June 10, 2026 · Local Govt · 14,602 words · 24 speakers · 89 segments
Thank you. Here in the Capitol building, I ask all members of the committee to be present, room 112, so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. This is our first hearing on assembly bills. Nine bills on today's agenda, two of which are on consent. File item number two, AB 1658, cholera, and file item three, AB 1835. Let's hear from our first author. I see Assemblymember Wilson. Please come forward. Good morning. Welcome. Grab that other chair.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present both slow down housing production and drive up costs, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing. reintroduced this legislation as AB 1621, building on AB 660, which I'm thankful had strong bipartisan support in this committee last year, that approved housing projects can actually move forward. It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to strengthen the project to make changes in the field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. And it stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to out. To note that local agencies can go beyond the two-plan check limit if there is strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. Today, on the importance of this legislation are Steve Cruz on behalf of California Building Industry Association and Deborah Calton on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Nick. That's right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. As was stated by the Assemblywoman, AB 1621 is critical legislation needed to approve the efficiency and fairness and accountability of the post-entitlement permitting process for housing development. Despite legislative progress in recent years, particularly with the enactment of AB 2234 by Speaker Rivas, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing post entitlement permits, serious barriers remain that continue to delay much-needed housing across the state. The measure addresses these barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach by doing three things, prohibiting last-minute field changes that contradict previously approved plans, limiting excessive plan checks, resubmittals, and closing loopholes that currently allow indefinite extensions of the shot clock. The delays of course not only contribute to increased cost and uncertainty for developers but also affects the viability of projects AB 1621 offers a balanced and common sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety Instead it creates clear concise and accountability framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately the ability to deliver the housing our state so desperately needs. For these reasons the California Building Industry Association respectfully urges an
an aye vote on 1621. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I cannot overstate the importance of this legislation. In California, for apartment owners, it can take up to eight years from beginning to at least getting the occupancy permits, and that is so challenging. You've got to have everything in line when it comes to your financing. And of course, in other states, two years or less. So every single legislation that helps us expedite the process is so incredibly important, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.
Okay. Is there anyone who wants to speak in support? If you would give your name and organization and your position.
Morning. Nolan Gray, California UMB in strong support.
Holly, for many days, use of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, SPUR, Habitat for Humanity, California, Circulate Planning and Policy, Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, and the Chamber of Commerce, all in support.
Thank you. Audrey Ritaychak on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in support.
We're about to charge you with Housing California, in support.
Bob Naylor for Field, Studer, and Company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr., in support.
Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in support.
Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak against if you want to come up?
Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Erden on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended position. We have had ongoing conversations and do appreciate some of the changes coming out, but we do remain concerned about the two plan check limit. And here's the challenge that local governments face. We have requirements from the state that we need to enforce that are also non health and safety requirements, right? Solar energy. You look at EV parking, a lot of stuff that's required. That's not necessarily a health and safety issue. So our options locally now in this proposal would be that we can't allow extra plan checks if applications are not complying with the standards that the state has laid out for us. Now, the challenge is that we could deny it, but then with litigation risk, that could be a high litigation risk with the Housing Accountability Act. So we do remain concerned about that. I will also note that multiple rounds of plan checks usually happen from a lack of understanding of the complexity of the building codes, not necessarily cities dragging their feet or holding the line on that. And, you know, our amendments that we offered were trying to address the concerns in terms of, okay, here's why you're missing the mark. These are the standards you're not meeting. And then, you know, we're open to if the challenge is that they're moving the goalposts, then we can say that on those feedbacks after the additional plan checks, you can only be held to that. Now, I think that might already be current practice, but I will say that's the challenges that local governments are facing, And that where our concern lies is risk of litigation and this opportunity to only deny as opposed to looking at health and safety I say the other amendments reduced the clarity in the law that said you could look at health and safety although there is one section that might allow it But I think we remain concerned that that clarity might not be there So with that we respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions Thank you
Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in opposition? Please come forward.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Sharon Gonzalves on behalf of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Corona, and Thousand Oaks in opposition. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, members, Max Perry on behalf of the city of Camarillo, also in respectful opposition.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties. We have an an opposed and less amended position with CalCities and also providing registering opposed and less amended for rural county representatives of California.
Thank you very much. And seeing no more support or opposition, come to the dais. Any comments or questions? Senator Choi?
Yes, I would like to support this measure, which essentially to expedite the various permitting process, including housing construction and also including limiting the plan checks and the process, which are all important for the safety reasons primarily. However, I had an experience last year with a historical building that was authorized by the LA County and the Korean Youth Academy that has been there for many, many years, almost 100 years. And then that building was in the zone that was important enough for the Korean government and the Korean people. And they recognized and they designated that as a historical building. And then the Korean government wanted to remodel because the building was almost 100 years old. dilapidated condition. And then since the time that I got involved last year, about July, and to get the help from the assembly members and the senators that got the encouraging and nosing letters and encouraged city government to process that permit remodeling construction permit to expedite quickly. And then I couldn't believe two dozens of agencies that they had to go through. And then finally they would not make a decision and that they kicked the ball to the state level, state housing department, you know, housing, and let them decide. And they okayed and they went back. That process took another three, four months and then went back. Rather than, okay, state has approved it instead of final stamp, but they went through another agency. I couldn't believe how they can come up with the different departments. And I felt like nobody willing to take the responsibility to put the final stamp on that kicking the ball down to another department Another department Good news is that finally it got the approval and they will be starting the construction, the remodeling process pretty soon. I know construction process is all a matter of timing, and the time is money. And the construction, the existing building from saving, from collapsing, and not even new construction, took that long time, at least from my involvement, was at least a year. And you said that apartment building construction takes eight years to get the permit. This is unrealistic. So this is a small step and we need to streamline the permitting process so that we can encourage builders to tackle on the shortage of housing, building constructions or even tenant improvement process also takes a long time. I had to myself had to wait at least one month delay because of a tenant improvement. The permit was delayed when my senate office was supposed to occupy and the other tenant would not extend our staying there because of the expiration. So you can see the time is the essence, the time is so important. So the efficient process of the permit checks and construction permit, that's essential. So I would strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator? Senator Arrigu. I strongly support the bill and move it at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to make a few comments. The housing crisis demands us to take action, take comprehensive action. There's no doubt about it from all levels of government. Local government has a very important role to play in all of that. We rely on them to enforce things like health and safety and many, many more. We hear week after week how local governments need to move faster to approve housing. And yet, year after year, the legislature passes bills to tighten timelines or tell local governments the steps they must take to approve housing. I think we need to take a step back and ask, have all of the procedures that we have added to local government processes helped speed up? or our local government struggling to keep up with the new rules and the new prescriptive procedures and devoting time to making sure they don't violate the new laws rather than moving quickly on housing. So although today I support this bill, I think it's a really important issue that we have to face, that piling up new rules does not mean that local government is going to be able to do it faster. There's an argument to be said that it will be slower. So I urge us all to think of local government governments as partners rather than opponents in getting our goals on housing and housing production built. So with that, again, I think these are issues that we more seriously have to take into account rather than to use the sort of same things that we say over and over, which is government's not doing it fast enough. Let me tell them how to do it. So without those your thoughts, Assemblymember Wilson, if you want to close or add anything else.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your comments. Actually, the comments from your colleagues as well are our colleagues. And, you know, I look at local government as a partner, and I know how strong of a collaborative partner they can be. I held the position in local government for 12 years prior to coming to that, and we were a partner. And a lot of times we were frustrated by what was coming down. the pipeline and how we felt like it made our job more difficult. And that's why I'm a strong supporter of this bill. It doesn't bypass local control, but it actually injects predictability. And predictability helps both sides. When you have variance or variability, that can lead to higher costs. But when a developer comes in and they know that they have two plan checks and if something else is going on related to safety and health, there might be something additional, it allows them predict timeline, which we know if we can have a consistent timeline, we can better manage cost. And then on the local government side, predictability helps them. It allows them to manage their workload with all of the development projects coming in. It also forces them to think thoroughly on that first plan check about what they think the issues are and then make up on any second that may arise versus saying, okay, we'll get it the next time. We'll get it the next time and not really taking that deep comprehensive analysis the first time. And so we don't add timelines, more specific timelines. We just are very clear about the two plan checks. And so hopefully that predictability will help both local governments be comprehensive in their analysis, as well as our developers to get through the process. And so AB 1621 is about streamlining the housing approval process by closing loopholes in those local permitting timelines, holding our agencies accountable when they're causing delays, and helping ensure that California can build housing faster and more efficiently. Truly, by cutting the red tape, this bill will support timely housing development to meet our state's growing needs and ensure that our local agencies continue to be collaborative partners with us. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Assemblymember and witnesses. Assemblymember Ward, you're next. This is item 7. Item 7, AB 2180. Assemblymember Ward, you may proceed and your witnesses have two minutes each. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2180, a measure which will provide clarity consistency and a practical framework consistent with long industry best practices for water agencies in ascending proportional rates that are in compliance with the constitutional requirements of Prop 218 To meet the strict proportionality requirements of Prop 218, public water suppliers routinely hire experts to develop proportional rates supported by rigorous cost of service analyses and data. Despite this diligence, high water users have regularly challenged these rates in courts, and now recent appellate court decisions have reached conflicting decisions regarding the methodologies used by water providers when setting these water rates. This is called widespread uncertainty for agencies attempting to comply with Prop 218's proportionality requirements. AB 2180 would address this issue by establishing clear legal standards that protect both water agencies and rate payers by reducing costly litigation and ensuring that low-use customers are not subsidizing infrastructure costs driven by high-use customers while preserving the core constitutional requirements that rates do not exceed the proportional cost of service. With me in support of the bill here today, I have Sorin Nelson, Senior Policy Advocate at the Association of California Water Agencies, and Nicholas Whips, the Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. Thank you, Assemblymember. Good morning. Welcome. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies. Proposition 218 is the foundation upon which most of the spending in water in California is built. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 85% of all investments in water infrastructure in the state happen at the local level, funded primarily by water rates. As financial support from the state and federal government becomes less reliable, that number is only expected to climb. Public water agencies are held to a higher transparency and public engagement standard than any other utility when setting their rates. Public water agencies are accountable to their communities for the money they spend and are constantly striving to balance the cost of providing safe and reliable water with the need to keep water affordable for Californians. Unfortunately, despite the high standard to which water agencies are already held, opportunistic lawsuits have become more frequent and created what is quickly becoming an impossible legal landscape for our local governments to navigate. As climate change accelerates and our infrastructure continues to age, the ability to set rates that accurately reflect the impact of high-volume water users on our systems is critical. Because the courts are reaching conflicting conclusions about how water providers should apply Prop 218, it is now both appropriate and necessary for the legislature to weigh in. AB 2180 will give public water agencies the clarity they need to set rates without diluting the consumer protections built into Prop 218. I respectfully urge your support. Excuse me just one second. We're going to take a moment to establish quorum. Just give us a minute. Senators Durazo? Here. Durazo here. Choi?
Here. Choi here.
Adrigin? Here. Adrigin here. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Sayarto? Here. Thank you very much. You may proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Ward and Soren. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Nick Whips. I'm a Deputy City Attorney at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. There I advise regarding a proposition to 18 compliance, and I also assist in defending water and sewer rates of the city of San Francisco. California's public water agencies ensure continued water affordability while operating and maintaining critical drinking water systems. providing Californians with high-quality drinking water. Public water agencies set rates only to recover the cost of service to their customers, nothing more. Setting water rates requires highly technical calculation of costs, while also accounting for the affordability of rates, often in the face of uncertainty. AB 2180 responds to many of the major legal uncertainties namely what costs Proposition 218 allows water agencies to recover how these agencies may allocate costs and what evidence and rationale is sufficient to support these costs and allocation decisions AB 2180 also responds to uncertainty spurred by recent court decisions. Left without clear guidance from the legislature, courts have reached different conclusions about what Proposition 218 allows. Of these recent decisions, Dreher v. LADWP provides the clearest and most workable statement of the law. AB 2180 would confirm that Dreher got it right. If passed, the California Supreme Court will look to AB 2180 to interpret the provisions it addresses. Absent the clarity from the legislature that AB 2180 would provide, continued legal uncertainty will invite even more lawsuits. The standards proposed in AB 2180 would fully protect the constitutional rights of ratepayers while also better protecting them from the added burden of litigation costs. Today, we ask that the legislature invoke its judicially recognized authority to clarify the requirements of what Proposition 218 requires and to provide much-needed direction to public water agencies, their ratepayers, and courts. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2180. Thank you. Thank you very much. All those in support of AB 2180, give your name and organization, please. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Nico Molina on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support. Thank you. Good morning, Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District, pleased to support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Layla Romero on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Caitlin Leventhal on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Good morning, Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, Padre Dam Municipal Water District, Olivenheim Municipal Water District, and the City of Ventura in support. Thanks. Good morning, Keely Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support. Good morning, Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Chair and members, Alicia Priego on behalf of Otay Water District in support. Good morning, Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you. Data Nickel, Reeb Government Relations, Desert Water Agency in support. Thank you.
Good morning, Sharon Gonzalves on behalf of the cities of Burbank, Santa Rosa, Thousand Oaks, the City of Roseville's Environmental Utility Department, and the Town of Hillsborough in support.
Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Kendra DiDiogo with the Guaco Group on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Conservation District, Kings River Water Association, and Stockton East Water District, all in support. Sorry. Good morning. Laura Bennett on behalf of Coachella Valley Water District in support. Madam Chair, members, Debbie Michael on behalf of East Bay Municipal Utility District in support. Thank you. We will now have anyone in opposition. Please come forward. We have two seats up here. If you're going to take the time, you can do it from there or you can sit down. Hello my name is Frederick Cardano and I live in American River Canyon in Folsom I just wanted to remind you of two minutes Yeah I got it Anyway, I'm here. There's no surprise that all of these people supporting this are utilities and cities. I live in American River Canyon and we have San Juan Water District. And my neighbors, I have the letters, the opposition letters that were sent to many of you and through the California legislative portal opposing AB 2180. I moved to Folsom from the south side of the river, city of Folsom, to the north side of the river, which is San Juan Water District, in 2017, and my rate doubled. And it has nothing to do with my water use. My base is $180 every two months whether I use any water or not. So unlike, contrary to what they're saying, I have no incentive to save. I've already cleared out my backyard and all hardscape, but there's no incentive for me to save because I'm paying $180 every two months, and it's going to go up, and it's going to go up more as water conservation starts to increase because utilities are going to have to make up for that difference. And so I have the letters from my neighbors, Kevin Furry, Charlie Beagle, and Mira Desmani, who's been our crusader with San Juan Water District for years now. Trying to get San Juan Water District to do a meaningful rate study that basically reflects the usage outlined in Prop 218. So 2180 basically guts proposition 218. Again, there's no surprise that the utilities are all lined up here supporting it because it gives them more authority. So what we're looking at is, again, we were trying to get a meaningful rate study from San Juan Water District, and pretty much they just named 218. It was in name only. It had nothing to do. It didn't reference the actual use by parcel or any of those kinds of things. So basically under Prop 218, utility fees and consumption-based rates must be evaluated together to ensure that changes remain proportional to the cost of service attributable to each customer. When agencies increase fees and reduce the portion of charges based on actual compensation, they shift cost away from usage and toward mandatory charges that every customer must pay regardless of how much service they use. The trend is becoming increasingly common. I'm sorry, you have to wrap it up because we said two minutes. Okay. If you could wrap it up. Constitutional safeguard basically established 218 intended to prevent exactly this type of cost shifting. AB 2180 is weakening that safeguard by giving agencies greater discretion to justify allocations that may no longer reflect true proportional cost of service. I respectfully urge you to reject 2180 and preserve the constitutional protections that ensure utility charges remain tied to actual service costs rather than evolving into de facto taxation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes. Scott Kaufman, Power Drivers Taxpayers Association. This seems like it's off, but I'll just speak loudly. Oh, there we go. Okay. AB 2180 is not simply clarifying Proposition 218. It's not defining mundane terms within Proposition 218. It is seeking to interpret Proposition 218 for the California Supreme Court. It's seeking to codify the lower court's decision in Dreyer, which directly conflicts with another lower court's decision in Pat's. And among the questions are whether tier breakpoints can be arbitrarily set, whether peaking factors use to determine water rates Must be based on actual consumption data, whether Prop 218 demands not only reasonable effort, but also requires the agency to demonstrate that its rates are in fact proportional to the cost of service. And it also asks whether Proposition 218 requires water agencies to determine rates based on the cost of water service that is actually delivered to the parcel. These are fundamental parts of Proposition 218. Proposition 218 is a constitutional amendment. It is in the Constitution. It is not for the legislature to interpret. It is for the courts to interpret, they will interpret it, they are taking up the Dreher decision and we will have a decision. And depending on what they decide, if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Dreher, then this bill is completely unnecessary. If the Supreme Court decides to split the loaf and take some aspects of Dreher and not others, we'll be back here next year clarifying the clarification. And if they ultimately find Dreher unconstitutional, this bill and the clarity it gives water agencies will be unconstitutional. We ask for your no vote at this time and wait for the Supreme Court to make its decision because that's where this should be. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others who are in opposition to 2180, please come forward. Good morning. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to AB 2180. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. See no more. Any other opposition? You can come up if you want. Support witnesses. I'm sorry? Support witnesses, ma'am. Oh, support. I'm sorry. How did I jump to up? Yes, those, I skipped over. All in support of 21. They're just there to answer. Oh, now you're really confusing me. Okay, so we already went through support and opposition, and here's for questions. Okay. The dais, any questions, comments? Along the lines of what was outlined by the Taxpayer Association, what's your response to that? Because I have concerns about us intervening in a judicial branch process right now. Well, this very issue is before the Supreme Court. They've decided to take this up. So what we're basically doing is making a law to try to influence the judicial system like what was just outlined. And it seems that we're putting the cart before the horse on that. because if they vote to uphold the Constitution as it is written, in order for us to change it at that point, we will have to do a constitutional amendment, which means we'd have to take this to voters to change that. So what is your response to their concern? I appreciate the question. Thank you. And I also would acknowledge that and I appreciate Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association referencing that. this does not actually change Proposition 218 and that, you know, we are seeking through this bill to help the court be able to interpret what the legislative intent was through the implementation ordinance, right? As you know well, this doesn't actually change the provisions in the Constitution. Rather, this changes our implementation ordinance that has been on the books for decades. That is the source of unclearness, unclarity between these two judicial interpretations right now it can take some time for the Supreme Court to be able to actually reconcile these And we not even sure what the outcome would be but I want to talk about what happening on the ground right now But in the meantime right now we have that opportunity because they do follow legislative guidance, as you know well. When we are basically through other findings and declarations or actual language in the statute, we are able to better define for the courts to be able to take into account as they're making their interpretations and they're reconciling all this information. And that's important for the outcome right now because in this moment that we're at right now with these very difficult decisions that are competing with each other, water districts are not able to understand whether they should be following longstanding best practices and how they're setting these rates. So it's a little bit of an uncertain area that we're in right now. And if they get this wrong, what we're seeing right now is some water districts right now that are having to reset their rates so that low water users are actually now having to subsidize the high water users right now that are pushing more demands on the systems. I'd like to ask my witness to be able to clarify a little bit more on the legality of this. Yes. So a couple of things. The courts will look to the legislature and will defer to the legislature's interpretation of unclear constitutional provisions. That is really a core function of the legislature. And it is not something that the California Supreme Court, I think, I can't speak on their behalf, but I think that they have actually have cases where they have cited to their deference to the legislature's interpretation, even where courts might have come to a different conclusion. And that's hypothetical. Another issue that you could come up with if we just say, let's just wait for the California Supreme Court to answer these questions, they will answer them narrowly according to the facts before them, and they will answer them piecemeal, where the legislature really has an opportunity to direct courts here. And I would just encourage this committee to take the court up on its tip to the legislature to do so. I think we need to tread very carefully when we're wandering into the waters of constitutional amendments that were voted on by people. And changing them at any point requires their approval, not our approval, their approval. And the interpretation of what they approved is right now before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court decides that that's how it is, then that's how it is. If you want to change it, you have to take it to the people and say, hey, we've got a great constitutional amendment for you. You're going to be voting on this in whatever year it's going to be voted on. But for now, it's not supportable because we're going into an area that we're not supposed to be. And that's the whole idea of three branches of government is that they function in their space, we function in our space. If they want the legislature to come up with some kind of different interpretation of that, then they're going to have to weigh out whether that goes to a vote of the people or not. And right now, it seems we're trying to circumvent that. And as far as water rates, I get it. Water agencies have a lot of regulatory requirements and mandates that are being piled upon them to be able to supply water. and those are being directly passed along to customers. And at some point, the state is going to have to realize that some of the tax dollars that they already take in from all of us need to be spent on that infrastructure instead of just turning it into higher bills for constituents. We need to invest in our water infrastructure, and that's what this is about. that why Prop 218 is there It to protect people from unchecked raise raise in their rates And I fear that this is just wandering into an area that we are being really premature in trying to address it and trying to influence the judicial branch in something that's in their court right now. And we shouldn't be doing that. If I may... Did you want... Yes, go ahead. I just want to clarify again. This does not affect Proposition 218 itself, right? we can't do that. Only the voters can do that. So we agree on that. This affects the implementation ordinance, which of course we put into place in the first place and is the source of the confusion about how we're defining proportionality. And let me give you an on the ground example of why that's important. The whole point of this is that if you're having new uses come into a given jurisdiction right now that are imposing these infrastructure upgrades, which we know we're going to need, right? Let's say for example, you saw that Eastern Municipal Water District is here in support of this bill. And if Lake Elsinore decides that it wants to take on a data center, well, that's going to be highly consumptive of new water uses. But right now, because of this uncertainty in the court interpretation, we are having, that's new demands, right? That's new pumps, that's new pipes, that's new infrastructure upstream, and who is going to pay for that? Well, it's not the fault of the existing community clinics and fire stations and other commercial users right now that have that fixed rate right now. But what this is saying that if we don't actually provide this clarity, they are going to have to pay a higher rate because this new water hog came into your community and is actually imposing all this new infrastructure upgrades, and the data center is not going to have to pay its proportional share. All your existing users are going to have to pay for that to be able to come in right now. So if you want to support that, I mean, you're welcome to vote no, but I think the voters are going to want to see and make sure that, you know, water hogs are paying their fair proportional share, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much. I'm not done with Mike. He was making a point on my point, He was responding to what you said. Right, and I can respond to that as well by reemphasizing that this matter is for the Supreme Court. Let them make their decision. If they decide we need to make some adjustments, then we can do it at the time. Me voting no is in no way indicating that I think our users need higher rates to pay for data centers. I think that characterization is uncalled for. Okay. Okay, seeing no other questions or comments, we have a motion by Senator Araguin, and we're ready to vote. I'm sorry, did I give you an opportunity to wrap up? I didn't give you an opportunity to wrap up. Colleagues are sitting behind us in a very busy agenda for committee members here. I appreciate your deep thought on this issue. I think that we're trying to make sure that we are leveling the playing field and getting back to a scenario that is inconsistent with the Constitution, but also fair to ratepayers, especially as we are all thinking about being water conscious and how we use water at our homes and what rates should be applied. And I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much. Call the vote. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. Senators Durazo?
Aye.
Durazo, aye.
Choi? No.
Choi, no. Arraguin? Aye. Arraguin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Certo? Certo, no. 3-2. The bill remain on call. Okay And we can to move on to item five Assemblymember Ahrens Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. AB 2005 allows current owner occupants to participate in the process of building more housing and protects the current guardrails and existing law that deter corporate participation in this process. Specifically, AB 2005 will allow the trustee of a living trust who is currently the primary resident of a single-family home or the owner or member of a LLC to apply for the urban lot split. Under existing law, these common estate planning tools cannot be used for a lot split applications. This restricts the process to individuals with substantial financial resources and expertise. This bill does not increase the number of units that can be constructed on an SB 9 lot split or reduce the number of owner occupied units. In fact, lot splits constructed under AB 2005's new pathway will create additional owner occupied units. AB 2005 creates an alternative option where an existing homeowner may partner with a small home builder to manage the lot split and construction on the second lot. This option will create not just one, but two new owner occupied units for sale. The current version of SB 9 only creates rentals after the lot split. I want to thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with my office regarding this bill. I care about everyone's viewpoints and the viewpoints of the opposition, and I appreciate them for coming with me with their suggested amendments. Because we received amendments late last week officially, we were unable to consider any of them for this committee. However, I am committed to taking amendments to add a five-year sunset provision and tighten the definition around living trusts and LLCs able to apply for lot splits. I would also like to thank the committee consultants for their hard work on this bill and thoughtful policy comments. I am committed to making amendments, additional amendments to prohibit LLCs from using this bill to conduct lot splits on properties destroyed by the Palisades and Eaton fires. I look forward to ongoing conversations with stakeholders and I remain open to suggestions on how to improve the use of existing housing laws to produce more home ownership opportunities for our communities. With me today is Nolan Gray, the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California Yenby, and Stephanie Yee from Alpha X Recapital. Good morning. Welcome. You each have two minutes. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California Yenby. Thanks for the privilege to be able to speak today. California Yenby is focused on making California an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. Unfortunately, the median home price in our state is still nine times the median household income. The typical family has no path to homeownership, and we have the second lowest homeownership rate in the country after only New York. AB 2005 addresses a practical problem with one of California's most important housing reforms. While SB 9 was intended to empower homeowners to create additional density and expand homeownership opportunities, the reality is that the law has not performed. The main reason is that the process remains too difficult for the average homeowner or small developer to navigate. In working with folks across the state, we found that many are interested in creating additional home ownership opportunities but lack the experience, time, and resources necessary to a lot split and build on their own properties. AB 2005 recognizes this reality. The bill creates a new pathway for homeowners to partner with experienced small local builders who can help them navigate the entitlement financing and construction process. And by making these partnerships possible, it will translate into more actual housing production, and in particular leveling the playing field to make it just as easy to build home ownership opportunities as it currently is to build rental. The bill also fixes another common barrier, which is that many homeowners hold their property and living trusts or other legal entities for perfectly valid family estate planning purposes. These ownership structures should not prevent otherwise eligible homeowners from participating in the program as they currently do, and this bill would fix that. Ultimately, AB 2005 is about making existing law work. It doesn't expand the feasible housing on any particular lot. It just makes it easier to build a homeownership version of that home. It will reduce unnecessary barriers and empower homeowners to use their property as they see fit and create more homeownership opportunities. And for that, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Stephanie Yee. I'm the founder and CEO of RFSRE Capital, a women-led infill development and home building company in Baylor. We have been focused on infill housing and creating more homeownership opportunities in California. We have been working on many, many small info projects in the Bay Area and California. I want to share my field experience that SB9 as currently written is not really working as intended. Most homeowners cannot manage SB9 process by themselves. The homeowners I work with usually come to us because the process is just too complicated, too expensive, and too risky for themselves to handle along. Many homeowners also hold their properties in a living trust or LLC just for estate planning or liability reasons. Under the current law, many of them cannot fully use SB 9. AB 2005 would help fix that and help allow more homeowners to participate. AB 2005 also creates a practical options for homeowners to partner with a small home builder who can help manage their law, permit, financing, and construction on the second law. This is very important because many homeowners want to help create more housing, but they need professional partners to make the project actually happen. AB 2005 will help produce more homeownership homes in California. It will also allow current homeowners to be part of the solution and to build their wealth and participating in creating more housing in their own communities. Thank you so much for passing so many amazing housing policies. It's really benefit from for us as small builders, small infill builders. I respectfully ask your aye vote today for AB 2005 to help create more home ownership housing as well. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Any support group you can line up and identify who you are and your positions.
Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, here today on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, Circulate Planning and Policy, and the 200 all in support of AB 2005.
Mr. Chair, Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr., in support.
Chair members Alicia Priego on behalf of the Bay Area Council and Housing Action Coalition in strong support Okay Are there any opposition lead witnesses You can come forward
Each person will have two minutes. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we would like to thank the author for several meaningful conversations. However, we remain in respectful opposition to AB 2005. AB 2005 fundamentally changes the key compromise that allowed SB 9 to move forward in 2021. Under SB 9, the buy-write urban lot split process was reserved for homeowners who agreed to occupy one of the resulting units for at least three years. That owner-occupancy requirement was not accidental. It was the guardrail that prevented the streamlined process from being used by large-scale developers, speculative investors, and institutional interests. SB 9 was designed to create modest housing growth while allowing homeowners to build generational wealth. It was also crafted to ensure that growth occurred incrementally and in a manner that was mindful of local infrastructure constraints. and neighborhood impacts were rightfully noted in the analysis. AB 2005 removes that safeguard. It now creates an option which does not require the applicant to occupy a unit at all. The applicant can instead transfer the obligation to a future purchaser. In doing so, it opens up the buy-write urban lot split process to entities that were never contemplated under the original SB 9 compromise compromise because nothing in that option requires the applicant to be the homeowner or a natural person. Large LLCs, real estate investment trusts, and large corporate development entities may all take advantage of that option. The bill attempts to address this concern by requiring applicants to sign an affidavit stating their intent to sell the resulting units to owner occupants. However, intent is not occupancy. And the bill provides no meaningful mechanism to ensure that the promise is ever fulfilled. Local governments are effectively being asked to approve lot splits today based on a future action of unknown purchaser years later. If those requirements are violated, it remains unclear who is responsible for monitoring and compliance, who has enforcement authority, and who ultimately bears liability. For these reasons, we are in opposition. Yeah, you will have two minutes, too.
Thank you. Good morning. Amy Garrett, also with California Association of Realtors. And picking up where my colleague left off, I want to touch on the limited time frame that SB9's actually been in meaningful effect, which is the legislation that AB 2005 is attempting to expand. It was enacted January 1st of 2022, but it's been tied up in litigation and has had subsequent legislative cleanup as a result all the way up till 2024. So meaningful implementation of SB 9 didn actually begin until January of 2025 And since that time 1 lots have been split statewide So further, we're concerned that increased density affects water, sewer, utilities, transportation networks, traffic circulation, ingress and egress, particularly during emergencies like wildfire and public safety in general. Yet the bill contains no requirement to study or evaluate these impacts to current communities before expanding the program. We're additionally concerned that AB 2005 creates the risk of corporate entry into the development space without regard to or planning for the impact to existing communities. And as the committee analysis notes, community members in fire affected areas like Altadena have already raised concerns about investors purchasing lots to develop in ways that are inconsistent with the needs of recovering neighborhoods. We would assert that this concern is not actually limited to disaster affected areas at all. Under 2005, areas of the state which have long offered homeownership options for working Californians, like Richmond, California, or South Los Angeles, could now become very desirable for corporate development without any consideration to the unique needs of the existing community. So for these reasons, the substantive amendments that we offered to remove our opposition were based on the concept of limiting this to become a district bill, giving additional time to see the full impact of SB 9 while also limiting the expansion of SB 9s just to the author's district. This allows policymakers to determine whether the proposals under 2005 are actually compelling the development in the direction that's intended before moving statewide. Thank you.
Thank you. And in the audience, anyone would like to express your position? We're in opposition. I see none. Okay. I will ask my colleagues on the diaries to ask any questions. I'm the only one that makes it interesting, huh? Well, isn't that? Okay. So I was in the assembly when SB9 was heard and passed. And it was a struggle for them to get it over the line. There was a reason it was a struggle. And the reason was all of these, the points that all of these folks were making, and I was making those points too. This is local government. Most of the people that were in here have served on city councils. I also served on a city council, but we also had the distinction of being the fastest growing city in California during the early 2000s. And all of our infrastructure was very, very carefully thought out. in trying to be frugal and minded as far as making our dollars stretch, we designed infrastructure for what the design of the city was going to be. We've already over-impacted that in our communities with some of the regulations that allow local agencies to have less input on things, especially when it comes to apartments and affordable housing. And many cities are being affected, especially the cities I represent. And there is no change in the, there's no money going to infrastructure to keep up with all of that. And we're suffering from that now. We have increased traffic. The water companies as you can see they in here screaming because they need more because they have to upgrade their improvements In this particular issue this lot split the lot splits are not easy Every once in a while, you would get a lot split application into the city, and the technical requirements of just doing the lot split itself is a difficult process. The legal requirements for that are a difficult process. When I moved into my neighborhood, it was a brand-new neighborhood, and so we got to watch and listen to construction constantly for a year while they finished the rest of the neighborhood. We were relieved when our neighborhood was done. I can't imagine all of my neighbors selling their homes to developers to come in and do lot splits and start building again because there is nothing that would prevent them from taking down the original house and doing two smaller houses to make them look better on their lot split. That's not what the neighborhoods were designed for. We do need to address housing. Infill development, to me, is when you have something that has become outdated, a shopping center, some kind of off building, or a very dilapidated house that is no longer being used by anybody. you remove that and then you infill with other housing for that. This is actually trying to double the amount of housing that you can build into an area not designed for it. And the reason that was outlined here that this got passed, because it didn't pass by a lot, it passed by a little, was some of these provisions. And that was my fear. And I probably said this on the floor at the time. This is what's going to happen. You're going to pass it saying, okay, we've got all these. We've taken care of everybody's thing. But then over the years, we're going to nibble away at that. And we're going to get rid of that one. And we're going to get rid of that one. My admonition on this bill or my prediction on this bill when it passed was it's not going to work because all of the technicalities involved. And that's what's happening. That's exactly what's happening. And now we're trying to nibble away at the provisions that made it tolerable. Because if you look at the vote card for the Senate, vote card on this, there were a lot of people that didn't vote on it that you would think would have voted on it. Well, there's a reason they didn't, because they didn't want to tick off their constituents. So anyway, it's hard for me to support these lot split bills. I'm all for housing and reducing some of the regulatory environment that it takes to actually go out and build more neighborhoods. But this is not going to make that impact happen. Even the rental housing, the granny flat ordinance, been being used a lot in my area. But it's not for rental purposes. That's just making an $800,000 property worth 1.1. It didn't really do a whole lot for helping on the housing part. So anyway, I'm not a big believer in these type of, and I call them gimmicks, other people don't, to try to increase housing. Because it's doing too much damage to existing neighborhoods. And we're not offering cities or communities the money that they need to keep up with the infrastructure. Instead, we're offering them higher rates for their water. and that just doesn't work for me. Okay. Are you done? Yes. Okay. Okay. I think this bill, SB 9, also came up when I was in the Assembly, and my recollection is that I opposed. But the beauty of that bill was that the owner was required to occupy at least three years. But my understanding of this AB-2005 does not require three-year ownership occupancy, and the owner may sell if they want to. And the ownership has changed to LLCs and then also the, what is it, the owner limited, not the partnership, but what is it, the personal ownership entity? LLCs. So this will concern the intended original intent of the SB 9 to expand the housing availability in the spaces of waste available. I come from the city of Irvine, which is very well known as the best planned community in America. So that means there are specific zones such as single family zone, multifamily zone, commercial zone, open field zone. And they adhere to that original city planning from the beginning. But time has changed. A lot of homeless people have caused lots of social problems, and they all attributed to the fact of lack of affordable housing. So therefore, many times that term was developed in law units in the space available in the backyard that can be built. And that will help homeless people. I don't know whether this additional ADUs actually reduced the people on the street or prevented. I hope it has because of more rooms, more spaces available for people to occupy. Somebody will occupy that place. So, but this one is removing that three year at least, even though SB 9 was not permanent ownership, indefinite ownership was required, but it was three years, that was a little compromise so that the commercial developers would not try to look for extra spaces and encourage owners to allow for them to build their ADUs But this one is, I feel like bait and switch. Initially, less help from the situation by providing affordable housing. and then now that is being practiced, now let's allow that to sell to others. In other words, it becomes a multifamily zone rather than single-family zones. So that is deviating from the original city plan. And as far as I know of one area in the city of Orange where Chapman University is located and there are lots of homes in their single family homes. Being old residential units, they have a relatively large backyard. That would be really tempting for the developers to negotiate the split and sell it to me and then I will develop. And that neighborhood character and the traffic congestion will be a nightmare for the city. So how will this bear or prevent that kind of undesirable results? So as a homeowner myself, I added my own home. Extended unit was not separate. Separately was not a last split I expanded. So I don't know whether that's considered to be as an ADU or expansion of the house. So I think I benefited from that law being able to extend in the existing space. But when you lot split it and treat that as an independent single-family home, that can be transacted buying and selling. So that changes the characteristics of the community. And the originally expensive homes when multi-unit, probably next bill will be from the single family two-story limit that may be demanded to expand the five-story, four-story, whatever. How do we, so this is a typical bait-in-the-sweets kind of impression I get. Right. So on the other hand, I have some understanding and the good benefits. If my ADU happened to be split in a separate ADU, my freedom to sell that unit as a separate unit might be beneficial. but for the community benefit, for the neighbors benefit, it's not a benefit for them. So that's why it's very difficult for me. So one aspect is laudable, it's good. At the same time for the benefit of the community for the city character for that village it is damaging and concerning Thank you Senator I appreciate those comments, Senator, and I appreciate the comments from Senator Ciarto. These are hard issues, as you explained during both of your times in the Assembly. However, these are issues that our constituents are demanding that we focus on. And you're not going to get a bill that is going to be consequential on housing that's going to fly out of the Senate or the Assembly. It's just not going to happen. However, it is something that our constituents are begging. They are begging us to make more meaningful impact on reducing the cost of living and to actually deliver meaningful results on housing. This bill is not going to be the unicorn bill that solves our housing crisis. I don't even think my time in the assembly, there's going to be any one bill that's going to solve all of our housing woes. This is, in my opinion, one tool in the tool belt that can have meaningful, measurable growth in helping alleviate a very large, a very difficult problem that we are called to address and work on. I respect the opposition and their concerns. There are concerns that I'm wrestling with when I'm grappling on this issue. However, I feel very strongly that my constituents sent me to Sacramento just a year and a half ago to wrestle with you all on these issues, to work with supporters and opposition on trying to get this right. We certainly don't want entire communities to be upended. At the same time, we need to solve the housing crisis, and we need to show that we're actually making progress. The housing affordability crisis is getting worse. The homelessness crisis is getting worse. And I'm here to say let's look at everything that we've been doing in Sacramento and seeing if we can actually make a measurable difference. That is what this bill is attempting to do. That is what I want to continue to work with you all on, respect the concerns that have been raised by this committee. I sincerely believe that we need to keep chipping away because the status quo, I think we can all agree, is not working. The laws on the books for our housing laws are not working. They're not working for our constituents. They're not working for our local governments. And I just respectfully request that we continue this conversation and continue working on it together. Now another committee member walked in, so do we have any comments? I make a motion. Okay. Motion has been made, and if no other questions, please call the floor. You're going to have another closing statement? I think I kind of made it, but I feel very passionate about this issue, but I also want to respect the issues that have been raised. Those issues that you mentioned happened before I got here. They are important agreements that were worked on. But every housing law is going to be chipped away out and worked on until we get it right, until we actually can deliver and show results. We're going to keep working on these things. We not always going to agree but we need to keep working on them to deliver real results And I respectfully ask for their aye vote to continue this conversation Thank you with the motion in place please call the roll The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing Senators De Razo, Choi, Absent. Aragin, Aye. Aragin, Aye. Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Sayarto, Sayarto no. No. 1-1. Okay. We'll keep it open for absent members. I'm going to move the consent calendar. Okay, that's a good idea. Consent calendar, please call the roll. We have another member walking in. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number 2, AB 1658, And file item number 3, AB 1388. Senator Cerrazo? Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Aregine? Aye. Aregine, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Sayurto? Aye. Sayurto, aye. 4-0. Okay. Now I see Assemblymember Berman here to present your bill. Bill number 4, AB 1838. When you're ready, you can proceed.
I'll do a part. Thank you, Vice Chair Choi. Good to see you again. Thank you to the committee staff for their work on this bill. I'm happy to accept the technical amendments outlined in the analysis. AB 1838 would ensure that local agencies can better assess if contractors should be awarded a public works project bid. Existing law requires most public works construction contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Any history of wage and hour violations directly reflects contractor responsibility and is critical information for local agencies. to determine who should be trusted with taxpayer dollars. This bill would require a contractor submitting a bid for public works construction projects to disclose any history of wage and hour violations within the previous five years. The bill was recently amended to ensure that contractors don't have to submit duplicative documents, and that there is a notice and appeals process. AB 1838 would help ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent, promote fair labor practices, and increase transparency for local agencies awarding public contracts. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is just one witness, Matt Cremins, Director of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers.
Okay, you have two minutes here.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1838, which would provide an additional tool for awarding agencies to utilize when making a determination if a contractor who has won their public works bid meets the definition of responsible. I think the Assemblymember did a great job outlining the bill. I know you folks have a very busy schedule today, so I'm going to abbreviate my testimony. I did want to drive home the point, though, that we did take amendments last week that bring the vast majority of contractors who had concerns with the bill to neutral. So thank you very much. Would respectfully request your aye vote.
Okay. Any other support audience in the audience? Come to the microphone and your name, agency, and your position.
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and
Constructed Trades Council of California in support.
Good morning, Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.
Mr. Chair and members, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any opposition with main witness? witness.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California.
And let me begin by thanking the author for the amendments that they took. It is helpful for those contractors that are signatory or have project labor agreements. And for that, you know, we are appreciative. The AGC has the blessing to both represent union contractors and non-union contractors, and that's where there still remains a rub for our non-union contractors in this measure. Let me also begin by saying that AGC supports labor compliance and accountability in public contracting. Responsible contractors want and need a level playing field, and we support strong enforcement against those who intentionally violate labor laws. Our concern is that the bill goes well beyond enforcement and instead creates a new layer of administrative hurdles that will discourage qualified contractors from competing for public projects. The bill requires extensive disclosures regarding prior labor violations, including technical and administrative violations that may have been corrected years ago. By treating minor infractions and paperwork errors the same as serious labor violations, the bill creates a system that does not distinguish between responsible contractors acting in good faith and bad actors intentionally breaking the law. This is especially problematic for small and mid-sized contractors and non-union contractors that do not have large compliance departments or in-house legal teams to navigate increasingly complex disclosure requirements. The bill creates uncertainty in bidding process by allowing local agencies to establish their own review and dispute procedures rather than one consistent statewide standard. Contractors could face hundreds of different processes and interpretations depending on where they bid. The practical result is fewer bidders, less competition, higher costs, and delayed project delivery. But again, we are grateful for the movement on the bill and unfortunately remain in opposition at this moment.
Okay, thank you. Are there any audience who would like to express your stand on this opposition? Stands? No? I don't see anyone. We'll ask our committee members for comments and questions. I move the bill. Okay. Motion has been made. No questions. I only have a question regarding this bill. That is clarifying what kind of labor violations have been committed by the contractor that is for the building ownership will help for them to understand what kind of problems that the contractor had. But the troubling aspect was including wage history. I don't know whether this is a sound policy. I thought that was more of a private company's wage, maybe much higher, much lower, average, whatever among the competitions but requiring what kind of a benefit requiring to reveal the wage history how will it help for the construction ownership is concerned?
Thank you for the question. I might defer to my witness to provide a little context around that component.
Thank you for the question. So the importance of providing this information as it relates to an awarding agency is going to be that they're going to get some certainty that the contractor that's bidding on their project doesn't have a history of abusing and wasting taxpayer dollars. And also from our perspective from the union side, it's going to ensure that workers under these contractors are ones that are going to be fairly treated, they will not be misclassified, and they will not be underpaid. So we truly see this as a taxpayer transparency measure that will also protect workers. Okay, thank you for your reply. Now we have a motion made by Senator Arrigan and no other question. Senator Layer, do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? No. No? Okay. Wow. Okay, look, go ahead. Closing statement. Okay, now you are allowed to have closing remarks. I will let Senator Laird's close speak for myself. Okay. Thank you. Call the roll please. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. Senator Zarazo? Choi?
No.
Choi no. Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Laird aye. Sayarto? Sayarto no, two to two. Okay, I will leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next one is who is present here? Which bill is that? Which number is that? It is file number 6, AB 2134. Assemblywoman Addis, when you are ready, you can begin.
Thank you so much, Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2134 and serendipitously my witness is home with family obligation, so she's not here today, but this comes from a situation that I originally read about in the Santa Cruz Sentinel where certain city council members and certain city councils were needing to disclose in public that they were pregnant and then ask their city councils for leave so that they were not removed from their city councils if they missed too many meetings. And this is a a situation that has happened multiple times across California. So the bill is very simple. It would just say that city council members are allowed parental leave, that they don't have to disclose their personal medical and family information in public in order to get that leave. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
I don't see any main witness, but in the public, any supporters?
Thank you. Good morning. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of San Mateo in support.
Okay. Any opponents? I think none. I'm going to ask my committee members any questions. Yes, Senator Laird. Well, since Santa Cruz is referenced, I guess I have to speak. And I find it ironic because 40 years ago when I was on the Santa Cruz City Council somebody breastfed it to Council Dias and so there were no issues about disclosure believe me That's appropriate. I move the bill. Okay, motion has been made. Any Senator say at all? Yeah, thank you for your bill, and I am surprised that we even have to have a bill to clarify this for people. Other people's medical issues, whether you're a council member or nobody's issues, but their own HIPAA requirements should help alleviate that. But if they don't, completely supportive of your bill. So thank you. My comment is that I was so surprised when I saw your bill. California has a Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows employees to take 12 weeks of family leave. I mean, Council members are citizens of California. Why are they excluded to begin with?
Well, I think this is a situation where we have conflicting things in statute, where if you're a council member and you miss a certain amount of meetings, you can be removed from your council. I know before that local policy, but they should be all under the protection of the same law, rather than being excluded.
Now your bill is asking each city council so that their own family leave policies, not to be subject to this same law. Family and Medical Leave Act.
We are not asking that councils don't allow city council members to be covered by existing law. We're just saying that you cannot force somebody to divulge that information in public out of fear of being removed from their city council.
Because if your act is signed into law, then each city council family leave law will be different. It can be four weeks, six weeks, whereas this state law is 12 weeks. so it can be less than the basic protection under this Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows them to take up to 12 weeks of non-paid leave.
There is a minimum in the bill. Cities certainly could exceed that minimum.
Minimum you can make it 12 weeks.
I'd be happy to. Okay.
That's a minimum, that's a suggestion. Let's do it.
Okay, that's my comment, and I will support that.
The motion has been made by Senator Laird. Closing statement again. Okay. All right, please call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Senator Starazzo? Choi?
Aye.
Choi, aye. Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. 4-0. Okay, congratulations. Okay, I saw Assemblymember Chui Ta. Yes, sir. You have a bill? Bill number 7, AB 2180. You can begin any time when you're ready. Oh, I'm sorry. Bill number 8 bill number 9 AB 2397 I sorry about that Good morning Chair and members of the committee I first want to thank the committee staff for their help Really appreciate that, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2397 addresses a radical but often overlooked barrier to building affordable housing. In California, we make progress, streamlining approval, but too many housing projects, especially those with affordable units. So you start because they cannot secure the financing needed for basic infrastructure like road, water, and sewer system. AB 2397 applies narrowly to radical housing infrastructure district. These districts are initiated and approved by landowners. They are a proven tool for financing essential infrastructure, and without them, many projects simply don't get built. AB 2397, allied financing decision with the same housing principle already established under the Mello rules. At a time when California faced a severe housing shortage, we need to remove every unnecessary obstacle to production. AB 2397 is a target practical step to ensure that financing doesn't become the hidden veto on needed housing. I respectfully ask for the aye vote on my bill. And I have my witness. Okay. Witness, you have two full minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Member Minta. Thank you, Vice Chairman Choi and members of the committee. It's my pleasure to be here today. My name is Stephen R. Sheldon. My company is SRS, Land and Capital Holdings. And I've been a practitioner in land use and housing development for decades. And I come up here to Sacramento to support this bill. It's a very wise move by the legislature to extend the Housing Accountability Act protections to this critical and underlooked element, which is the financial aspect of the construction of homes that include the lower income and moderate level income along with market rate homes. Our company specializes and deal specializes focuses on the missing middle, so to speak. We focus on small lot, single family detached homes that are for sale and townhomes that are the two and three story townhomes attached that are for sale. That is our core. When we look for land, that's what we look for. And this is a critical component based because of the needs of local cities to have that infrastructure constructed. and they require us to finance that, the builder to finance it, along with sometimes an enumerant impact fees. This is a necessary, critical component to be able to have the actual homes constructed. This legislation streamlines the process, I believe, and it makes it a more objective process because you're taking out some of the potential politics or cronism that could maybe bias a municipality for one entity versus another. And that could be a huge problem to someone that's invested millions of dollars in a project to take it to that last level and then get denied. And in fact, if that happened more and more, that could... have a huge effect upon the type of housing that you definitely want to create. Thank you for your time, and I'm here for any questions.
Thank you very much. In the audience, anyone in support of this measure? I see none. Any opponents need witness? Any audience to express your opposition? No? Okay. Okay, back to Dyers, any members, any questions? So go ahead. You know, a lot of people, Melrose is a bad word, because they see it as that additional tax that they see, now realizing that that's actually their share of what it costs to do the infrastructure that would have been in the price of their house if it's not done that way. And so, yeah, it makes sense to extend this. It does add an additional smaller burden as opposed to having the price of the house be that much more. You know, you're talking about a $10,000 per house improvement in a, you know, medium-sized development. And a lot of people don't want that type of thing added on to the cost of the house up front. So it makes sense to try and do this. People do know up front when they're buying their house that there is a mellow roof to it, and that's the due diligence that people have to do. So, you know, I'm not advocating for people to accept mellow roof taxes if they don't want to. I'm just saying, you know, you've got to pay attention to what you're buying and how the structure of the financing is put together and what their share of that's going to be. And so with that, I'll go ahead and correct. Yeah, I'll go ahead and move the bill. Okay, I have a question. For my benefit, your bill is suggesting to create a new type of community facilities district for critical housing infrastructure district. What's the difference between this facilities district, the new district, which will impose I feel like that's extra fee is necessary versus mental rules. Yeah, I really appreciate that you asked the question, but I believe that the CFD community facility district is a tool to finance infrastructure for the new housing. However, at the end of the day, the city or the local agency, they still have the control over the CFD. Where will the funding for the CFD will come from? I believe that because when the local agency or the city, they establish that, I think that they have to work with the developer. They need to come up probably MOU or a solution. There must be some of the agreement. Yes. Yeah, I hope.
Is anywhere that my, is anywhere that Mrs. Sheldon can respond, please?
Mr. Vice Chair, may I address your question as well? Go ahead.
Yes, thank you. members of the committee, I don't believe it establishes a new tax or fee. It just modifies the process to how that is approved It approved by the owners of the property initially and typically this is going to be one entity or a few people who own the property that will be constructing the homes So it's not, and then it's paid for by the people that live there because they're the one that are receiving the benefit or creating the impact because of their coming to the city to pay for their proportion of the parks and their proportion of the schools and all those other benefits. and needs that the city provides, as was stated earlier. So it doesn't create a new tax. It simply modifies the process on how the CFD is created.
Okay. Usually my understanding of community development, new communities, like in my city of Irvine has a village concept. each village one area, new area, 5,000, 9,000, whatever homes planned and developed by the developer. And then usually they need to meet all the environmental impact demands and The study has to be publicly done, and they need to expose the water, any electricity. and then when I was in the council, I demanded the internet, Wi-Fi, internet access, Wi-Fi should be one of the infrastructure requirements, just like utilities and water would be sufficient and electricity would be sufficient for that additional housing units. At the same time, now in this technology era we are living, internet access is, because many people complain, so that should be part of the community development plan. So I hope this CFT will take that internet issue into contracting with who's going to provide an internet for that new village. should be critical question to ask, but I don't think any bill so far has proposed that kind of demand, but this EFT may be a good tool to demand that. What do you think?
Yes, thank you. I agree with you, and it's the obligation of the bill to provide what they believe that the buyer wants, and I think you've come up with your own idea for a good bill for you to introduce.
Yeah, if Stevens Development Company, for example, my old friend, if you are the developer, you know in that city or area, either AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile, which is prevalent and who can be responsible, making a contract, you make sure that new homes will have strong internet access. So will you be responsible placing proper antennas to benefit of the new homes? I think this should be a new infrastructure requirement. Okay, with that. I made a motion. Motion has been a closing statement. I respectfully ask for your aye vote Okay that motion motion that has been made by Senator Cerato Please call the roll The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing Senator Cerrozo, Choi.
Aye.
Aye. 4-0. Okay. And then our last bill we'll get, the offer will be over here. So. Okay. Okay. We'll close out here. Right. Okay, we'll leave the bill open for absent members. So who is ready for next bill is, or which one is it? Mr. Vice Chair, why don't you, we don't have the one author, why don't we lift all the calls before the author gets here? I'm sorry, what did you say? Okay, this may be a good time to lift the calls. Yeah, for add-ons for the missing votes. Okay, motion has been made in bill number one. AB 1621. This file item number one, AB 1621, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. Senator Cerrozo? Choi?
Aye.
Choi, aye. Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Laird, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Okay, remaining any late members? 4-0. you can call the rules for add-ons. This file item number five, AB 2005. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is one one. Senator Sturazo, Choi, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird. Laird, aye. Two one, on call. File item number 7, AB 2180. The motion is due pass to the Senate floor with the chair voting aye. The current vote is 3 to 2. Senators Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 4 to 2. On call. Okay, I want to leave the rest of the vote still open. Yes. Okay, Assemblyman Henry is here for file number 8, AB 2308. When you're ready, begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 2308 is the San Francisco Transit Neighborhood Act, which will help keep a major downtown transit and housing project moving forward by extending an existing financing tool connected to the Transbay program, Specifically, this bill will allow already approved tax increment financing from former state-owned parcels to continue for an additional 25 years from 2050 to 2075. This is not a new tax and has not changed how the program works. It simply gives the project enough time to finish what was already planned. Transbay program is one of California's most important transit and redevelopment efforts centered around the Salesforce Transit Center, a regional hub designed to connect bus service today and rail service in the future. its next phase the portal will bring Caltrain directly into downtown San Francisco closing a long gap in our transit system and preparing for future statewide rails Without extending the timeline we risk losing a key funding source and delaying or jeopardizing completion of this critical rail connection And this will be a practical, fiscally responsible solution to match the financing timeline to today's economic realities. With me in support today is Adam Vanderwater, Executive Director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. I'll be quick, members.
Vice Chair, Senators, thank you for your time and consideration. We stand, obviously, in support. My name is Adam Vandewater. I'm the Executive Director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. As the Assemblymember mentioned, we own and operate the Salesforce Transit Center and are responsible for delivering the portal, the downtown rail extension, for Caltrain and high-speed rail into downtown San Francisco. And we're here to help seek your support and thank the Assemblymember for his leadership and authorship of 2308 to help finish the job of the existing approved and responsible funding measure. Thank you for your time.
Okay. Any supporters in the audience? I don't see any opposition lead witness. Any opposition in the audience? I don't see any questions from the members. Okay, motion has been made by Senator Laird. Any questions? Okay, motion has been made and no comments. Okay, you can close the... Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, go ahead. Call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Durazo? Choi? No.
Choi, no. Arrigin? Aye.
Arrigin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. 3-1. On call. We'll leave the bill open for absent members. We'll be in short recess until chairperson returns. May I have a vote in on the reaction? Do you have a decision? Oh, she's voting. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I already did that. Resume. Okay. We're resuming local gov committee. We're going to be. Okay. We're going to hold on just a little bit. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Okay we will start with consent Okay, we will start with the consent calendar. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number two, AB 1658, file item number three, AB 1388. The current vote is four zero. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Consent. Consent. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Seven zero. The bill is out. The bill is out. Okay. File item number 1, AB 1621. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 4-0. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? File item number 1. Not nobody. 6-0. The bill is out. The bill is out. File item number 4. AB 1838 the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Labor Public Employment and Retirement Senator Zerrazo Aye Zerrazo aye Ashby Aye Ashby aye Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. 5-2. The bill is out, 5-2. File Item No. 5, AB 2005. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 2-1. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Joy? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. 5-1. The vote is 5-1. The bill is out. File item number 6, AB 2134. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 4-0. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. 7-0. The vote is 7-0. The bill is out. File item number 7, AB 2180. The motion is due pass to the Senate floor. The current vote is 4-2. Senators Ashby? Ashby, aye. 5-2. The bill is out. File item number 8, AB 2308. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-1. Senators Durazo Aye Durazo aye Ashby Aye Ashby aye Cervantes Aye Cervantes aye 6 Okay, the vote is 6-1, the bill is out. File item number nine, AB 2397, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 4-0. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. 7-0. Go to 7-0. The bill is out. Right here. Okay. That's the end of the meeting. We want to close by thanking all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us. We want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you to everyone for your patience. The Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. Thank you.