles. that's where JOC really shines. They're not mega projects as the sponsor referred to, they're smaller task order jobs but SB 983 unfortunately undermines that. When you link job order contracting to the external demands of a project labor agreement you remove the efficiencies of job order contracting and the savings that would accrue from these small jobs. And also it is a real impediment to job Order Contracting being an important entry point for small contractors, DVBEs and SBEs. Can you use the small task order as an entrance to Public Works Contracting to get their bonding capacity, to get experience doing Public Works contracts? Project Labor Agreement, despite what the sponsors say, from our perspective of Merit Shop contractors, are an impediment to many small contractors wanting to participate in them. And for those reasons, we are opposed with the Project Labor Agreement language in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate the amendments and will be supporting the bill, but was interested in your response to the testimony that was just given.

And thank you for that. And then on the building trades testimony, it sounds like you're continuing to talk.

Okay, that's very important. But I appreciate, I think you've made progress. You're continuing the conversations. I think you should have a chance to do it, and at the appropriate time, I would move the bill. Thank you.

Aye.

No.

Sayarto, no.

Thank you, Chairwoman and members, and thank you for the deference of being able to jump the line a little bit. I appreciate that. I'm here to present SB 1256, a measure to prevent lawsuit abuse, nimbyism, and needless delays in the building of a much-needed new homes for California families. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for their work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee's amendments to help move the bill forward. Harmony Grove Village South is a planned development of 500 new homes in San Diego County. San Diego County has identified a need for an additional 100,000 new homes by 2029. Litigation abuse, like has been seen with Harmony Grove Village South, is one of the main reasons that the goal will not be reached. This development has been twice approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. It has a PLA with the Local Laborers Union, Local 89, and the plans for the subdivision are fire safe, certified by local fire authorities. The project has been tied up in litigation since 2018, has been updated to address CEQA concerns, and is shovel-ready. However, the opponents of the project have continued to put the County of San Diego and the developers of the project through a litigation spin cycle over the same claims on issues that were already litigated in previous filings. That is why this measure is needed. With me today is Matt Henderson with the sponsor of the Bill RCS Harmony Partners. Mr. Henderson, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Any other key witnesses in support? Okay. Anyone in support of SB 1256 as a Me Too? Okay. Seeing none. Opposition to SB 1256.

You have two minutes.

comments? Senator Laird. Thank you. And this bill has been in print for two and a half months. My question of you, excuse me, the opponent, thank you, because the opposition was sort of late, is there any place you think you could go in relation to this bill, or are you just unalterably opposed to the bill?

Okay. Any other questions or comments?

Almost 500.

Thank you, Senator Choi.

However, you did not satisfy what they are talking about, the secondary access. Did you provide that access?

The opponent points are providing shelters in case of fire?

This is better than a code-compliant project. So fire authorities of your area all approved that your fire safety issue is no longer problem. This has been looked at by the officials. It's been looked at by the courts, and yet we're still stuck in, if you'll pardon the expression, litigation, how? Opponents, I would like to know, when the litigation, through the litigation, the fire authorities of the district already feel that is not the issue, and they approved the project, do you think you have more authority over fire district, and they approved the project?

So I'm sure through the trials, all kinds of testimonies, witnesses, and cross-examination, whatever, and that's a nonpartisan issue, is a public safety issue. So obviously the defendant has cleared all the objections that the plaintiff has brought up at that point. And then other than the intentional drag of the project for whatever the reasons that are unknown, and using that fire safety issue and bringing up another litigation over and over and make the project just go away and give up. So I think this is something the general public would not really understand and compounding the litigation cost and construction time is all about the money, and that will drive up the cost of construction, and that would not help. The key issue of the construction California affordability of housing. So I fully understand the intent of this bill. Once the issue has been cleared through the court, that should not be litigated second time, third time, etc., and dragging the project down and driving up the cost. For that reason, I think this bill makes sense. I will support the bill.

So the arguments in this case, or in this issue, really, if we were to apply those in California, we wouldn't build anything anywhere. All of Orange County used to be in the same situation. All of the Inland Empire is in the same situation. Building has to be done somewhere if we are going to accommodate the housing that we need in California. What this is really about is people don't like that type of development. going near their rule development. And so any excuse will do. And a lot of times it's the fire stuff. Everybody goes to the fire stuff because everybody's very sensitive to that. And in regards to that, it's all about how you mitigate it. And in this project, I think they've shown over and over that it can be mitigated without the secondary access. Sometimes these accesses, The secondary access would go through a preserve, and you can't do it. So you have to mitigate it another way, and sometimes that other way is way more expensive than a secondary access, laying a road out the back. But it has to be done, and they're very effective. They're just safe refuge areas, you know, extra water facilities where they might need it, extra setbacks, buffer zones, vegetation management around the project. All of that lends to what the proponents are saying, which is we've mitigated for this. So this is just like delay tactics over and over and over, and we can't do it in California. We have to call it and say that's enough. and otherwise we are going to fall farther and farther behind, which means more and more expensive housing that nobody can afford. And at that point, we won't have the population in the future that we need to support California. So I'll be supporting this, and with that, I will move the bill.

I was elected to the Santee City Council in December of 2002. In the summer of 2003, the Cedar Fire tore through the eastern portion of San Diego County, killing 11 people and destroying multiple homes. And so that was my initiation into public service as an elected official and public safety responding to those issues. And then again in 2007, the Witch Creek Fire tore through the eastern portion of San Diego County from the far eastern areas all the way into the city of San Diego. So I'm very, very sensitive to those issues and the memories of that destruction stay with me. The one thing that the opposition said that I agree with and hope will happen is that this will set a precedent for the rest of the state. The median home price in San Diego County right now is $1 million. $1 million is the median home price in the county of San Diego. The reason for that is there is a shortage of homes. The other thing that I hope is already setting a precedent across the state is homebuilders in my district are already building new projects to the most up-to-date and creative, fire-safe principles, science currently available. So much so that a project in Escondido, a brand new project in Escondido just opened up last year, was recognized by the state as the most fire-safe new development in the state of California. That the California Insurance Commissioner came down to the ribbon-cutting to be a part, and other state officials came down to be a part of that ribbon-cutting. So I have all the confidence that San Diego County, and in particular the home construction in my district, which is mixed of rural and urban, flat and hilly, that the most creative, up-to-date fire science is going to be coming out of this area. So with that, thank you for your support, and I ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and members. Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association, CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts, including fire districts, health care districts, public cemetery districts, water districts, if I didn't already say that, geological hazard abatement districts and more. CSDA is a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 992. Back in 2015, the California Special Districts Association partnered with the then-chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee, Kaccio Achadjan, to pass AB 2613 that rounded out the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities that are found in this section of law. Absent any legislative intervention, however, that suite of supplementary audit flexibilities will be reduced and it will diminish. And so SB 992 is that legislative intervention that preserves the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities for these smaller special districts whose money is managed by county systems. We figured also, while we're in there, given that the last time that there was a significant update to this code section, the dollar threshold was $150,000. We recognize that $150,000 in 2015 doesn't quite buy you the same amount of things as it does in the present day. And so we've revised that figure up to $250,000 to avail a similar amount, however, fewer amount of independent special districts to make use of the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities. For these reasons, again, proud co-sponsors and we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. without being too repetitive. Mr. Detweiler covered almost everything. This bill does build on an existing framework for a system and a process and a tailored approach that's been in place for over a decade. The monies that we are auditing here do flow through the county general fund, and they are limited to the very smallest special districts, currently $150,000 or less. We are adjusting that to or less moving forward based on inflation But this is a very important tool It allows county auditors to maintain an appropriate balance of fiscal oversight while not overly burdening small special districts with the cost of audits which in some cases may completely wipe them out based on their small cash flow. So we urge you support and an aye vote for this to allow us to move forward doing what we do. Thank you.

Well, I appreciate the mention of Cacho. And my district overlaps with his, and we have many special districts that I'm sure this applies to there. It's always nice to align with the auditors on something. So that's great. And I notice there's no opposition, and at the appropriate time I would move the bill.

Aye.

Aye.

Ashby?

Aye.

Laird?

Laird, aye.

Aye.

My in-laws are actually buried in Tulare County, and now I'm going to figure out whether the cemetery is in one of these districts. I appreciate the author for bringing this bill. I know what you're trying to address. I know you're continuing conversations with the Special District Association, and at the appropriate time I will move the bill.

Pat Moran of the Retired Public Employees Association support the bill. We support transparency, whether it's in retirement systems or local government funding, and we request an aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Amy Costa, and I'm here on behalf of the County of Alameda. Unfortunately, we're here to respectfully oppose SB 1193. Alameda County is the seventh largest, most populous county in the state. We are one of the most diverse regions in the state, with 33.3% of our population being foreign-born and 90 languages spoken throughout our county. We provide for the basic needs of the most vulnerable populations in our communities. We share the senator's goal for public transparency and the use of taxpayer funds. Alameda County has one of the most transparent budget processes in the state. We convene budget workgroups, which include not only our board of supervisors and department heads, but also members of the public. These meetings, in addition to the adoption and discussion of the budget, are noticed and open to the public, and all budget documents are posted to the county's website. As a matter of course, all contracts in excess of $25,000 are brought before the full board for approval at a regularly scheduled board meeting. Much of how the county provides services is through contracts with community organizations other government agencies and nonprofits Unfortunately the bill in print the definition of discretionary funds is overly broad and unduly restrictive Last year the county contracted over billion with 278 community-based organizations for a variety of services, including $134 million specifically for our public hospital system, the Alameda Health System. Our budget documents include a line-item description of each CBO contract amount and the services provided. Our board and staff comply with state-required ethics training requirements under AB 1234, the training requirements of SB 827, which include training on fiscal administration and ethics. Lastly, our board offices can utilize their prior year savings to provide funding to community-based organizations. This is based upon the savings achieved by individual board offices. Our auditor has created a form that each office fills out, which the sergeants passed out to members of the committee. These requests are put forward as board items and discussed in full open public board meetings as non-consent items and require a supermajority four-fifths vote. The form has recently been amended to include additional measures to ensure no conflict of interest exists in the awarding of those funds. The County of Alameda is fiscally responsible and sound. Alameda County maintains top-tier bond ratings from the major bond rating agencies, including Moody's, S&P, and Fitch, indicating the highest credit quality and the lowest risk. Sorry, if you could wrap up, please. Thank you. We are concerned that

course, that this would create undue burdens for the county in administering these funds to ensure that we serve the most vulnerable members of our community. For those reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Chair DeRazzo and members of the committee, my name is Edith Cuevas, and I'm speaking on behalf of Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert in opposition to SB 1193. This bill targets Alameda County even though we already have strong safeguards in place such as the fourth, fifth vote requirement on any funding and with all funding decisions already being public information. This bill will negatively impact the most vulnerable members of our county.

Senator Regin? I have a number of questions, but for the opposition witness. Thank you for being here today. So you touched upon this in your statement, and I think this bill specifically focused on the Board of Supervisors Fiscal Management Reward Program. You touched upon this in your comments, that any savings that are achieved on an annual basis from a supervisor's office budget can then be spent for discretionary grants to community-based organizations. And that's what the fiscal management reward program is.

So there's no allocation from the county to a supervisor's office for discretionary grants.

That's correct, Senator.

On average like how much money do supervisors have available in surplus revenue It varies wildly and the last figure I saw was actually in the grand jury audit brought forward by the senator It included a table that included the different amounts and there was a wide variance candidly amongst the offices

Yeah, I read that audit. Has there been any audit or complaint filed as to the propriety of how these funds have been spent since that 2016 audit?

Okay. Could you maybe provide a description of the types of programs that are funded through the FMR program?

Okay. So we received a copy of the form that supervisors have to complete in order to request that a funding award be put on a board of supervisors' agenda.

Could you maybe talk about the conflict of interest rules that currently exist and how those apply to these types of discretionary grants? Yes.

And have you had an opportunity to see the committee amendments?

Have you had an opportunity to look at these amendments?

Okay, so it limits the use of these funds for an entity that provides health care services, human services, education, homelessness, cultural resources, or other services to the residents of the supervisorial district, as well as travel and related expenses, marketing, and economic development programs.

I was a little confused about the statutory construction, the statement. So this does seem to narrowly limit the application of this bill to things that most likely encompass what these grants are for.

And I didn want to prevent Alameda Health System which is facing significant fiscal challenges for example from being able to receive county funds or other things that serve a particular public purpose So I have no further questions I just really want to get a better sense of you know what are things that are funded What are the existing conflict of interest rules?

thank you very much Senator Wahab thank you first and foremost I do want to say that there's actually several buckets of discretionary funds and I think when a budget is passed I've served on local council I believe you've served on local council being a mayor and many of us so it's quite interesting the budget itself to quote the actual budget and not necessarily hey you guys have a budget It highlights that there's a number of different discretionary funds. So, for example, the $15 million proposed Supervisors Discretionary Fund is a one-time pot of county money split among the five supervisors intended for nonprofit CBOs and projects. Yet, there has been significant amount of money and conflicts of interest that have been clearly documented. Number one is the board members and their staff serve as a board of these organizations requesting funding across the board. There is no Form 700 for any of the Board of Supervisors staff at all. There is no clear effort to highlight, is there a conflict of interest? And consistently, the public has reached out to us to point at conflicts of interest or perceived conflict of interest. We are trying to limit that and reestablish trust within Alameda County and the Board of Supervisors. To the amendments that were referenced, we have ensured that nonprofits are protected as best as possible. I have been a board member of several different nonprofits in Alameda County, and I know how difficult it is for smaller nonprofits to even compete. So I flag several of these concerns that even in fact, for example, that when there is the leftover funds, which is separate from the $15 million, and I want to be clear of the FMRP that was referenced, this is actually a separate bucket of money. So there are several different buckets of money, and the fact that it's not clear to the public, and many of them are on consent without any real conversation or negotiation. These funds can be distributed by supervisors with limited public debate, often through consent calendar votes, making it hard for the public to track who gets the money. You know, there have been religious organizations that have gotten funding. There have been restaurants that have gotten funding. There have been associations and private entities that have gotten funding with very limited understanding of what was the public good, except for that the owner of that business was friends with one of the supervisors. So Alameda County, and I want to flag that the Alameda County legislative members, the assembly members and the senators, serve on a task force. force that I started because there was another grand jury report and audit that clearly showed Alameda County is failing the children of Alameda County when we're talking about, you know, children at risk and immediate calls and mandated reporting and much more. They're the seventh largest county in the state of California, but they don't even actually address the calls within because of the lack of hiring staff, the lack of, you know, actually doing their job. They have a youth transitional facility that was closed because of rumors of, you know, 12-year-olds being prostituted and drug use and much more. The money that they have should be used for the services and the social services that are required by law. And this slush fund has been used in a very questionable manner to the larger public. That is why this bill is being brought forward. We have a number of constituents that have provided clear documented evidence of concerns that I think will elevate even past the legislature. Senator Ciardo.

that the senator brought up, it was $9 million. And again, that was in 2016-17.

And so with that, I'll give it back to the chair. Thank you. Any more questions or comments? None? I won't. In looking at the amendments, I just want to suggest, if this bill moves out today, just a few things for the author's consideration. One, the provision under not allowing for the award of discretionary funds at a special meeting or a consent calendar might be too restrictive. So you know I understand what you trying to do but you know there may be circumstances where you know there are legitimate services or nonprofit purposes and I don want to limit the ability for those awards to be granted if they follow all the guidelines in this bill And then with respect to the provisions under subsection E, you know, sometimes it's for a nonprofit, but sometimes it's support like a community event. And so in those instances, you know, eligibility requirements, indirect costs may not be applicable. So my understanding is there's a range of different types of things that have been funded. Some are sponsoring an event, for example, or supporting a particular nonprofit organization. And so there are a range of purposes. And so just being mindful of that to ensure there's sufficient flexibility is another thing I would raise as well. Thank you.

Yes, so Senator and I had many discussions about this, and I raised concerns, and we went back and forth and made amendments to the amendments. One of my concerns was that it would not become so burdensome that organizations, community-based organizations wouldn't be able to take advantage of funding that is there, funding that comes from their tax dollars. So how do community-based organizations get access without making it too burdensome and still give transparency? I think there's got to be a healthy balance of the two. I also thought about this, even though it's restricted to Alameda County, would this be a good thing beyond Alameda County? Is there some reason that a county with greater population or a county with smaller population, it would cause problems? So we talked about that a lot. And, yes, things like how do you define a program with a public purpose, right? You know, is the Thai Community Festival, is that a public purpose? or is that going to be considered part of something else that people object to? I also want to make sure that as you describe the criticisms that you have of the board, that this is not taken to mean that the organization is receiving the funding. It's not a judgment on them, and I think that's really important. using terms like slush funder, I understand the criticism behind it, but many of these organizations barely survive. And so getting funding from the county or any other source is welcome, and it's important, and it's part of the diversity of our county. So those are the thoughts that I had. I'm sure you're going to continue to work on and address Senator Aragon's concerns concerns and other concerns that have been brought forward today But with these amendments I will be supporting your bill Thank you Yes So you know I really do appreciate the conversation here and this bill is good for everyone

Motion.

Aye.

Choi?

Choi, aye.

Aragin, aye.

Cervantes?

Cervantes, aye.

Sayurto?

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and fellow committee 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 want to clarify that this amendment does not affect any state-adopted labor standards, including those in recent state housing legislation. This only addresses labor standards that are adopted by a city council or board of supervisors, such as local prevailing wage requirements, health care standards, or the use of apprentices, which are applicable to and specific only to that jurisdiction. As you all know, I'm a strong advocate for building housing for people at all income levels across our state. And I strongly support laws to streamline and incentivize the production of needed homes The state density bonus law is a critical tool to not only get needed deed affordable housing but to also help make projects pencil We want developers to include on-site affordable housing and use the many incentives that the density bonus provides to get housing built in California. However, this should not come at the expense of critical labor protections for our construction workforce and policies which provide living wages for those who build our homes in California. A unique situation is happening in my district, which may have statewide implications. Developers in Berkeley are using incentives and concessions granted for density bonus projects to waive labor standards. Currently, the statute is ambiguous and does not expressly state that labor standards are excluded from the category of costs that can be waived using incentives and concessions. It's very clear from my opinion that the legislative history of the statute stated that these incentives and concessions were intended to waive lot development standards, such as parking requirements, height, floor area ratio, and other standards that may impact the physical form of a project. We do need to build housing for everyone all over California, but not on the backs of our workers. Labor standards are essential to provide health care and sustaining wages for working families. Some of the hardest working Californians who are literally building our state to make sure that they can afford housing and food and the rising cost of living. By allowing local labor standards to be waived, this threatens worker safety, undermines training pipelines, and creates unfair competition by allowing bad actors to undercut responsible contractors. Senate Bill 1383 ensures that increasing our housing supply for all does not come at the expense of worker protections, good-paying union jobs, or quality construction, safe construction. In closing, I want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced, we have been in conversation with CBIA, the California Home Builders Alliance, and other housing groups about the potential impacts of this policy on housing production. I want to state my commitment to continuing these conversations to see if we can find a way to address their concerns, while also ensuring that we can maintain these essential labor protections. In the end, this is about preserving the ability of local governments to set labor standards, to address the unique needs of their workforce, and make sure we have safe and sustaining jobs and wages and quality construction in California. With me to testify in support of the bill are our co-sponsors, On behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council, Andreas Kluver, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council, and Vince Seguru, the State Legislative Director of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. The appropriate time. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Okay. Well, good morning, Chair Durazo and members of the committee. My name is Andreas Kluver, and I represent the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. And I'm here in strong support of SB 1383. For many years in Berkeley, the building trades and labor have worked collaboratively with policymakers, stakeholders, and even developers to craft what has become known as the Hard Hats Ordinance. This policy was developed carefully, deliberately, and with a clear goal. To protect construction workers with health care standards and support the apprenticeship pipeline while ensuring that housing projects still pencil out. We understood 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 designed ...beserve basic protections in a most dangerous profession. But what we are seeing now is deeply disturbing. In Berkeley, we saw a proposed 20-story tower where the developer was successfully able to use the density bonus concessions to waive these core labor protections, including prevailing wage, health care, and apprenticeship standards. On a building of that scale, 20 stories, where workers are operating at height 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 law in ways it is never intended for, using it not just for zoning relief, but as a loophole to strip away these important worker protections. SB 1383 is about restoring that 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 very much.

Chair and members, my name is Vince Seguru, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm before you today in strong support of SB 1383. Construction is hard, dangerous work. Everyday workers put themselves out there 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 each year, many of them seriously. We're talking falls, crushed limbs, and incidents where workers are taken out of the workforce, making construction the deadliest industry in our 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 are beginning to see that to justify lowering standards, as you've heard, in Berkeley. This creates an absolute race to the bottom. That was never the intent of the law. The goal was to build more housing, not to do it in a way that compromises safety or quality, and 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.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are co-sponsors of the bill, but had much better spokesmen today than us, so we let them pay the leads.

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Questions or comments from the dais Senator Cervantes Thank you Madam Chair I want to just take a moment to thank the author for bringing this bill forward I certainly support the intent of the bill and the purpose here today. We certainly need to continue building housing, but not at the expense of workers looking at the incidences that have been happening across our state, as we have heard from the sponsors today, but we need to make sure that we are protecting labor standards and worker protections. So at the appropriate time, happy to move the bill. Thank you.

You may close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Cervantes?

Senator Durazo?

Choi.

Aragin.

Ashby.

Aye.

Laird.

No.

Senator Choi.

Thank you, Senator and Chair. I want, and members, I want to start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the staff very much for the work on this bill. California is making real progress in aligning housing and transportation. LA Metro has a plan to build 10,000 homes on public land near transit, with 50% set aside as affordable, deed-restricted housing, and has already delivered approximately 2,600 homes. This is a historic transit build-out, generational investments tied to mobility, cleaner air, good jobs, and economic opportunity. This momentum reflects the kind of coordinated approach we want to see pairing housing production with strong public transportation. At the same time, since last year's enactment of SB 79, unintended consequences are beginning to surface that are creating risks for this long-planned transit expansion. Under current law, SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements apply to both existing and planned future transit stops. In some communities, local governments are facing significant pressure not to support planned transit stops and routes because those projects could trigger SB 79 density and height requirements. This includes openly threatening additional environmental review of transit projects due to possible SB 79 impacts openly threatening to reduce certain services along planned routes to avoid SB application threatening to withdraw support for federal funding applications due to opposition to SB-79 requirements. When local support becomes uncertain, the consequences are very real. Project delays, higher construction costs, and reduced competitiveness for federal infrastructure funds. SB 1363 is a narrow, practical bill to address the issue. It does not change existing SB 79 housing standards. It simply ensures that local governments cannot take certain actions just to avoid SB 79 density or height requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Specifically, it prohibits requesting a transit provider reduce service so a stop no longer qualifies, conditioning approval or review of a transit project based on concerns about additional height or density, or withholding support for a federal funding application on that basis. At the same time, transit decisions should continue to be based on legitimate planning considerations, such as safety, station design, traffic flow, pedestrian access, construction mitigation, and neighborhood connectivity. Not opposition tied solely to SB 79 height or density standards. It is my hope and expectation that most local jurisdictions will not need to use this bill. I believe that planning can and should be cooperative at the local level. I also know that we can't re-litigate current law at the expense of public transit, and when that happens, we need to step in. This is also a jobs bill for workers and communities. What's at stake is not abstract. The bottom line is this. SB 1361 protects transit investments, protects jobs, and protects taxpayer-funded infrastructure from avoidable disruption. With me today, I have two witnesses, Madeline Moore, Deputy Executive Officer from LA Metro, and Keith Dunn, Building and Construction. Oh, that's not Keith. Much better looking. He's a much better looking friend. State Building and Construction Trades, Jeremy. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to speak in support of SB 1361. LA Metro is leading the nation's largest capital program, investing $120 billion over the next 40 years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent. LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region. We have a long history of working cooperatively with municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane infrastructure, and transit signal priority. 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 stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground locally. 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 of opposition to increased density requirements in SB 79. I thank you for your time and look forward to taking any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. as my colleague Keith Dunn said in the last committee hearing on this bill, can't have transit without housing, can't have housing without transit. It is transit planning, transit funding is years in the making, and it was not envisioned that SB 79 would be used in this way. It's frankly preposterous that, as the author stated, some local governments may be reconsidering their support of federal transit dollars to build much-needed transit stops and build out our existing transit system. Can't believe we're here today having to do this, Bill, but here we are. I look at these transit stops much the same way we all here in this building look at the build-out of public infrastructure before a planned housing development. The curbs, the sewers, the sidewalks, they go in, and then along comes the developer to build the housing. These transit stops are similar. We're going to put the infrastructure in to move people to and from where they live to where they work. These stops need to be built as they're planned to be built, and we do not need to walk away from federal funding or any funding, especially in this day and age when it comes to building out our transit system. So for those reasons, we're happy to support the bill today. We're glad that the senator brought this bill, and we're sorry that we have to be here to clean this up, but here we are. So thank you. Urgent aye vote.

Hello, Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council. We are removing opposition. I just want to thank the author for her work on this.

Thank you. Well, I want to thank the author and her staff and LA Metro for their work on this bill. This first came to the Senate Housing Committee, and I strongly share the concerns that she had expressed about actions that local governments are taking to stop planned transit projects. That's not what we want. It's bad for our climate goals. It's bad for our efforts to build more housing and sustainable communities and really appreciate the thoughtful work that wins this bill to have it focused on addressing that particular issue while making sure we can continue the work that we started last year with SB 79. So thank you very much. I strongly support the bill for all the reasons stated. I believe I'm being out as a co-author, and I move the bill at the appropriate time.

Senator Ergen made the motion.

Yes. You know, I'm so proud of what LA Metro and all the partners have done up to date. And they did this without a bill or legislation. being passed to require them to do it. They've been working on it and using our tax dollars in such a way that it's built up trust. Our voters, our residents of the county just very much appreciate and respect all the work, the way it's been done, connecting housing and transit. So we were doing this before any bill required us to do it, and I just wanted to continue that good work. and unfortunately there's a hitch along the way, but we're doing it now, and so I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Senator Durazo?

Choi?

Arrigin?

Ashby?

Aye.

Laird?

No.

Aye.

Ashby?

Cervantes?

Senators Aragon? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye.

Senators Aragin? Aye.

Ashby, aye.

Aye.

Ashby.

Ashby, aye. Laird.

Bill is on call. 4-1. File item number 9, SB 1361. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is 3-2. With the chair voting, aye. Senators Ashby.

Ashby, aye. Laird? 4-2? The vote is 4-2 and on call. Okay. We're going to take a three-minute recess. Thank you. Thank you. File Item Number 4, SB 1193. The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is 6-0. With the Chair voting aye. Senators Laird?

Laird, aye. 7-0. I'm not in error. 7-0. The bill is out. File Item Number 7, SB 1383. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. The current vote is 4-1. Senators Laird?

Laird, aye. The vote is 5 to 1 The bill is out The file item number 9 SB 1361 The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate floor The current vote is 4 to 2 with the chair voting aye Senators Laird?

Laird, aye. 5 to 2.

The bill is out. 5 to 2. Thank you, Senators Laird. That was a iconic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Is there any? Bring us back. Recess. Yeah. Okay. We have permission for her. Okay. We are resuming from recess, and we're moving now to item number six, SB 1272. Senator Aregine is gracious enough to present on behalf of Senator Menjivar.

on behalf of Senate Manager okay so no witnesses in support Any witnesses in opposition Please come forward

You will each have two minutes.

Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1272?

Okay. Nobody else in opposition? Come to the dais. Questions? Comments? Motion? Let drill him I read the bill so I can answer questions Okay do we have a motion Motion made by Senator Cervantes Call the vote. Was that his clause?

Good, okay. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. Senators Durazo?

Durazo, aye. Choi? Adrigin?

Adrigin, aye. Ashby?

Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Cervantes, aye. Laird?

Blaird, aye. 5-2. I'm sorry, that was 5-0. So it was 5-0, and the bill is out. Okay, I just made my closing. There we go. Okay. Thank you all to participate in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Gov Committee. Your comments and suggestions are very important to us. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Thank you to my colleagues for your patience and cooperation. And we've concluded the agenda. The Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. Thank you.