Assembly Local Government Committee

Calra. Mr. Calra, you're ready. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. AB 1658 would remove the sunset date and limits on the existing authority for the counties of Santa Clara and Los Angeles to approve change orders at a higher threshold. Change orders are amendments to a construction contract that change the contractor's scope of work to add or accommodate a design element, often increasing the contract price. The Local Agency Public Construction Act allows the county board of supervisors to approve change orders and construction contracts with the two thirds vote as set forth in public contract code. However, a board may delegate change order authority to a county engineer or other officer to order and approve change orders, thereby avoiding the necessity for board approval Up to certain limits. In 2021, the County of Los Angeles sponsored AB 712 to increase these limits worth seven of its contracts until January 1, 2027. And in 2023, the legislature passed AB 1649 to allow the same authority for the County of Santa Clara. These counties regularly construct large projects, including a stormwater capture project, a child and adolescent behavioral health services center, and seismic retrofits for hospital buildings. Allowing these updated change order thresholds to remain in statute will allow both counties to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars by avoiding possible delays and associated cost increases on large, time-sensitive construction projects. With me to provide supporting testimony is Jeff Draper, Director of the Santa Clara County Facilities and Police Department, and Keegan Fahey, Project Management and Principal Engineer with L.A. County Department of Public Works.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Keegan Fahey Principal Engineer with Los Angeles County Public Works on behalf of our Director Mark Pastrella in support of AB 1658 From a delivery perspective this bill addresses a recurring issue we encounter on large capital projects. During construction, change orders are often necessary to address field conditions, design refinements, or coordination issues. Many of these changes are routine but time-sensitive, especially when they affect the project's critical path. Under current law, even relatively modest change orders on large contracts can require board approval. That process can take several months. During that time, construction activities may be delayed, which can increase costs and extend project schedules. Since 2022, Los Angeles County has successfully applied this delegated authority on five major projects. As a result, we have avoided over $40 million in project costs and approximately 12 months of delay on the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center replacement program alone. Any delays would place this project at risk of complying with the state's seismic requirements. These measurable project-level outcomes are complemented by broader community benefits, including the timely delivery of critical projects and services to the county. At the same time, construction costs have increased significantly. Over the past decade, construction cost inflation has substantially outpaced general inflation, and current statutory thresholds have not kept pace. As a result, increasingly more routine change orders now exceed existing limits. AB 1658 allows us to process these changes more efficiently while maintaining effective oversight. All change orders are still subject to thorough internal evaluation, including cost verification and assessment of merits. From a project delivery standpoint, this allows us to keep projects moving while maintaining appropriate controls and accountability. For these reasons, the County of Los Angeles respectfully supports AB 1658. Thank you all. Thank you to Assemblymember Calra, and thank you to Santa Clara.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chair and members. First, I'd like to say thank you to you and your committee staff for working with us on committee amendments that we are happy to accept today. AB 2263 is a district bill that will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees. VTA employs an estimated 2,300 employees who manage and operate Santa Clara County's public transportation services. While VTA workers may be making competitive middle-class wages, they work and hope to live in the most expensive housing market in the nation. For instance, the median home sale price of 2025 was over $1.6 million, and the median rent was $3,400. The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area leading them to live outside the immediate work area or in many cases outside the county thereby creating long commutes for these workers which is counter to the transit agency goals By allowing VTA to offer their employees affordable housing we can help these workers achieve the dream of either owning a home in the city where they work in or just being able to live close to work AB 2263 will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their workers can live closer to work, decrease their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve the overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. With me to provide supporting testimony is Supervisor Margaret Abe Koga, who's a board member of VTA, and Jesse O'Malley Solis, VTA's Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate, who is available to answer any technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and Vice Chair Ta and committee members. My name is Jessie O'Malley-Selise, and I'm VTA's Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate for VTA. I'm here to answer any technical questions that you may have about our TOD program or our employee need for this bill. And we are thankful to Assemblymember Calra for authorship on behalf of our VTA employees, and we hope to have your support. Thank you.

Rubio and Wilson Assemblymember I don worry Billy you have a question or a comment Yeah I want to thank Assemblymember Caller for raising this bill Just raises a broader question for me that we are, you know, continuing to be able to do these one-off district-related bills when it comes to employee housing or it comes to being able to use your public lands a little bit smarter. Obviously, there was some background in here with SB 79 being in allowance, with previous work that's been done as well to be able to use previous legislation, now law, that has been able to allow public entities to be able to use their lands a lot smarter. I know specifically there was broad legislation for school districts, right? I mean, I'd like to be able to see this more as a standard for a lot of our transit agencies. I know MTS down in San Diego has been doing a lot of work to be able to use affordable housing on its properties, And, of course, it's right there on transit, high occupancy transit lines. So is there anything about BTA's sort of portfolio that, like, you know, you need to be able to expand the law beyond what is already there? I'm going to support the bill. I'm hoping to move the bill. But what's the maybe extra special need here through this?

Got it. Yeah, I'm very supportive of that, too, just like we're doing for teacher housing as well. So I'm happy to support the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. I think that Santa Clara County is not unique, I think, when it comes to being able to provide housing for their workforce, including those that work for transit agencies. I'm hoping that this will be set an example and hopefully be successful so that other transit agencies can follow suit, because we need all options on the table, especially for those that are choosing to do public service in our communities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I'll start with the Addis bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. and I'm filling in today for Assemblymember Addis to present AB 2134, the Family-Friendly City Councils Act. This is a legislative women's caucus priority bill. Assemblymember Addis would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. She accepts the amendments outlined in the analysis. The idea came to her from a stunning story she read in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, originally published in the San Jose Mercury News by Grace Hace. The story she read was about Alyssa Cisneros, a seven-months-pregnant council member in Sunnyvale, who was expected to ask her council member colleagues at a public meeting to vote to approve a leave of absence so she could keep her seat. When Assemblymember Addis read the story, she was stunned by two things. Number one, how unfair this is to women and new parents. parents. And number two, how this could be happening in 2024 in California, where we've worked so hard to create the most representative democracy in America. Her team went back and searched and found out, excuse me, that it's true. There are massive gaps in family leave protections for public officials that can leave those serving in local office without the guarantee at parental leave and force them to divulge private medical information in public. For these public servants, it creates an impossible choice between time off for a new family or keeping their seat, publicly and invasively divulging their personal health information or potentially facing removal. Fortunately, we have an easy fix. AB 2134 will establish standard minimum protections for parental leave for city council members across California. This bill will ensure that council members can have absences for parental leave without losing their seat, making city councils more accessible to new parents. So specifically, AB 2134 will require cities to allow council members to take absences for parental leave. It will exclude parental leave from counting toward the number of absences allowed for each council member, and it will prevent cities from requiring council members to seek approval for parental leaves at public meetings. Californians should be able to grow their families and serve in local office. AB 2134 will remove barriers that create a stronger, more representative democracy for all of us. And joining me today to testify in support is Sunnyvale City Council member Alyssa Cisneros.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Anybody else that wants to add on in support? See, no one is there in any primary opposition to this measure. No opposition. Members, comments, questions, motion?

Thank you. Assemblymember Ransom.

Seeing no one else, would you like to close on behalf of Assemblymember Addis?

Thank you, and thank you for presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Addis. This is a real issue today. We already heard from your experience here on the dais. Thank you also and your staff for working with the committee on clarifying amendments, and that's for Assemblymember Addis. With the amendment, I will be voting aye, and we had a motion by Rubio and seconded by Ransom. Please call the roll. For item number four, AB 2134, the motion is due pass as amended. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo? Aye. Ta? Aye. Ta? Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Ramos? Ransom? Aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Colosa? Ward? Ward? Aye. Wilson? The measure is 6-0. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. Thank you. And do you have a bill of your own? That's agenda item number 5, AB 2186.

Chair Carrillo and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ana Ruiz, General Manager of the MidPeninsular Regional Open Space District, also known as MidPen. I am here in strong support of AB 2188, which provides essential updates to our enabling legislation to improve contracting efficiency. First, I would like to thank the author, Assemblymember Pellerin, committee chair, and his staff and staff for their hard work on what is particularly impactful legislation for MidPen to effectively accomplish its work and its many bond measure commitments on behalf of the public and our taxpayers. MidPen stores over 73,000 acres across 27 preserves within a global biodiversity hotspot. We are the second largest park and open space district in California. In 2014, with two-thirds approval of local voters, Midpen passed Measure AA, a $300 million general obligation bond to pursue and complete 25 priority project portfolios by 2044, identified through extensive public outreach. However, our current contracting authority, set at $50,000 in 2015, has not kept pace with our growing responsibilities and the deadline set by Measure AA. Since 2015, we have added 10,000 acres of protected lands. Meanwhile, the cost of doing business in the Bay Area has soared. Our staff must regularly contract for habitat restoration, new public recreational improvements, and critical repair work. Currently, the $50,000 cap adds problematic delays in bringing smaller contracts under $150,000 to our Board of Directors for approval, as Midpen simultaneously works to navigate very tightly constrained scheduling conditions, including nesting and breeding seasons, flowering seasons of rare species, periods of winter rains, and other seasonal conditions. As a result, we have experienced too many incidents where this additional administrative hurdle causes the start of these public and natural resource management projects to be pushed back weeks, if not even a full year, driving up the long-term costs for MidPen and our taxpayers. The overhead cost is also significant. Each contract requiring board approval costs an estimated of $6,000 to process internally, totaling about $1.13 million over the 200 contracts that we've been managing. AB 2188 offers a practical solution by raising the general manager's contracting authority $250,000. This level is consistent with inflation and the operational realities of peer agencies like San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, which have contract limits of $200,000. This change preserves all board adopted and legally required competitive pricing safeguards while allowing us to do our work more efficiently to protect our region's natural lands. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 2188.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Dettler. with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

primary opposition or opposition at all? Seeing no one. Committee members, comments,

Well, it has to do with the administrative requirements and processing to prepare for those board meetings, which is about a three-month lead time in preparing all the documentation and also then preparing for the board meeting itself. So it's the legwork to get these items, these contracts, up for our board of directors for their review and their approval. Okay.

Oh, it's per contract. Per contract.

For each of the contracts. And bear in mind that MidPen stewards 73,000 acres and is addressing the needs of 770,000 residents. And we did take the committee amendments to require that we get three informal bids for writing these contracts and that we remove the no advertisement so they're going to be advertised. and that all these bids will then be reported to the board at each of those meetings. So they will be getting updates throughout the year as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, thank you for the questions, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I think this is my first time coming before you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having me. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1768. It's an important bill, a rather routine bill in the legislature. We've passed nearly 30 of these in my time in the legislature. It gives state authorization to Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County to ask their voters if they want to step up in this moment and protect the most vulnerable from the health care impacts due to the cuts from the Big Beautiful scam. The most vulnerable communities continue to be attacked by the Trump administration. Trump has signed policies that strip health care resources away from those communities, the same communities that already face the greatest barriers to care. We know these cuts are coming. They're imminent. In L.A. County, seven clinics have already closed and our most vulnerable communities and the cuts haven't even hit yet. California is disproportionately feeling these negative impacts. Los Angeles County projects losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years after the big, beautiful scam cuts go into effect. Without additional revenue sources, these cuts will affect the county departments that focus on providing Angelenos with quality care. In other instances, the county has already instituted hiring freezes and warned of potential layoffs. Essentially, without the county asking its voters whether they can raise revenues or not, the default choices are layoff well over 5,000 county employees, that sheriffs, probation workers, social service workers, community health workers, or let thousands more die on our sidewalks because they don't have access to critical health care infrastructure. Contra Costa County faces similar pressures. AB 1768 is simple. It's about whether local communities have the state's authorization to respond to federal decisions that impact their most vulnerable members. Without this authority, counties are left making impossible choices that will cost lives. What's clear about this bill is this bill does not raise taxes, which is why it's been rather routine in the legislature. In fact, we passed a number of these measures last year and didn't even blink an eye. It simply gives voters the ability to decide for themselves if they want to step up to meet the moment, to meet a crisis. L.A. County sees this crisis so imminent, they have already put a ballot measure on their June ballot because they know that without addressing this in real time, people will die. More people than anywhere else in the country. AB 1768 is grounded in local control. It ensures our communities are not left to observe the consequences of these federal decisions by themselves. Joining me to testify are Angela Pontes, the Senior VP of Government Affairs at Planned Parenthood California, and Jim Mangia, the president and CEO of St. John's Community Health Clinic.

For providers like St. John's, this is not abstract. Los Angeles County is facing severe federal health care cuts, and those cuts are putting extraordinary pressure on public hospitals, community clinics, public health programs, and the broader system of care that millions of Angelenos depend on. We're talking about closing down a public hospital and laying off thousands of workers, dozens of community clinics closing down if this measure does not pass. When the health care safety net is weakened, the consequences don't stop with uninsured patients. The strain reaches the emergency rooms, hospitals, school-based health centers, public health infrastructure, and neighborhoods across the county because patients wait longer, routine care gets delayed, and communities lose access to services they depend on close to home. The L.A. County Board of Supervisors has already acted to place this measure on the June ballot and adopted a spending plan to prepare for implementation if voters approve it. That plan is intended to help stabilize public hospitals, support nonprofit and community-based providers, preserve public health functions, and protect access to care. This measure has been endorsed by every angle, every part of the safety net, the hospitals, the clinics, the private doctors, as well as multiple community-based organizations and unions. AB 1768 is a necessary enabling step that makes implementing that measure possible. On behalf of St. John's Community Health, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In Los Angeles County, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valleys operate 28 community health centers and 26 community-based sites. This is one quarter of the Planned Parenthood health centers in the state. We are in support, of course, of AB 1768. When President Trump signed H.R. 1 into law on July 4th last year, Planned Parenthood health centers were immediately defunded nationwide. In dollars for California, this meant the state lost over $300 million in federal matching funding for vital sexual and reproductive health care services. H.R. 1 also included many other devastating impacts to health care programs across the state. In L.A. County, as stated, it is projected to result in the loss of $2.4 billion over the next three years In response L County has proposed a local solution by placing the Essential Services Restoration Act on the June 2026 ballot for voter approval If passed this measure may result in about billion to support health care services across LA County, including for Planned Parenthood. AB 1768 will allow this measure to be implemented legally if passed by the voters. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. anybody that wants to order in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Good afternoon. Matt Leger on behalf of SEIU California in support and also the California professional firefighters asking me to express their support as well. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gustin on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Mr. Chair and members, Scott Wetsch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. Thank you. Good afternoon. Panarea Avdis on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support. Marky Seij on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Jeff Neal representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as well as LA CARE, also in support. Alejandro Solis on behalf of CPCA advocates, co-sponsors of the bill, in support. Thank you. Chair and members, Allison Ramey on behalf of Altamed, in support. Thank you. Any primary opposition, please step to the table. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Jaycee Lee, and I'm from the California Taxpayers Association, testifying in opposition to AB 1768, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today. California has the highest state-imposed sales and use tax rate in the U.S. at 7.25 percent. In both Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties, the combined state and local sales tax rate is already over 10 percent in some cities. We consistently hear from taxpayers who are concerned about affordability in this state, and we believe that circumventing the transactions and use tax cap could drive the cost of goods even higher. Because of the potential for an increased tax burden and affordability concerns, CalTACs respectfully opposes this bill. Thank you. Thank you for that. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in opposition? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Glendale and respectful opposition. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members Jason Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Lakewood, Artesia, Norwalk and Torrance. It's a timing issue. Great author, but we're respectfully opposed Thank you committee members questions comments and what's in front of us Is the assembly member Wilson? Hi, thank you to the author for advocating on behalf of your community as well as others. I have the truly honor to be able to represent a portion of Contra Costa that is included in this bill. And we had many discussions post the supervisors voting, you know, to have a—to put a self-tax on the ballot. There were many discussions amongst the Contra Costa delegation. I'll note for people that may not be aware, I have a very small portion of Contra Costa. It's the eastern portion. Yeah. The city of Oakley, it's unincorporated areas like Discovery Bay, Byron, Knights, and very rural. They have consistently, without a shadow of a doubt, historically voted down any tax that has been put forth in Contra Costa, even ones that would go to their benefit like when they did one for fire. And so I was very much concerned in my discussions with the supervisors about this direction, being taken as a voice representing my portion of the county. At the same time, just the previous election cycle, I was able to, with the support of one of my cities in the county of Solano, where I have the entire county, there were one city in particular that was coming up the cap that wanted to do something that was related to transportation. It was actually a Citizens Initiative, and they couldn't do it with the current cap in place. And other cities within the county had bumped up against that cap. So we did a bill giving them what I would call choice, knowing that when we ever tried to do anything in Solano County as a county as a whole, the majority of my district will say no, or get the two-thirds, because there's a portion of my district that is no on tax every time, but felt comfortable putting it forth because it was about a choice to the voters, not whether it was a tax or not. I mean, not the actual raising of a tax. And so felt comfortable with that. I'm concerned myself as representing the portion that I know would say no of supporting in this regard, but I'm going to lean to the fact that it is a choice and that community will have a choice to, that portion of my committee will have a choice to say no. And I've committed at the time when I was talking with the supervisor and stuff, that I couldn't lend my support to it because the portion I represent says no. But as far as giving the whole entire county a choice, I'll be supporting your bill today. I just know in general on this issue is that we've had a lot of, the federal administration has been very antagonistic to California. And in this particular area, as it relates to H.R. 1, it's antagonistic to the whole country. There are a lot of populations that are so vulnerable, and this is just going to set them back. So we have to do something. Whether this is the right something, a tax, because it is regressive in nature, and we have an affordability crisis, not sure. But I do know that I trust the voters enough to bring me here to be their voice. So I trust them enough to think thoughtfully about that choice and make that decision for themselves. But finally, I keep saying, I'll wrap up, but the last thing I'll note is my district, the area that I represent is a very small portion of Contra Costa. If the rest of them say yes, while they say no, it doesn't matter. And so we have to think through some of our minority voices and ensuring that we're taking care of them in this process, because I think that the reason why they're saying no is that they feel like they're not getting the best bang for their buck. Thank you to the chair for letting me go on for a moment. Thank you, Assemblymember. Anybody else? Seeing no one. Before you close, I also want to voice the concern that I have. what you mentioned, the witness yourself and what's been happening at the federal level, it is concerning. It is one of the ways that we can help keep those services like Planned Parenthood and healthcare care and all of those things What been happening in the portion of L County that I represent Palme d'Ale and Lancaster, we feel that we don't feel we can prove that we don't get the same results when we give our tax to L.A. County. We barely get anything back. To give you an example, Measure H, years ago, Palmdale and Lancaster contributed millions of dollars to that measure H because it's a real issue. So we supported measure H. And when it came down to see what we were getting back in return for what we gave L.A. County, we barely got anything back. So my concern, again, continues to be equitable distribution of these taxes that go to L.A. County, because we do have Planned Parenthood in Lancaster and Palmdale. but we just don't get the equal amount of return from what we provide. And I've expressed that every opportunity that I have, this being one of them, because I do want to make sure that it's an equitable tax return for our communities across the county, every corner of the county. Now it shares the suburban areas, which I understand is the most populated. The density is there. But our money comes, too, when they come and take it, which is get pennies on the dollar. And again, we do have services like Planned Parenthood in Lancaster and other health care needs that we have. And when it comes down to it, what I'm doing here is making it possible for our constituents, L.A. County residents, my constituents, to make that choice whether they want to do that or not. They'll be pointing fingers at me against supporting another tax measure, but at the end of the day, it is our right to choose whether we put yes or no on this measure at the county level. Again, I just want to express again what the concerns are, and I believe that other parts of the county feel the same way. Having said that, I will support the measure because, again, it's something that we need to do because of the tax that we have from the federal administration. And again, this gives my constituents in the high desert, Palmdale and Lancaster, the opportunity for them to decide whether they vote yes or no. And again, with that, I'll be supportive. I see no other comments. Would you like to close? No, absolutely. Mr. Chair, I think that's a fair point. And I think I'm grateful for your leadership representing Palmdale and Lancaster. And as you know, there's a deep linkage between South L.A. communities and Palmdale and Lancaster. We are cousins in many ways. And so I think you're right and fair. And I think that also goes for areas like Downey and Baldwin Park and other parts of the counties where we need to make sure that community health care infrastructure is equitably distributed through this measure. I think in many instances, South L.A. also feels unequally distributed to. And that's important that we hold the county supervisors and the county accountable to implementation should this pass. But those to me are also questions for further down the road. The question before us today, in my mind, is really two-part. We either allow the people of L.A. County and Costa County to decide for themselves if they want to step up and meet this moment and take care of the most vulnerable, or we are deciding that the most vulnerable are expendable, or the county should shift resources away from fire, public safety, social service infrastructure, to meet this impending $2.4 billion cut to our health care infrastructure. I will also say on behalf of the L.A. delegation, oftentimes the entire delegation feels like we don't get our fair resources from the state and the good news compared to what we put in. But I think the good news in this measure is we not asking the state to backfill billion in ongoing support for our health care infrastructure just in L County because we know this is bigger than an L issue We asking for the authority to decide for ourselves if we want to meet this moment And I think we owe that to the voters. To me, that's the definition of local control, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for that, but it's just to make sure you did accept the amendments. I don't remember. Fully accept the amendments. Thank you. With that, we need a motion and a second. I was going to say your community, your choice. Move the bill. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ransom. Moved by Ransom. We need a second. Second by word. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number two, AB 1768, the motion is due pass as amended. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? No. Ta, no. Johnson? Johnson, no. Pacheco? Pacheco not voting Ramos Ramos I ransom I ransom I Rubio Rubio not voting Colosa Ward Ward I will sit Wilson I at the moment is 5 to we'll leave it open for others to add on we need somebody else so these measures on call assemblymember Pappen item number 3 AB 2033 welcome Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I want to start by saying that I truly appreciate the work the committee has put into this bill. And of course, we will be accepting the committee's amendments. I also want to acknowledge the ongoing conversation that we're having with AFSCME, who I am committed to continuing to engage as we move forward. Today I'm presenting AB 2033, which would authorize general law cities to use job order contracts, JOCs, for repair, renovation, and maintenance projects, an amount not to exceed $3 million annually with no single job exceeding $750,000. Currently, the traditional design bid award system requires that even the most small, modest of Public Works projects undergoes full plan preparation, advertisement, bidding, and award before a contract can begin. The entire process can take 6 to 12 months, if not more, delaying crucial repairs and upgrades to facilities, all while driving up the cost of the project. For smaller value projects, agencies often receive no bids, which then requires them to for the projects to be re-advertised, leading to timeline extensions. The city of Belmont, which is one of the cities in my district, recently experienced these issues. In one particular case, an emergency remediation of water intrusion at a city facility required urgent contractor negotiations with preset pricing, resulting in a 30 to 40 percent cost increase. Job order contracting can help alleviate these recurring issues, enabling agencies to complete several projects under a single competitively award bid. In fact, public city employees are not able to complete public works projects over a certain dollar amount, mandating an external contract anyway. Job order contracts are a streamlining tool for cities to use for projects that already have to be contracted out. The state has already authorized counties school districts and community colleges to use job order contracts There is proven data showing that JOCs reduce costs and increase efficiency This bill simply extends that tool of JOCs to general law cities. AB 2033 maintains limits on its use by excluding new construction projects and includes safeguards to protect permanent city employees from displacement. My witnesses today are Dane Hutchings, representing the City of Belmont, and Idra Kwan, the City Public Works Director, who will explain a little bit more about job-oriented contracts, its benefits, and why it will be an effective tool for cities in California. Good afternoon, Chair members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the City of Belmont. This bill is about efficient government. It's about giving cities the ability to complete routine maintenance and repair projects more quickly and more cost-effectively without sacrificing transparency, labor standards, or oversight. AB 2033 allows the use of job order contracting, a proven tool used by counties, school districts, community colleges, and the state to deliver routine maintenance and repair projects more efficiently. For Belmont, we are seeing real delays and cost escalations on defined scope projects that already require formal public bidding. Just a quick few examples, an EV charger site preparation project, which included ADA modifications, received no initial bids. It was delayed for nearly three years and was estimated to cost about 30 to 40 percent higher to complete the project. Even a simple restroom renovation was delayed for over a year. And the Assemblywoman already spoke to the rotter intrusion issue already. These are not large capital projects. They're routine facility needs that should be completed quickly and cost effectively. I do want to underscore that this bill does not displace city workers. under existing law, cities are already required to contract out the vast majority of their work, which means that this work is being performed outside by contractors anyways, regardless of whether this bill passes. And JOC does not change that. It does not replace city staff or eliminate public jobs. It simply allows cities to procure work that must already go out to bid. AB 2033 includes strong safeguards, no new construction, no clear displacement provisions for layoffs, hours reductions or involuntary transfers. It requires skilled and trained workforce for applicable trades. It includes transparency both at the local and state level, so cities must report publicly to their governing bodies. And the bill also requires reporting to the legislature. And finally, with work with the committee, we've initiated a five-year sunset on the bill, so the legislature can come back and revisit this at a later time. The appropriate standard for cities is parity with those other local agencies. This bill places cities on equal footing with other public agencies, and with that, respectfully ask your aye vote, and thank you for Assemblymember Papin for carrying this bill for us. Good afternoon, Honorable Chair and members of the committee. My name is Edward Kwan, and I serve as Public Works Director for the City of Belmont. I'm here in strong support of AB2033, and I want to speak on what this bill means in practical terms, not just in a crisis, but on any given week in a city like ours. Most of what a public works director does is not dramatic. It's HVAC systems that need replacing before they fail. It's ADA ramp upgrades that's been on the list for over two years. It's roof repairs that get deferred because by the time the bid cycle runs its course, the budget window closes. It's interior renovations that sit in queue because the design bid award process requires months of staff time before a single contractor shows up. Under current law, every one of those projects, no matter how routine, no matter how well-defined, requires full plan preparation, public advertisement, a former bid period, evaluation and award. For a small city like ours with a very lean public works staff, that means we are spending a disproportionate amount of time in administrative capacity, just moving projects through procurement alone before any actual work starts. JOC solves this. With a pre-competed master contract and a unit price catalog in place, I can issue a work order for a routine HVAC replacement or an ADA upgrade at the same week the need is identified. The competition already happened up front. The pricing is already public. We move faster, and we move at a fair pre-negotiated price. Now let me tell you what happens when the same procurement dysfunction is compressed in 24 hours. On January 6th of this year, a Belmont homeowner reported two sinkholes in their backyard, right over a city storm drain easement. By the time our crews arrived, there were four sinkholes. The ground was actively collapsing. Rain was coming. The risk of hillside failure and damage to neighboring properties and homes were real and immediate. We invoked emergency contracting authority, hired an engineering firm on the spot for fast-track design, and found a contractor who could mobilize immediately. The work got done, but we paid for every hour of that urgency. The final contract came in over $100,000. we estimate pre-negotiated unit pricing would have reduced the cost by 25 to 30 percent. This is not a story about a tool designed for emergencies. It's a story about what it costs when a city has no pre-competed contract to fall back on, whether the need is a sinkhole on a rainy Tuesday or a restroom renovation that has been on the deferred list for over a year. The problem is the same. JOC is the solution to both. I want to address directly the concern of GOCs and how it would take work away from city employees, and specifically the argument that unions cannot meaningfully review the work being assigned. As a person who would prepare and publish this unit price catalog, I want to be clear that that catalog is a public document. It's a core component of publicly advertised bid packages prepared before solicitation, published as part of the bid advertisement, and available to any party, including recognized employee organizations, through the same public notice process. That applies to every competitively bid project. There's nothing hidden about what work is covered and what it costs. On this placement, under California Public Contract Code, construction work above $5,000 must already go through a competitive bid. That work goes to outside contractors today, regardless of the bill. JOC changes how we select and price the contractor, not whether the work is contracted out. The bill also expressively prohibits JOCs to lay off, reduce hours, and involuntary transfer any permanent city employees. Cities like Belmont, we're small. We don't have that large contract capacity. We don't have deep reserves to absorb this premium cost of delayed procurements. Thank you so much. I request for you to vote aye Thank you Thank you so much Anybody else wants to add on in support Please state your name affiliation and position on the bill Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the cities of Foster City, Rancho Cucamonga, and the city of Vernon in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair members Janice Malley with AFSCME California and on behalf of the members of local 829 City of Belmont workers. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2033 unless amended. First, I want to acknowledge and appreciate Assemblymember Papin and her office on recent engagement with us. We believe those discussions have been productive, and we remain committed to working collaboratively toward a solution, and we feel confident that we can get there. We understand why local agencies seek tools to complete maintenance repairs and small public works projects in a timely manner. Cities need the ability to respond quickly to failing HVAC systems, facility repairs, ADA improvements, and other infrastructure needs. And our concern is not with efficiency or getting those projects done. Our concern is how JOCs can impact the public sector workforce if appropriate guardrails aren't included. Under a JOC, a city can award a long-term master contract to a private contractor and then issue multiple work orders over time using a pre-priced construction catalog rather than bidding each project individually. And while that can speed delivery, it can also make it easier to route increasing amounts of work to outside contractors. Many cities already employ skilled public workers in maintenance streets, utilities, parks, and facilities classifications who perform this work every day. And the risk is often not immediate layoffs. It's attrition. As experienced employees retire or leave, vacancies may go unfilled, and work that was historically performed in-house may instead be assigned externally through JOCs. Over time, that can reduce in-house expertise, weaken emergency response capacity, and increase long-term reliance on contractors. That's why we're seeking balance. We believe procurement efficiency and workforce protections can coexist. Reasonable safeguards such as non-displacement language, which is in the bill, transparency, and ensuring JOC's supplement rather than replace existing employees would go a long way towards our concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in opposition? Seeing none, members, comments, questions? Assemblymember Ward? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Pappin, for addressing this issue. We definitely want to think about ways to be more effective with the way that we deliver public works. I've got two chief concerns, I think, with this approach. That sounds like, you know, you're open to continuing conversation as well, and I appreciate you listening closely to representatives of our city workers. One is where I've had some pretty consistent opinion through bills in this committee as well, I think, in prior years. that we really want to make sure that we are thinking about right our own public workforce to be able to do the ongoing work So I have grave reservation when we talk about especially master contracting that out there for up to million of opportunity That tells me that there is ongoing work And so, yes, you're right. I think if you're looking at this issue narrowly, that doing a design build opportunity and the additional cost and the additional time compared to a JOC structure, apples to apples there, yes, I would like to be able to see that process go a little bit more effectively for the purposes of delivering the city services. But an even more effective solution would be to have the city employee on hand and ready to go and ready to be dispatched right out there to that sinkhole site as soon as things are arriving. And so that's just one, I think, point of view that I think as you're continuing these conversations that you can look for language, not just, I think, that's going to look for transparency issues and some of the other items that, you know, were discussed here by the opposition witness, but really begging the question, can this work be transferred and can this work be assumed as a in-house or as a public employee position for ongoing work? If you think about electricians, building maintenance facilities, that's always going to have a need for our cities and for all of our public assets as well, too. And so that's something that I think that, you know, I encourage you. I'd like to see something go to the governor that was a little bit more inclusive of a first check to make sure that our public employee bargaining units are a part of that decision about whether or not this ongoing work is even present in the first place. If it's a one-off job or a very special kind of assignment, I get that. Installing an EV charger or something here or there. if you're not a very big city and you don't have the capacity for a very large workforce. But there's a balance there that I think that we want to be able to defer because I think that something could be, rather than exporting $3 million of public monies, we could be keeping that in-house and supporting a great public workforce. And that's just a guiding value of mine that I'd want to see in the end. The second thing that gives me concern is that you are interested in doing a lowest responsible bidder opportunity for these. I don't think that's always the best solution because often that can bring in materials that are a little substandard, labor conditions or labor that might be a little bit more quick to do the job. And long story short, I find that lowest responsible bidder contracts often need to be repeated, often have cost overruns because the job has to get redone. I'm much more of a proponent for best value contracting wherever we can because you can take in and you as decision makers can make a more wholesome decision about how you're going to have longevity in the investments that you're making with these public dollars as opposed to having to redo the work more often and really over time, raising the cost over time to keep that building looking good or whatever the function is. So that's something I think that you'd want to take a second look at as well, too, just to make sure that from a cost-effectiveness standpoint over time that you're choosing the right system here. I'm happy to, I think, with this ongoing dialogue, be able to support this here today, but I want to preserve my right for a future vote as well, too, to make sure that some of these issues are addressed. Ms. Johnson? Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. I want to share the sentiment of my colleague here in regards to just the need for guardrails to ensure that we are not using this as a substitution of public workers. And I do it looks like there was a committee amendment that set the cap higher at million because that to me million is a large cap for a job order contract And so for an individual job order makes me concerned that we need to make sure that you are properly staffed as an agency in order to respond to things that are typical in public work, whether it be things like HVAC and road repair and sewer pipes and things like that. It's really important that we have the right staff on the team and not substitute the role of our public employees with $3 million outside contracts. I did want to confirm, I believe I saw something that says contracts will be awarded to the lowest possible bidder or something of that nature, which to me was also concerning because we want to make sure that we're getting quality work. I do realize that you are in continuous conversations with opposition about how to ensure that we are not pushing out or substituting our public employees. And so with that being said, I'm happy to support today, but we'll also be looking to ensure that more guardrails are put in place in the future. But I definitely do question, you know, why such a high cap, $3 million, for job order contracts, and just really ensuring that we are putting in something that really incentivizes proper staffing for the agencies. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? No one? Would you like to close? Well, I just thank the members so much for their words. And I agree with you coming out of local government. I feel a certain affinity to the public works folks that I have worked with in the past. In the past life, I actually litigated public works construction projects. So I have a long history as it relates to public works. And both of you, I think, articulated very well, as did our friends that came from AFSCMEF today. And the word supplement as opposed to replace. Those are very key words here. And we're going to have to get it right. No question about it. and we will continue our discussions about guardrails that you feel comfortable with. And I thank the committee just for the discussion and request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you again for working with the committee on amendments. Thank you for that. And with the amendments, I will be supporting your bill, but we need a motion and a second. Moved by Pacheco. Is there a second? Second by Ransom. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number three, AB 2033, the motion is due pass as amended. Clario? Aye. Clario, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Johnson, not voting. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Not voting. Ramos, not voting. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Thank you. The measure goes 8-0. The measure is out. Thank you. While we get Mr. Hoover, can we go back to add-ons on the bills that we already added? We'll be in a second, okay? No worries. For item number two, AB 1768 by Assemblymember Bryan, the motion is due pass as amended. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Aye. So item number two, AB 1786. That's out six to two. We go back to the agenda, and that's item number seven, AB 2415 by Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2415. As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, We are tasked with increasing affordability and availability in our housing stock policies, such as SB 79 from last year, do help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, there are some very pro-housing communities, such as a city in my district, the city of Folsom, that want to build housing but also still aim to protect the character of their historic districts specifically. Our proposed solution is very narrowly tailored. It would allow a city if the majority of the transit zone is part of a local historic district as defined to reduce the capacity in one transit-oriented development zone by more than 50 percent. However, the criteria for doing so means that the city must have more than one transit-oriented development zone and a population of less than 150,000. The local historic district must also have been designated before January 1st of 2000. With me today is Folsom Mayor Justin Rathel to speak in support of the bill as well as Jerry Bruneau with Bruneau Development Corporation. We also have Desmond Parrington here for technical assistance if needed. Chair Carrillo and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justin Rathel. I have the honor of serving as the mayor of the city of Folsom. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 2415. Folsom takes our housing responsibilities seriously. Over the past two decades, we've consistently approved and built homes across the income spectrum. And we continue to lean into higher density development in the places where it makes the most sense. Near jobs, services, and transit. At the same time, we have a duty to protect the Folsom Historic District. It's not just a neighborhood, it's our cultural heart and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region. In 2024, we updated our general plan to increase allowable densities in several targeted areas, including our East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, Folsom Plan Area Town Center, and actually two transit station areas. We intentionally did not apply these higher density overlays to the historic district, because its scale and character are what makes it special. Even so, the district continues to grow in a way that fits, primarily through accessory dwelling units and mixed use that blend in to the neighborhood. The challenge that we face is that under current law, high-density housing obligations are still assigned to the historic district in the ways that simply don't align with its physical constraints or its role as a regional cultural anchor. AB 2415 gives us a practical way to fix that. It allows the city to shift those obligations to transit-oriented development areas near our two additional light rail stations, places that are actually designed for height, density, and modern infrastructure. And we also own some land next to one of those light rail stations that we're able to develop there. AB 2415 offers a thoughtful solution for how the state can support housing production while still respecting the unique historic assets that communities are trying to preserve. It shows that we don't have to choose between meeting statewide housing goals and honoring the places that tell our shared story. On behalf of the city of Folsom I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2415 Thank you Good afternoon Chair Carrillo committee members thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon My name is Jerry Bernal, the owner of Bernal Development Corporation. I came to Folsom about 35 years ago to actually develop the largest apartment project in Folsom at the time, a 400-unit project that was built in 1991. Since that time, I've been building housing in Folsom, including single-family, multifamily, ADUs, and mixed-use in Folsom's historic district. I'm here in support of AB 2415 because it gives cities like Folsom a practical way to meet their housing obligations without compromising an irreplaceable historic district. As a developer, I want to be clear. We are building housing in historic Folsom. We're doing it in a way that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historic character. Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit into the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new homes without overwhelming infrastructure or overshadowing historic assets. This is the kind of context-appropriate growth that keeps our historic district vibrant. AB 2415 strikes a balance. It allows those high-density obligations to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the intensity, and has the modern infrastructure, especially trans-oriented districts near the city's two additional light rail stations. These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing projects the state is asking for. It puts housing where it belongs while allowing historic districts to continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose. I sincerely appreciate your opportunity to speak today, and I would ask for a yes vote on AB 2415. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add any support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Mr. Chair, members, Jason Gonsalves representing and residing in the City of Folsom in strong support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kathy Cole, I am a historic Folsom resident as well as vice chair of the Folsom Historic District Commission and urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Seeing no opposition, committee members, comments, questions, Assemblymember Ward. Thank you, Mr. Hoover, for bringing this forward. With SB 79, you already have an opportunity, right, to be able to have a local alternative plan which shifts away any development capacity from one TOD. And you mentioned there's two other TOD sites as well, SB 79 TOD sites within the city of Folsom. So I'm unclear why the need for additional legislation here. So I'm going to actually ask Desmond to come up if you could and help me answer that question. But I'll start by saying we had a lot of very detailed conversations about this because what we hoped for was to be able to use the preexisting language within SB 79 to allow this specific district to essentially shift some of its requirements. The problem is there is still a certain requirement that cannot be waived that I'm going to let our. You can reduce it to 50% of the original SB 79. Correct. So I don't know if I can allow my. And you want to go more than 50%. So just a, hi, I'm Desmond Parrington, planning manager with the city of Folsom. So just, just a, there were a couple of issues that, in SB 79, that were raising a concern. So the first one is that while it does allow for that reduction, it really kind of site as it relates to properties that are on a historic list One of the things that unique about our historic district is that the lotting pattern the way it was laid out, was planned by Theodore Judah, the engineer for the Transcontinental Railroad. And so it's kind of this unique pattern. So while there are individual properties on there that are listed either federally or state, the entire district was established locally as a historic district. So that's kind of the, that's the first issue that it wouldn't really provide the protection for the whole district. The second, the second problem is that with, with the provisions that are, that are in here and the interpretations that we were getting from various different kind of legal advice, and really also from the senator's office, it wasn't clear that we could shift a lot of the growth out of the historic district and to the other light rail stations. That was the biggest concern, because again, we're not opposed to transit-oriented development in our historic district. It's the height and the scale is really the key factor. And when we were here that we don't think that you're going to be able to shift that growth or to exclude portions of that area from SB 79, that's where we were concerned. Because, again, most of the historic district is at one to two stories. This would allow six stories and up to 100 dwelling per acre. Again, we can do that. We can do development. We just want to do it in the scale, and the Brno Development Corporation is one of the examples. They're doing a three-story project there that's mixed use, that fits within the character of the historic district. I know not as well as you, but I know the Folsom Historic District and appreciate not just what a treasure resource it is, but also as an economic engine probably for the city. I fully appreciate that. The detail that I'm curious here is that, first of all, you said when you were liaising with the senator's office that it was clear to me that cities can do an alternative plan. It's not that we can't do an alternative plan. But the advice that we were getting from outside legal counsel was they did not believe that we could really shift a lot of the assigned kind of growth to that area to a different TOD area. That was the concern. And this was verified as well by stakeholders that supported the bill last year, as well as the senator's office. There just didn't appear to be a pathway to use existing law, so we had to get a little bit creative. So we do understand that this is a, you know, obviously a narrowly tailored bill because we do want to preserve, obviously, the good things about SB 79. But this was based on conversations with those same stakeholders. And so if you're saying here we want to be clear in this bill, if we're going to, for understandable reasons, for arguable reasons, reduce the development capacity over here that you would accept and shift that development capacity to one or two of the other sites. Correct. We're not trying to get out of our obligation. Is that in the bill? I believe so, yes. Okay Okay fantastic Well great I want to be very clear about that as well too We not reducing what is required We are simply shifting what is required or allowing that to be shifted That I can support Absolutely I really appreciate the clarification and thank you for your attention to your district Anybody else? Comments, questions? No. Would you like to close the Assemblymember? Just appreciate the opportunity and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you for presenting the bill today. I will be supporting the bill today. We need a motion. In a second. So moved by Johnson. Seconded by Pacheco. Please call the wrong. For item number 7, AB 2415, the motion is due pass. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Colosa Colosa I'm for it for it I Wilson Wilson I thank you thank you the bill is out 10-0 thank you we have just one item left on the agenda and that's number eight a B 27 41 by Muratsuchi staff from Mr. Tucci, please ask him to head over to local government. In the meantime, can we do add-ons on the rest of the items? Add-ons for item number one, AB 1658 by Assemblymember Kalra. The motion is due pass. Johnson? Aye. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. The measure is out 10-0. I had a add-ons for item number four, AB 2134 by Assemblymember Addis. The motion is do pass as amended. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Ramos? Ramos, aye. Colosa? Colosa, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. That measure is out of 10-0. Add-ons for item number 5, AB 21-88 by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is do pass as amended. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. That measure south 10-0. Add-ons for item number 6, AB 2263 by Assemblymember Calra. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Colosa. Colosa, I Wilson. Wilson, I. That item is out 10-0. And that's all for Adams. We're just waiting on the last item on the agenda. I believe the author is on his way. Thank you. Thank you. And we are back. Item number eight on the agenda, AB 2741, whenever you're ready, Assemblymember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm timing what we need. Right on time. Welcome. Thank you. the housing element was approved, but was subsequently challenged in court. And the court found that the housing element was out of compliance. And so we're presenting this bill with a simple request, which is to give cities a chance to be good actors, to comply with the housing law to fix their housing element so that they will be in compliance with the housing requirements. So that is pretty much it. We're just asking for a break for cities to be able to comply, especially, I know that the committee analysis focused on the residential overlay approach. there are over 100 cities, and the League of California Cities will be testifying in support of that, but there are over 100 cities that are in a similar situation. They submitted housing elements with residential overlays, and so they are concerned, given the court case of the status of their housing elements. So, you know, we're just trying to make sure that cities that are acting in good faith get a chance to try to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. With me to testify in support of the bill is Brady Gerton with the League of California Cities and representing the city of Redonda Beach, Mark Weiner. Good afternoon Chair and members Brady Gerton on behalf of the League of California Cities We do have a supportive amended position but we do support the intent of what the Assemblymember is trying to do We think the supportive amended is because of a larger conversation we need to have about the use of overlays in the future. But we support this bill in terms of what it's trying to do with the grace period, as well as an attempt to look at overlays. We wanted to chat today about the big concerns. As the Assemblymember mentioned, there was over 100 cities that, through no fault of their own, listened to HCD guidance, which stated that the use of overlays was allowed. As a result of those decisions, the court came back and said that HCD had gotten it wrong. Now, this is an unprecedented time where the court has overturned a previously certified housing element by HCD. Only a few court cases has happened historically for that. So the bill proposal is to provide a grace period for cities to adequately respond to those should they get sued to do that. And also the use of overlays is an important tool in the long run that needs to be a longer conversation that we are open to having with opposition and some of the groups that have expressed concerns about the use of overlays. Zoning overlays are an important affordable housing tool for local governments and have been a state-endorsed method, as we mentioned, through HCD guidance, as these overlays help support walkable infill development near transit jobs and services while promoting higher-density affordable housing, which has been a priority of the legislature over the last 10 years. The other thing that we think is really important is cities should not be unfairly penalized for listening to state guidance. There has been a lot of bills that has deferred to HCD in terms of being the overseers around housing elements, and our cities work collaboratively with them. And if we're following state guidance and then get pulled through no fault of our own, we don't think that it's fair that cities should have builder's remedy occur. Redondo Beach, I know, can talk to some of the experiences that they've had, but we're worried about the long-term implications for these over 100 cities that used overlays per HCDD guidance and was certified by HCDD, and we want to give cities time to adequately respond accordingly. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and look forward to continuing to work with the different park groups opposed to this as well as working to have a longer conversation about overlays and adequate grace periods for cities through no following their own that lose certification. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair and Committee, for hearing this item today. I also want to thank Assemblymember Marisucci for sponsoring this. My name is Mark Weiner. I'm the Director of Community Development for the City of Redondo Beach, and I'm here representing the city. And really, we're an example of a city that is affected by this legislation. As the two prior speakers stated, we did go through the process of getting our housing element certified by state HCD. We did it in a timely manner back in 2022. And per HCD's direction, we use the overlay zone approach to meet our housing requirements. It's actually been a successful approach. We currently have an application in right now for 170 units at one of these overlay sites. So it's proven in our city and in others, and we feel strongly about it. It's also important in terms of the land use balance in our city. Over 80% of our land is owned residential, and we support the housing legislation, the housing laws, as they pertain to production of housing. We feel it's also important to have some flexibility in the land uses and these underlying industrial and commercial land uses, economic development factors into that, jobs, housing balance. So it really is a balance of housing and other land uses cities are trying to achieve. So as I said, we received certification from state HCD. Our housing element was recently deemed noncompliant by an appeals court placing the city into the builder remedy status potentially That of concern to us because we received a number of applications during this window that are somewhat impactful to the community And it's really challenging for city officials to explain to residents why we're in the status when the city acted in good faith and complied with the state's guidance. So I do want to ask that the committee supports the overlay zone concept and then also the provision of the bill that provides a grace period for cities that have complied in good faith. We feel that's important that for cities that have followed the direction of the state, went through all the processes, that they are given some time to cure the issue if the court determines there is an issue. Builder's remedy is really, while it's intended to produce housing, it's also somewhat of a penalty to the bad actors in the cities that don't comply. We are an example of a city that's fully complied, who supported the housing laws, yet we are in this builder's remedy window. We are diligently working with state HCD to correct the issues identified by the court, and we would appreciate if we had some time to do that prior to being placed in this builder's remedy status. So for those reasons, we strongly support the bill and thank you for your time. Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Patrick Foy, also with the city of Redondo Beach, here in support. Thank you. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties. We have a supportive amended position. Want to agree with the comments provided by CalCities. Also registering the same position for rural county representatives of California and the American Planning Association, California chapter. Virginia Butler. I'm a resident of the South Bay of Los Angeles, where Mr. Murasuchi represents us. I live next door to the city of Redondo Beach. I'm here with the California Association of Realtors, but I'm just representing myself. We strongly support this, and I think it will help homeowners. Thank you. Sandy Pfister, South Bay Association of Realtors. We support Mr. Mercer-Archie's bill. Thank you. Dave Fratello, realtor in Manhattan Beach, covering the South Bay, here in personal support. Nina Elisarradas, realtor in Torrance, one of the cities affected, in support of the bill, and also boarder director for the South Bay Association of Realtors. John Defterios, resident 66th District. I'm in support of the assembly of the bill. Thank you very much. Gloria Camisone, a resident of Redondo Beach and a member of Almer's Dirge's District 66 here in support. Thank you. Thank you. And I see a position coming this way. Who comes down? Waiting for you to call my name. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director at California YUMB, an AICP planner, here to speak in respectful opposition of AB 2741. One of this body's major accomplishments in recent years has been strengthening the housing element law, ensuring that every jurisdiction permits its fair share of housing. But the law only works if jurisdictions face consequences when they do not comply. This cycle a subset of jurisdictions adopted housing elements that relied on noncompliant overlay zones that wouldn actually result in new housing in violation of the plain language of the statute and court precedent They chose to take this risk. HCD's certification of this misbehavior does not make it right and, more importantly, does not make it legal. In the case at hand, Redondo Beach allocated hundreds of units to sites that, even with a minimum of due diligence revealed, would not actually be redeveloped. In the new commune case, the court found those noncompliant overlay zones so clearly inconsistent with state law that it overcame the presumption of validity that normally follows HCD certification. The court made it clear that HCD approval to flout state housing law does not override the law as written and passed by this body. That is the system working as intended. And yet AB 2741 rolls back this progress, allowing bad actor cities to fall out of compliance and receive a 270-day get-out-of-jail-free card. It sets a dangerous precedent not just for Redondo Beach, but for the dozens of jurisdictions that have adopted similarly unlawful overlay policies this cycle. It also sets a dangerous precedent that this body will intervene any time courts faithfully implement state housing law. The vast majority of local jurisdictions did not play games like this. They faithfully implemented plans that are helping to get housing built across California. AB 2741 sends a message that bad actor jurisdictions can drag their feet and submit inadequate housing elements without consequence. Existing law already strikes the right balance. Jurisdictions whose housing elements run afoul of new commune can promptly amend their overlay ordinances and come into compliance without need for any change to the law or even a housing element amendment. This may force some jurisdictions to admit that they allocated units to sites that are extremely unlikely to be redeveloped, But again, that's the arena process working. That's the system working. While we look forward to continuing conversations with the author's office, I must also make it clear that, as written, this bill effectively sanctions and open subversion of state housing law, and it imposes a 270-day cure period that effectively makes it impossible for applicants to enforce their rights. We respectfully request your no vote today. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of both the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. Our two legal services organizations have, over the last several decades, played a key role both in helping to shape housing element law but also, most importantly, enforce housing element law. So we come to this conversation with both of those roles keenly in mind. And it is very important to us, as it is to other stakeholders who are at the table, that we see adequate enforcement of housing element law because that's how we're going to get the units that we need. But in this instance, we remain opposed to the bill, but I want to be clear that we are committed to working with the author and stakeholders to find a solution. Listening to the author and his supporters speak, it sounds like the goal is to find a way in which there is a safe harbor for those jurisdictions who relied on erroneous advice about how to adopt a compliant housing element relying on an overlay, have time to fix that before they are sued. We think that's important. We think we need those sites. The current bill does not provide for that. The current bill would allow for jurisdictions who adopted overlays that don't comply with what the court said, which is an interpretation we agree with, to nonetheless finish out this current cycle and not bring those sites into compliance. And here's why we think that matters. Site identification is one of the most critical parts of the housing element process. And we have worked, as have others, over the years to plug many of the holes that make sites look okay on paper, but in reality don't actually deliver us affordable housing or don't deliver additional housing units. And we've plugged those holes. And one of them is making sure that if you use an overlay, there's a minimum residential density that will ensure that we get those residential units. This bill would, despite the court's interpretation of law, allow jurisdictions not to apply that minimum residential density. And so we will see a lot of sites get developed without any housing, and we won't have the mechanism to bring that housing online. And rather than waiving that requirement, which is going to be very critical in small jurisdictions, which only have maybe a handful of sites because they also have a lower RENA number, that proportion that come off the table is going to have a huge impact. We think the solution is rather give jurisdictions time to come into compliance, provide the safe harbor from suit for those that do it within that time period, and then put the rules back on the table that those who don't comply are back in a situation where they are subject to suit. That's what we want to do, and that's why we want to work with the author. It's given me the thumbs up, so I'm sure we're going to get there. Thank you, sir. Anybody else that wants to vote on in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and respectful opposition. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in opposition. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of Cal Chamber in opposition and also asked to offer opposition from NAOP Southern California. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, Inner City Law Center, and Greenbelt Alliance in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. On behalf of the California Apartment Association, in opposition and also registering opposition for California Business Properties Association. Thank you. Thank you, committee members. Assemblymember Wilson. Thank you. So we had a chance to, a few of us in the room actually, had a chance to look at this bill when it was in housing. And one of the concerns that was brought up, and I brought it up, and forgive me to the Chair, I'm going to narrow the housing part and get to the local gov part, but I just want to give context, if you don't mind. That the chair of that committee had proposed some amendments, committee amendments, and there were many members of the committee that weren't comfortable with the bill absent the amendments. In that hearing, there was a commitment to work on those amendments because we were in the first committee of the process and that, you know, work on it before the second committee. We're in the second committee. And there's been no progress on those. And as I stated, and I know a number of my colleagues did, that those were, that they actually sided with the opposition's amendment without those not supporting. And it wasn't like a unanimous vote. You know, people laid off for that reason. And so I'm concerned that we're here today in this committee without any progress on that area. And when you think about from a local gut point of view, we do care about the fact that HCD, that cities, local governments, relied on whatever they relied on to turn in their HCD and HCD accepted it. And so there's one portion of it that makes sense. And part of the amendments that came out of Housing Committee was that it would be allowed in the sixth arena cycle and then in the seventh arena cycle was a new arena cycle And you have to go through that process But this allows for this safe harbor With the intent of producing housing and cities being required to produce housing, not produce, they don't make, I always say that too, they don't build housing, but they zone for it. With the city requiring to zone for within an HCD and they're found out of compliance and so many people sue cities and I love local control, but I also know that not every city is there. Some cities are using the system to prevent housing that they don't like. And I'm not sure why you still have the language in around them having the safe harbor of 270 days. And in asking that, please comment on the fact that we're now in the second committee and no progress has been made. Okay. On the amendments that were supposed to be accepted to get a hearing. And I know the chair let you and told committee that he was going to let it work so you can continue to work on it. And I haven't, there's no progress. So please make sure progress. Well, the housing hearing committee was last week. So we are still in the process of working on amendments, but we have not been able to cross amendments between last week and today. But you can't speak to the progress on, because I think that's germane to what you're asking us to do today. is you're asking for another courtesy vote. And there were so many people in that committee. The bill wouldn't have gotten out, right? The bill would not have gotten out without the courtesy vote. So why would we keep extending the courtesy vote when you made no meaningful progress?

And that when you noted that you said, what if that was offered and rejected? He said he was open to that He being The Mr Haney OK but was that offered to the opposition and rejected Or that was just something that you talked to the chair about

Okay. Yeah. Okay. But not working with the opposition that you have, who have concerns about.

Okay. I mean, I think the key part is, is as we navigate through the legislative process, And, you know, this is Local Gov, right? We want to protect our locals from harm, right? Especially ones that are in good faith, relying on advice to do the good work that they all do, right? Many of the people who sit on this dais and this committee, you know, come from having served in local government, whether that be city or county or school boards of nature. So, you know, we give them, you know, the benefit of the doubt. But part of our rules around HCD and the ability to sue, that other people have the ability to sue, is also centered around that sometimes there are flaws and sometimes those things are intentional. And so we have to be balanced in this regard. And so I'm very concerned that a bill that was likely not to get out of the other committee, sans a courtesy by majority of the board, with the intent of working on what you described as getting permission to narrow the amendment in comparison to what the committee worked on, which they thought struck a balance. And then having not made any progress to that, even in a week, to say this is the direction that we're headed in, is very concerning to me. So I won't be able to support your bill today. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Ronson.

Number one, I would say the big difference between the scenario that you described is this was approved by HCD. This wasn't just a city self-certifying. Okay, so we have the state saying they are approving the housing element. So that's number one. Number two, I believe the League of Cities has. Yeah, so the reason we have supportive amendments is because we believe a longer conversation. needs to happen about the use of overlays. So we support the intent of the grace period for sure and where the author's going. We also tried, in working with the author, trying to find something that was receptive in terms of the use of the overlays initially, but we think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen with all the stakeholders that we've heard around the use of overlays. You know, CalCities believes a longer grace period makes sense because this was through no fault of a local government listening to what HCD guidance had said. So that's where it comes in. But we support this as like a really good first step. We just think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen. And we don't know if that's going to get there. We want it to get there with this bill, but, you know, those conversations are ongoing. And we have set up meetings with opposition. We had a couple calls this week, earlier this week, as well as we're trying, we're, I believe, talking with UMB later this week as well to discuss their concerns as well. So just wanted to highlight that as well. Thank you all.

well I think I think this comes down as Ms. Wilson pointed out to you know my commitment to address the concerns raised by both the housing committee and by the local government committee I appreciate the chair's recommendation to with my commitment to work with this committee to make sure that things work by this committee. I appreciate the housing committee's chair's support recommendation with the commitment that I will address the concerns of the housing committee. And again, I think the The bottom line is in order to make this work for all cities, we should not be punishing cities that got the stamp of approval from HCD. We should give them a chance. If the 270 days is too long, you have my commitment to work on that. But, yeah. Just like the cities are asking for an opportunity to correct and address any concerns, I'm asking for the opportunity to.

So I have a couple of questions. And I agree with the author that, you know, if there was a mistake done and it was due to ACD providing advice to our cities, then it should be addressed. no fault from the cities. And I think we all agree as to that, that we shouldn't give fault to our cities for relying on HCD. But I think there were other concerns raised in Housing Committee, and I think there was a commitment on your behalf to amend the bill in that committee, and I'm assuming amendments were provided. And I think my colleague was trying to see where you were in that process. And I'm curious to know, were you willing to take the amendments that you promised to take in housing?

And there was never a commitment to arrive at the amendments between last week and today. Um, the commitment was to, was to address the concerns raised by both the housing committee, but, you know, I, yeah, I, okay. Well, I actually don't sit on that committee, so I'm not aware of what was discussed. discussed. So that's why I'm trying to get to whether was your comments to the housing committee, whether it was I will be taking the amendments within the next committee, or was it I will be looking into having discussions about two of the amendments. So I would like to hear what was

And I know I already made a commitment, so I will be supporting your bill today because I do think we need to help our cities whenever possible. but I would like to see if you could work things out, especially with our housing committee chair and with the other members in the assembly So thank you So we gonna go back to Wilson then Colosa and then Ransom I decline I did talk for quite a long time

Thank you, Chair. What a fun day to sub in local gov. But I want to thank the author not to continue to bring the housing committee into this committee. I actually laid off in housing. Assemblymember Wilson was kind enough to vote for this. And so I think that's why there's, you know, a lot of concern. And I understand the time constraints that, you know, you're sharing about being in housing last week and being in local gov already. You know, I have to push back a little bit on that because we're all under those same time constraints. I have to work on amendments within the same period of time and have to get them in, true to my word, which has already happened to me many times, you know, in this cycle, because that's a good faith effort that I've made. And so, you know, I know I had promised to support this bill when I saw you in passing, actually thinking that you had worked on those amendments. And, you know, thank you for, for clarifying that you weren't planning to land in that same place. I think, um, on the way here as well, heard from some of the opposition that it doesn't seem like, uh, at least from their perspective that you have been meeting to work on those amendments. I don't know if you want to respond to that, but that was some of the information I think related to me. Um, uh, just, just recently after we, we communicated whether or not you're meeting with opposition or what that progress looks like?

Yeah, thanks for sharing that. I mean, I think for me it's like whether or not we see progress being made, and I'm not going to continue to belabor it, but I just wanted to add that context for folks that Ms. Wilson and I are both on the housing committee and that's kind of what transpired. But I won't ask you any questions right now, but, you know, curious to see what my colleagues do on this. But I might still be in the same place, unfortunately. Thank you.

So I still support this bill, the way that it was presented to me. Not knowing all of this discussion that had happened at the housing committee the way that it came to my committee is the way that it is With no amendments again not knowing what was or was not agreed on I still support the bill. I just want to let the members know that the way that it was brought to me, I still support the way it is without amendments, because, again, not knowing what happened in the Housing Committee. After all this discussion, again, I just want to be clear that I still support the bill that it was presented to me in this committee.