Assembly Local Government Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. everyone welcome to the assembly local government committee hearing a testimony for this hearing will be in person we also accept written testimony to the position letter portal on the committee's website as we proceed with witnesses in 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 our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal 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 hearing include not talking or loud noises from the audience, public comment 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 impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal and other enforcement actions. We are going to have Assemblymember Fong here today and Assemblymember Alanis to the Dias who are stepping for Assemblymember Ramos and Johnson who are absent today. When they get here, we welcome them. We have 13 bills on our agenda this afternoon with three items on consent. Those items are SB 722 by Senator Wahab, SB 799 by Senator Allen, SB 1438 by Senate Local Government Committee. 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 position on the bill only. We do not have a quorum, and we do not have any authors yet. So we're going to wait for a little bit. We're going to be calling authors to come up and present a local government on the assembly side. And with that, we'll just wait for authors to arrive. Thank you. Thank you Thank you

If you're ready, we're going to start with AB 762, one of your three bills today. Is that on? It's going to be Monica. Put it on your points. Is Monica here? Yeah. Monica from Santa Cruz. Yeah.

Good to see you. Please have a seat.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the Assembly Local Government Committee. My name is Chris Kelly, and I'm the mayor of the city of Hercules. I want to thank Senator Araguin for his leadership on this effort. SB 762 is a thoughtful balanced measure that provides limited statutory flexibility for certain cities including Hercules to seek voter approval for a local transaction and use tax above the current statewide cap Importantly this bill does not impose a tax increase. It just allows our voters to decide for themselves if more locally controlled revenue is necessary to meet our needs. Hercules is a city of 26,000, and we are a low property tax city. Like many California cities, we are faced with real fiscal pressure driven by inflation, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance and rising public safety costs. Hercules has already taken corrective action. Some years ago, we laid off 40 percent of our staff. We froze positions, we reduced spending and preserved operational efficiencies. But despite these belt tightening measures, our structural budget deficit remains. Without additional fiscal flexibility, cities like Hercules will be forced to make more difficult decisions, and these involve service reductions, delayed capital improvements, and diminished emergency response. So SB 762 offers us a reasonable solution. It allows our residents to determine if additional locally controlled revenue is needed to preserve our public safety, maintain infrastructure, and support long-term fiscal sustainability. Again, SB 762 lets communities have the ability to address our own needs through local voter approval. SB 762 provides a measured voter driven pathway for cities to address these challenges. For all these reasons, the City of Hercules respectfully urges your aye vote on SB 762.

SB 762 offers the opportunity to continue to protect those in communities who need the most assistance. And just a few quick facts for you about the county of Santa Cruz. 83,000 people in the county are enrolled in Medi-Cal. Nearly 43% of births in the county are covered by Medi-Cal. 31,000 residents receive CalFresh benefits each month, and more than 20,000 households rely on food assistance. These figures illustrate the scale of services that help residents meet the needs and maintain stability in our high-cost region. As a result, we would like the opportunity to ask our voters to consider options to help us to maintain these critical services for our safety net programs. And so we respectfully request an aye vote on SB 762 on behalf of the County of Santa Cruz. Thank you very much. Thank you. anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kerlin Shelby on behalf of the communities of Los Altos and San Gabriel in strong support. Thank you. Rita Xavier, Vice Mayor, City of San Pablo, support. I wasn't sure if we're allowed to say a little more. I'm Christine Bowles. I'm the Mayor of Pacifica. Speaking in support, we're really struggling with climate change, sea level rise, and we've been cutting our budget for years and can't cut anymore and continue to take care of our community and our infrastructure. We really request your support. Thank you so much. Mark Stapp, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa. We're at 1990s levels in terms of our public staffing. We can't cut more. We need the revenue option. Emily Sanborn, Mayor of the City of Roanoke Park, neighbor to Santa Rosa, in full support of this measure. Thank you very much. Thank you. Christine Peros, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, City of Palo Alto. We support this measure to repair deteriorated infrastructure. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kristen O'Kane, Director of Community Services, City of Palo Alto, in support. Katie Nomura, on behalf of the Town of Los Gatos, in strong support as it will help with over $230 million of unfunded capital needs. Mr. Chair and members, Jean Harris, here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Soopers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support. Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, in support. Good afternoon. Jason Dodd, Assistant City Manager, City of Santa Rosa, in strong support. good afternoon scott westrop fire chief city of santa rosa and strong support thank you honorable chair i've got a bunch of me too as i'll go fast nicolo de luca you're on behalf of the police officers association of pacifica in support police officers association of san pablo support police officers association of los altos support and then finally in support from the following police chiefs Santa Rosa San Pablo Los Altos Pacifica San Gabriel Hercules Rohnert Park the town of Los Gatos support thank you thank you is there a primary opposition to this measure seen a primary opposition any opposition are all from the audience see none committee members questions comments on what's in front of us see none we're still operating as a subcommittee yes once we get there, we'll ask for a motion. Would you like to close? Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Once again, local governments are being asked to do more with less that time and costs continue to rise, and this bill does not raise taxes or bypass our voters. It simply gives local communities control to decide for themselves whether to raise needed revenue. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We'll be supporting your bill today. Again, once we get a quorum, we'll proceed with a motion. Thank you very much, and you have two more bills? I do, yes. Do you want to do SB 1400? Okay, if I have witnesses for SB 1400, can... 1400. No, we can do 1400 first. Sorry. 1400 first. Thank you. Please proceed when you're ready. Okay, thank you once again, Mr. Chair and members. It's my pleasure to present SB 1400. which will modernize the government structure for the Alameda Health System providing Alameda County with enhanced flexibility to improve oversight operational efficiency and the fiscal sustainability of local public hospitals Following a multi-session review process conducted by an ad hoc committee on the Alameda Health System's governance, the Board of Supervisors and community stakeholders identified gaps in the current governing authority and delegation of operational responsibilities. The proposed statutory amendments reflected in the bill reflect the ad hoc committee's determination that added flexibility will provide the board with more direct involvement in key and targeted issues that impact Alameda health systems such as labor relations and personnel. The bill allows the Board of Supervisors with greater flexibility to ensure that supervisors and other staff can sit on the AHS system board. Given significant impacts of these changes on those who we have elected to represent, we want to ensure that they are more directly engaged in the administration of Alameda County's public hospital system. The current statute limits governance flexibility by requiring a governing board that is appointed by but legally distinct from the Board of Supervisors. And since that structure was established in 1996, the health care policy environment has become significantly more complex, including with the passage of H.R. 1, which is creating significant economic challenges for not just public hospitals throughout California, but particularly the Alameda health system. So once again, at a time when our public health system is under pressure, we need transparency, we need accountability and leadership that protects both patients and workers, ensure we can deliver quality care. This bill is about making sure that our public hospital system can continue to serve the most vulnerable residents of our county. And with me to testify and support the bill is Amy Costa on behalf of Alameda County and Beth Malinowski on behalf of SEIU California. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice Chair. Amy Costa, on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, I have a statement from Supervisor Lena Tam, who is our vice president of our board. Unfortunately, she could not be with you today. I am a strong supporter of the public health care system. I respectfully urge the committee to pass SB 1400. Alameda Health System is a vital lifeline for hundreds of thousands of our residents, providing high-quality care regardless of a person's income, insurance status, or ability to pay. As the health care delivery continues to evolve and public hospitals face increasing financial pressures, Alameda County provides significant financial support to our hospitals and needs the flexibility to strengthen our governance model, improve operational efficiency, and ensure the long-term sustainability of this essential system. SB 1400 modernizes the Health and Safety Code to provide Alameda County with additional governance options that can enhance that oversight, accountability, and responsiveness to the county's health care needs. Importantly, SB 1400 is a locally driven solution that applies only to Alameda County and preserves local control while providing the Board of Supervisors with greater flexibility in determining the governance structure that best suits our residents. The bill would allow for stronger collaboration with our public partners, strategic affiliations that expand access to care, and governance reforms that support the continued success of the Alameda Health System. These changes are not about altering the mission of the health system. They are about ensuring that our public health care system has the tools necessary to remain financially sustainable, responsive, and capable of delivering high-quality care for future generations. We respectfully urge the committee to vote in support of SB 1400. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malinowski with SCU California on behalf of our three locals represent workers at AHS The majority of them are united in SCU local 10 to 1 Now our 10 to 1 AHS workers they been incredibly active in Sacramento this year up here alongside our hospital leadership in support of public hospital funding, supporting new revenue for Medi-Cal, and talking about this bill. In fact, they want to share their apologies for not being here today, and the reason why they're not here is because they're back in district working on topics that very much relate to why this bill is needed. So today, in fact, local 10 to 1 is continuing ongoing negotiations with AHS regarding layoffs that were first announced in late 2025. We believed then and still believe today that AHS decision to move forward with substantial service reductions and layoffs was premature, and we remain hopeful that it can be avoided. AHS is a critical safety net hospital for its communities, employees over 3,500 union workers whose commitment to patient care has never changed. today to continue to right by that community, those very same workers know this bill is needed. In 2023, as noted, that ad hoc committee included not only labor voices, but our partners in county administration and identified those gaps with administrative structures that still need to get addressed today and that have a direct impact on what's playing out today at that system. As noted, SB 1400 will modernize HS governance, give that Alameda County Board Supervisors more oversight. And we believe that the conversations that started this past winter regarding service reductions possibly could have been avoided had we had language like this in place then. And so with this, it really is a great honor to be here on behalf of our 10 to 1 members and our other AHS members. We respectfully request your aye vote today in making sure that you can support the great delivery of care through what was noted a very difficult time of great change that really speaks to the vital need for greater accountability, transparency, and oversight down there. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to add in support? Seeing no one, any primary opposition? No opposition at all. Committee members, comments, questions? We're still not at quorum yet. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Senator. And now we have next bill 1408. Once again, Mr. Chair, members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB1408, which is a district-specific bill to address the transportation needs of the County of Contra Costa. SB1408 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, or CCTA, to place a county-wide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot to continue funding transportation programs in Contra Costa County. And this is really a renewal of the previous transportation expenditure plan and transportation sales tax, which has funded a variety of transportation projects in the county. And CCT is currently receiving funding for Measure J, the previously approved half-cent sales tax that was approved in 2004, which is set to expire in 2034, which is why we're seeking prior authorization to allow the county to proceed with that process. As a result of Measure J and the county's transportation expenditure plan, major freeway and interchange improvements such as with Interstate 680 have been funded. Local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and paratransit programs that serve seniors and persons with disabilities have benefited from the revenue from that measure. Similar to Measure J CCTA will prepare a new expenditure plan in coordination with local agencies stakeholders and the public to guide future transportation projects It anticipated that the revenues generated from the new sales tax that this measure would authorize will continue to fund state highway construction upgrades local road maintenance and improvements biking and pedestrian infrastructure public transit and mobility expansion programs So with me to testify in support of the bill is Newell Earnich who on the board of the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Newell Einrich, past chair and current board member of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and I proudly serve as the eight-time mayor for the past 31 years in the town of Danville. Yes, I'm old. Not the oldest, but I'm old. I'm here today in support of SB 1408 on behalf of CCTA, and particularly the residents of Contra Costa County. For nearly four decades, Contra Cosa County has demonstrated what a successful self-help transportation county can achieve when local voters are empowered to invest in their own future. Through voter-approved transportation funding, CCTA has delivered transformative projects that improve mobility, safety, and economic vitality throughout our region. And one of the most notable examples was the delivery of the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, a $450 million project completed on time and under budget. CCTA performs that way for the past nearly 40 years. That project significantly improved regional connectivity between Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Today, we are advancing the Innovate 680 program, a nationally recognized initiative designed to improve safety, reduce congestion, optimize traffic flow, and increase quarter-through output by approximately 14 percent without adding any general-purpose lanes or any other lanes. Contra Costa voters have twice renewed their commitment to this local transportation model because they have seen real results. They know that local decision-making, accountability, and efficient project delivery create value for taxpayers and improve quality of life. SB 1408 does not take funding away from the state of California. Rather, it provides local residents the opportunity to decide whether to renew the existing 1.5-cent transportation sales tax when Measure J expires in 2034. It simply allows voters to have a choice regarding their transportation future. So therefore, on behalf of CCT, I respectfully and humbly ask for your support of 1408 for empowering Contra Costa County voters to continue investing in transportation solutions that make our community safer, more connected, and more economically competitive. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. any supporters. The one I don't please state your name organization and position on the bill. Good afternoon Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa transit district in support. Jean hers on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of El Cerrito in support. Thank you. Any primary opposition to this bill? Seeing no opposition, committee members, comments, questions on the bill? Well, thank you. We still need one more. We can reach for him. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator. I will be supportive of your three bills. Once we get for him and get motions, we'll proceed with the motion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Having no more authors, we're going to wait for senators to come over to local government and present their bills. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you We have an author Thank you, Senator Mandibar. Whenever you're ready. So item number nine on the agenda, SB 1272 by Senator Manjibar. Bill came. I'm going to share a story of how this bill came to be because of the personal experience that I went through. I moved into my home about five years ago, bought the home as is. and then I got a fee from the city of LA telling me that I had to pay $360 because they came and inspected and saw that the wall that I bought the home with was in violation of building code. I was like, well, I bought it as is. I did not build this wall. What happened to the previous owner? Why didn't you ask the previous owner to do this? Obviously, I got pretty upset and they said, you have to tear down this wall. That is about seven feet high, 30 feet long in 30 days. tear it down in 30 days and build it back up to building code. Oh, if you need an extension past 30 days, we're going to charge you an additional $400 just for an extension because you need more than 30 days to tear down a wall and build up a wall. I thought it was pretty more than annoying, infuriating to say the least, that bureaucracy was doing this to Californians. I reached out and talked to the inspector and they told me, Well, we told the previous owner about this, and we knew for seven years, but we didn't get to enforce it with him, so now we're going to enforce it with you. It's not my fault whatsoever. So I said, well, I'm a legislator. Let me write a bill about this. And that's how this bill came to be. I mean, through the legislative process, we've taken amendments to address a balance of recognizing that, yes, jurisdictions utilize these inspection fees to fund general services. But also it shouldn't be the sole revenue of cities and counties to function, to go out and put this kind of fees on homeowners who, unbeknownst to them, when they bought a home, came with a violation. So this bill will allow a homeowner to submit an affidavit saying that they did not know that when they bought this home there was a violation. When they bought the home in the transfer paper, it did not know that there was a violation. and gives them a minimum of six months to fix any problems because, again, 30 days to tear down and build a whole new wall, I think is a really short amount of time. Additionally, should a homeowner need an extension, because it's a lot of money that they need to come up with, that there shouldn't be a fine to request an extension if by the reason why they need an extension is because they can't afford it. Why would we charge them to pay more? if the reason is that they can't afford it. To take into, through the committee amendments, which I would be accepting, consideration of rural counties and so forth, we have taken amendments to specify exactly who this applies for. We're not trying to touch those with cannabis. We're not trying to touch those businesses or anything like that. It was really for single family homes. With the amendment, it's four units or less. Try to be as specific as possible not touch anything with fire hazards And I appreciate the committee helping us lay out all those amendments The bottom line is it a really expensive out here in California And if a homeowner finally is able to get the money and they buy that home they should not be assessed a fine if once they bought the home they didn know that it came with the violation Like to turn over to my witness Mr Chair in support of this bill Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. We thank the Senator for sharing that very personal story about that, her experience. We've also seen this analysis highlight the San Francisco Chronicle had written some cases about these incidences happening. And, you know, we think it's very reasonable to provide at least six months to fix a code violation for building, plumbing, electric or other similar structural zoning issues. that was not the responsibility of the homeowner currently occupying the property. It's crucial to keep these costs predictable, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you for that. Anybody in the audience that wants to be added in support? Seeing none, is there any support? Primary opposition? Good afternoon, Chair and members. Faith Borges here today testifying on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1272. KCO represents the men and women on the ground enforcing the laws that keep homes and communities safe. And we appreciate the author's concern for homebuyers who inherit undisclosed violations. That is a real problem. I also share the joys of homeownership of an older home and one inhabited by a MacGyver apparently before me. So we do share in the sympathy of this. But this bill is, we believe, addressing the wrong problem with consequences that fall on tenants, neighbors, and the public. Current law already requires that local agencies give property owners a reasonable correction period before fines are imposed. And the law has worked well for decades since it was afforded to local governments to be able to do so. This bill would lock in state mandated minimums of six to 12 months, removing the local discretion that allows officers to calculate the timelines to actually fix these conditions on the ground. Violations that appear minor at discovery can deteriorate. We are also having serious concerns about the sworn affidavit mechanism. We acknowledge that when there's knowledge or responsibility, if it's disputed, and it frequently is, local agencies get drawn into costly collateral proceedings before they can even address the underlying conditions. In addition, cities have no way to investigate or disprove the affidavit, meaning that the safeguard provision simply won't work. This drains public resources and delays the very compliance our laws and ordinances were designed to encourage, while also forcing cities to file more lawsuits, use more court resources, and spend more money from already stretched thin public budgets that could have otherwise resulted in quicker and cheaper compliance through administrative enforcement. The right fix for undisclosed violations is stronger real estate disclosure law, not an enforcement moratorium, which jeopardizes the health and safety of property owners, tenants, and the public. We would like to thank the committee and staff for a very thoughtful analysis in the amendments, which we do believe improve the bill significantly. However, it doesn't solve the problem and the significant problems that could persist pertaining to health and safety. So until that time, we do remain respectfully opposed. Thank you. We're going to pause there. We reach quorum. Secretary, can you please call the roll? Carrillo. Here. Ta. Here. Alanis. Here. Chico, Bong, Ransom, Rubio, Stephanie Ward, Wilson. Thank you. With that, we're going to ask if there are anybody that wants to add in opposition. Please say your name, organization, and position on the bill. Mark Neuberger, registering on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're also opposed with the code enforcement officer. and want to align all of our comments with those provided by code enforcement and also registering opposition for rural county representatives of California. Thank you. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks, echoing the concerns of code enforcement. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of Solano County Board of Supervisors. Appreciate the amendments. We are reviewing them, but we are still currently opposed to the version that before the committee. Thank you. Thank you for that. Seeing no one else, committee members, questions, comments, Assemblymember Risha. I do have questions, Senator. So I guess I have questions and concerns, and I thank you for sharing the personal situation that you went through. I'm just wondering if you can share a little bit, just kind of leaning on my own background as a real estate broker. There's a requirement. Even if you are buying a home as is, the owners are supposed to disclose what the deficiencies are, and you can still purchase it as is or ask for a credit or whatever. So did you look at, like, remedying this through the gap in that? Because I'm assuming that the owner failed to disclose to you that they knew about this violation. And so my concern, having served both in real estate and in local government, is that in local, you know, to put this on the onus on the government, the cities or the counties who had already told this person that there was a violation. And in some cases, because if I was reading this correctly, this also applies to like electrical and other violations. I'm just wondering why we didn't, or if you thought about putting this on, making more of a requirement on the seller who was clearly dishonest, as opposed to putting it on the government and the cities and counties to have to continue to have these violations, and sometimes there can be health and safety issues over time. So just wondering how we got to where you want the bill put together the bill this together this way the bill excludes any health and safety issues so this doesn't capture any health and safety issues so it there's language in the bill that says outside of the safe the safe and health issues outside of that so for example my wall it's a concrete wall it's not falling apart or anything like that it's not gonna any time fall down, it creates a hazard. So it would exclude any dilapidated, if there's wiring coming out, someone can get shocked. It would exclude any of that because your example is electricity. Your other question, I'm having trouble understand your question, why I wouldn't put the onus on the previous owner. Yeah, so first of all, thank you for the first answer. And then I just want to get down a little bit So I know that you specifically intending to you know to exclude like health and safety but depending on Not intending it, it is excluded. Yeah. Well, the reason I said your language excludes them. Yes. However, you know, when it comes to like violations, like all of the, just having done this before and actually having dealt with folks who have things look one way and then you get into them and you tear it apart and you're like, oh, good Lord, this is really hazardous. So although we're saying that we know that's not what you have written, but that doesn't always show up in that way. And so I'm wondering if, and so this kind of leads to the second part of what you're asking me to clarify, is given that is a situation and given that we have sellers that are being dishonest and putting people in situations like yourselves, did you look at any remedies that would cut down on the bad behavior? Are you asking if I did like a private right of action? Yeah, I'm just asking like did we consider those things or like how we like, yeah, basically, was this the only remedy that we thought about or is this like working in concert with something else? Well, I don't have another bill in this space, so I don't think any other member has a bill in this space, so I'm not working in concert with anybody. But even if, let's walk down your scenario, even if there's a private right of action, the city and the counties don't care about that. You can still go back to the city, hey, please don't find me, I have a right of action, and I'm trying to sue the previous owner. There's nothing preventing the city or the county to continue. They don't care about that. So even if I went down that route, it would still have a problem if the city said, okay, that's great, you still have to pay us now. If you figure that out with the previous owner, you're great. You figure it out with the previous owner, but we still need you to pay and fix this right now. Right. And that's the other part of the concern is it's not fair to people like you, right? Because you still have to pay. You still had to tear down your wall. I'm sure that was not cheap to tear down a seven-foot wall. I still have not torn that down. Oh, you still got to tear down the wall? I am still fighting it. Okay. And then this seller knew that this was a thing. So I'm just kind of going like, how do we solve this problem so we don't even get here to this point? And so those are the concerns and questions that I have. But it sounds like there's still room in this space to correct that so we don't even get to this position. But thank you for answering. Those are the questions and concerns that I have. Thank you, Assemblymember. Anybody else? So we have a motion. Is there a second? Motion and a second. Would you like to close? Yeah, thank you. Now, if there's a member that wants to work on ensuring that homeowners, when they sell, 100% have to disclose, I remember that conversation like it was yesterday. I asked about an AD in addition to my house, and I said it is 100% permitted and legal. Great. If there's a way to further close that gap so that it can happen on the back end, I'd be supportive of that bill. But currently what exists right now are these kind of scenarios. And I'd like to add another story. We have another homeowner who bought a home, had an ADU in the back, and was fined $130,000 because they did not know it was permitted. And the county came down, so sorry, I think it was $180,000 that they were charged. and the homeowners could not pay for it because they did not know it was unpermitted. While we should focus like the San Member Ransom said on ensuring that previous homeowners put it on there until we fix that gap we want to make sure that new homeowners have an extended leeway And it not a forever leeway The max is a year. The absolute max is a year. And after that, they're going to have to remedy, and the counties and the cities will be able to collect their fees as requested. With that, respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you, Senator, for working with the Committee on Amendments. which is stated that you are going to take on the bill. I will be supporting the bill with those amendments. We have a motion by Ta, seconded by Alanis. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 9, SP-1272, the motion is due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Fong? Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Ward? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. The vote is 7-0. The bill is sad. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. We have two authors now. Thank you. We're going to go by file order. Senator Laird. Item number six, SB 1055. Are you ready, Senator? Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members, Senator Laird has always laid out the bill in complete detail. I just would simply add that it's enjoyed probably the worst level of flood control protection in the state, except perhaps for the city of Woodland. And with his help and the speaker's help, we were able to move on expediting construction activities, and this bill provides the full panoply of tools that allows the agency to move expeditiously and cost-effectively, Much like you've approved for water entities already in prior legislation. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you for that anybody in the room that wants to add on in support. Please state your name organization and position on the bill

Thank you. Any primary opposition? Any opposition at all to the measures? Seeing none. Committee members, questions, comments? A motion? I have a motion. A second. Would you like to close, Senator? I just appreciate the witnesses. And this is just, you know, the one thing to say is when we had that celebration October before the atmospheric rivers, I made the mistake of saying on the levy, I hope to God it doesn't rain before we can get this project done. And then it did. And this will just help us expedited against future atmospheric rivers.

Thank you for presenting today, Senator, and for working with the committee on amendments. We appreciate that. With the amendments that will be supporting the bill, we have a motion by Pacheco, second by Wilson. The motion is due pass as amended with the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll. For item number six, SB1055, the motion is due pass as amended and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Ta?

Ta, not voting. Alanis?

Alanis, not voting. Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Fong?

Fong, aye. Ransom, aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie, Ward, Wilson, aye. Wilson, aye. That's 6-0. The bill is sad. We'll leave the roll open for us to add on. Congratulations. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much, all of you. And we move on to item number 10, SB 1379, by Senators Sabrina Cervantes. When are you ready, Senator?

Chair, members of the committee and staff, it's an honor to be here. My name is Nick Shapiro. I'm an associate professor at UCLA, and I hold a doctorate in medical anthropology. I've been studying the medical legal death investigation system here in California for the past six years. Today, I appear in support of SB 1379. When public outcry drove Riverside County to audit its own sheriff coroner in 2024, the county concluded that they should maintain their long out-of-date coroner system. This result appears to be by design. Our research into this audit found it to be fundamentally flawed in terms of methodology, depth, and transparency when compared to a similar study commissioned by San Joaquin County. Between the sheriff corner investigating deaths that it may have caused in its own jails and the county investigating itself via its own in-house report, we see nesting dolls of the same problem, the well-known corrupting power of institutions investigating themselves. SB 1379 cuts through the fray of oversight theater and supports the truism that defendants should not be their own judges. The public health benefits of this bill extend far beyond the acute crisis in Riverside's jails. Drug overdose deaths in coroner counties are nearly four times more likely to go unclassified. Coroners misclassify nearly one in five suicides. Forensic pathologists working in coroner's offices attest to being pressured to change the cause of death at nearly five times the rate of medical examiners. So this in-custody death problem is a microcosm of this larger failure of the coroner system. For example, Mario Solis died in a Riverside jail cell in 2022 after multiple occasions where he announced that he would kill himself with a pencil. He did, and the sheriff coroner ruled it an accident and not a suicide. The county government has conducted perfunctory internal reviews, sorry, perfunctory internal reviews, and the sheriff coroner has failed to investigate itself. They've demonstrated their inability to self-regulate. The state needs to step in. The evidence supports SB 1379. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Schirmer with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. We're in respectful opposition at the moment, although we are very grateful to the author for her willingness to accept potential amendments. As soon as we get those back we in the Public Safety Committee We look forward to hopefully being able to remove our opposition We still have obviously concerns Nobody likes change We represent the deputy coroners in the county and so we very concerned about just their whole career path their status all that The author is committed to working with us, and we're grateful, like I said, to her for that. So hopefully we'll be able to get our issues addressed, although there are definitely going be other challenges. But I'd like to introduce our deputy coroner from Riverside County, Allison Doubleday, who provides additional testimony.

Thank you for that. Anybody that wants to add on an opposition, please say your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you.

Mr Chair and members Cory Sousa on behalf of the California State Sheriff Association in opposition This goes far beyond the labor considerations This is a massive change in governance We opposed to the bill even with the amendments Thank you Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and respectful opposition Thank you

Hello, Mr. Chair. I have a question for every corner. How would the bill impact the county and staff?

Anybody else? Assemblymember Alanis? Did you have a question? You can go ahead.

Senator for working on some of the concerns and also to highlight that this is just not unique to your county you can do a little Google search and you'll see what happened in my county where there had to be a separation there were concerns not only with in custody but also with officer involved things and and sometimes it's really important just to make sure that the community feels like they can trust the setup of the situation and some counties have been been able to do this where the County Board of Supervisors takes care of appointing the coroner, which is separate than the sheriff, and they've been able to figure it out. But I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking care to address some of the concerns and remove some of the opposition and amendments. And with that, I just wanna ask the opposition in regards to, so you just mentioned

I guess my question to you would be, how much are you paying in lawsuits and settlements regarding all of the different concerns and questions that are on the table?

Thank you for your response.

Yeah, speaking of my interest on this, so I know the senator had brought up like 43% Latino deaths, a bunch of percentages came out, and then you were just talking about new processes. So I know this is a bill to improve transparency, and so I'm just wondering if you can explain these new transparency efforts that you guys have undertaken. I think that you just started here with my colleague here. If you could explain that, I'm a little curious.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Anything else?

Bob deputy coroner I know we involved other agencies for that transparency Yes So as far as the whole process we have got the Attorney General So the DOJ is involved the District Attorney Office all law enforcement agencies that are associated There's an administrative investigation. And then we've got our forced investigation detail, depending on the type of case and our in custody death review and our central corrections investigation. Okay. So that's an annual review you're talking about or like a monthly like. Well, as far as when it comes to the in custody, they have to provide that within 30 days. Our coroner review process, depending on our cases and when we can get all information, which that includes the body warrant, the toxicology results, which can take some time because it's an independent laboratory, the reports from any involved law enforcement agency. Once we get all of that together, then we will schedule that coroner review anywhere from every one to three months.

The DA's office is notified. Then we've got the CCI, which is the Central Corrections Investigative Unit. Then my office will respond for the body and death investigation as well.

Seeing nobody else with questions or comments, would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you Senator for your work on this issue and for your commitment to address concerns regarding protections for employees of a separated coder office with future amendments I will be superlative today and look forward to seeing those amendments in print We need a motion and a second. Assembly Member Pacheco, we need a second. Assembly Member Stephanie. Without the motion is due pass, the Public Safety Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number 10, SB 1379, the motion is due pass and re-referred to Committee on Public Safety. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? No. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward, aye. Ward, aye. Wilson, aye. Wilson, aye. Measure so with a vote. Thank you. Senator Tato, agenda item number 8, SB 1172, when you're ready.

And with me, I have Chris McKaylee, who is representing the city of Shafter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to say it better than our representative. The City, of course, thanks the Senator for carrying this legislation. The important thing to note is this is prospective, so it doesn't impact any existing tax-sharing agreements. We think it important to place these guardrails around both the compensation level and the duration to ensure that these funds try to stay as much as possible in the local jurisdiction And so for those reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you for that testimony.

Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you. Ben Travolta, the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My sincere apologies for making you wait on me. That I am not worthy of. However, SB 1003 is a simple bill that aims to provide state support for critical infrastructure for housing developments. By local jurisdiction creating a PIFD, they will receive additional points towards programs that help provide support for housing-related infrastructure. With me to testify is Ali Saperman, representing the Housing Action Coalition.

Thank you for that testimony. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Freddy Quintana, California Apartment Association, in support. Michael, I'm Whisperer in support. Well, actually, Gonzales, on behalf of California's business, Able in support. Nolan Gray, California EMB in support. Any primary opposition? Seeing no opposition, committee members, comments, questions for the senator? First and a second. Would you like to close, senator?

Thank you, senator, for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting the bill today. We have a motion by Pacheco, second by Fong, and the motion is due passed to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number four, SB 1003, the motion is due passed and re-referred to Committee on Housing and Community Development. Curio? Aye. Curio, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Alanees? Aye. Alanees, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward? Aye. Wilson? That measures out 9 to 1. We have item number 5. We'll open to others to add on. Item number 5, please, SB 1014. I may correct that for the record, which is 9-0. Okay. The previous field. Thank you so very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the privilege to be able to speak today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California MB, where we're focused on making California an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. We're a proud co-sponsor of SB 1014 with Senator Grayson. One of the biggest challenges facing housing production in California is simply uncertainty. Builders can account for known costs, but they too often find out late in the process that they'll be required to make additional infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalk upgrades, sewer improvements, or street work that were never identified when the project was initially applied for. These types of requirements can add significant costs to a project and ultimately derail projects midway through the process after significant expenses have been made. In some cases, they can be the difference between a project moving forward or not even getting started. California has already taken important steps, including some of the work of this committee to improve transparency around development fees, but infrastructure requirements remain a blind spot. Current law does not require cities to identify all of these requirements up front, And that's what SB 1014 seeks to address. The bill simply requires local governments to provide a good-faith estimate of required infrastructure improvements within 30 days of receiving a completed housing application. It also ensures that new requirements generally cannot be added late in the process unless there's legitimate public health and or safety reason to do so. SB 1014 does not take away any local control. It doesn't limit infrastructure requirements in any way. Cities can still require these as necessary. The bill simply asks that they disclose this early in the process. When builders know the full scope of the cost from the beginning, they can budget accurately, secure financing more easily, and get housing built faster. SB 1014 is a straightforward transparency measure that will help reduce uncertainty and remove unnecessary barriers. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Those that want out in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Almondson, Jr., in support. Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and strong support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity California, and the San Diego Housing Federation in strong support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation in strong support. Thank you. Monica Salas on behalf of California Council for affordable housing and support. Thank you. Any primary opposition to these measures? In opposition at all? Committee members, comments, questions, emotions? Or there's somebody coming that's with an opposition? Sorry, don't have a primary opposition, but I do have, sorry, Claire Sullivan on behalf of a small list of cities and respectful opposition. We have the city of Carlsbad, city of Rancho Cucamonga, city of Thousand Oaks. And with opposing less amended positions, we have City of Belmont, City of Redwood City, and City of San Mateo with practical implementation concerns. Thank you. Thank you for that. Committee members, no comments? It's just really a quick technical question. So, you know, sometimes things change in the review process. Do they have to start over? Like, if there's a change, do they go back in line for another 30 days?

motion or second Motion by Katherine Stephanie. Seconded by Mike Fong. Would you like to close?

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting your bill. The motion is due pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number five, SB 1014, the motion is due pass and reaffirmed to the Committee on Housing and Community Development. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta Ta no Alanis Alanis no Pacheco Fong aye Ransom not voting Rubio aye Stephanie Stephanie, aye. Ward, aye. Wilson. That measure is 6 to 2, and we'll leave it open for Ms. Wilson to add on later. Thank you and congratulations. Thank you so much. The bill is out. Thank you. And the last item on the agenda, item number seven, SB 1169.

Through the chair. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. My name is Luis Morante with the Bay Area Council. We represent about 400 of the region's largest employers, and housing has been a critical issue for us for 80 years. This bill, by extending the length of a map life, will reduce the amount of time that local governments have to spend re-reviewing applications, creating time for them to review new applications. It will also reduce the risk associated with lending to one of these projects, making those projects easier to pencil and more likely to happen soon. On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I'm proud to urge your support for this bill today. Thank you.

Would you like to close? Respectfully, yes. The last one of the day. Thank you and your staff for working with the committee on the amendments, which you have accepted. With the

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.