Assembly Local Government Committee

Great.

Carrillo?

Ta?

Johnson?

Pacheco?

Ramos?

Ransom?

Here.

Here.

Wilson?

Well, you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. Good morning, Chair Crewe and members. Sarah Ducat on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Counties have an important responsibility to enforce local ordinances that protect the health and safety of our communities. In most cases, our existing enforcement tools work, but there are circumstances involving very large commercial or industrial facilities where relatively modest fines may simply not be enough to encourage a responsible party to act quickly. In the aftermath of the Lineage Warehouse fire illustrates that challenge. Los Angeles County continued to inspect that facility, issue citations, and impose the maximum allowable fines, while significant nuisance and public health conditions persisted in the surrounding communities. SB 716 gives counties another tool in that toolbox for those exceptional circumstances. Its gradual penalty structure provides greater leverage when violations persist, while importantly leaving the decision about whether and when to use those enhanced penalties with local officials. This isn't about imposing larger fines for every code violation. It's about making sure that when there's a serious or persistent violation that threatens public health or safety, and a responsible party isn't responding quickly enough, counties have a meaningful enforcement option available to help secure compliance. We appreciate the author's work to provide local governments with this additional authority while preserving local discretion and respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Carrillo and members. Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in support of Senate Bill 716. Code enforcement officers are responsible for enforcing state and local ordinances that protect health and safety and the quality of life of our communities. The goal of code enforcement is not penalties. It's compliance. In most cases, existing enforcement tools are effective, but serious and persistent violations at a very large commercial facility are a different story. And this year gave us two devastating examples of why. In June, a fire destroyed an approximately 1 million square foot medical facility warehouse in Tracy, generating significant smoke and promoting shelter-in-place precautions for the surrounding communities. Days later, the Lineage Logistics Warehouse fire in Los Angeles County left nearly 88 million pounds of spoiled food on site, and nearby residents endured prolonged odors, pest infestations, and other nooses conditions for months. Despite inspections, citations, and the imposition of maximum allowable fines, the violations and nuisance conditions persisted. For an operator running a facility of that scale, existing penalties simply weren't enough incentive to act quickly. SB 716 gives local agencies another tool for exactly these circumstances. It creates a graduated penalty structure so enforcement consequences can increase when violations persist, and it allows for additional penalty authority in extraordinary cases tied to the state or federal emergency declarations. Importantly, it does leave this discussion about when to use these tools with local officials who understand their communities best. It's meant for a narrow set of cases when a large operator isn't responding to standard enforcement and where the community is bearing the cost of that delay. We're thankful to the senator for her work on this issue and her recognition of the role code enforcement officers play in keeping our community safe. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in strong support. Good morning, Chair and Board Members. Johnny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California, Association de Migrantes Guatemaltecos Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Gerton on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thanks. Good morning, Chair and members. Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Mr. Chair and members, good morning. Andrew Antwi, Wichai Yudar Antwi Schmelzer and Lang here today on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in support and thanks to the author. Morning, Chair and members. Mark Neuberger on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Good morning Mr Chair and members Skyler Wanakott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association with a respectful opposed and less amended position We recognize the incident at the Lineage facility was a serious and frightening event The concern is not with the goal of the bill, but with its reach. The version in print extends well beyond the life and safety hazards response and creates a broad new penalty structure that encompasses all of commercial real property. This is sweeping in Class A, Class B buildings, shiny tall buildings like the swing space a couple blocks over. And I do not believe that is the intent of this bill. The bill states a 20,000 square foot threshold, and like I said, it sweeps in far more than just the industrial focus that happened in Boyle Heights at the Lineage facility. Additionally, SB 716 stacks new enforcement layers on top of ones that already exist without coordinating. We have concerns that both cities and counties, as well as CalARP, could tack on the same violation fines with a 10 times multiplier of $50,000 per emergency declaration. So the fine structure itself, along with the five-year look-back period for repeat violations, escalations is inconsistent with current statute, which uses a one-year look-back. We recommended hearing to saturate precedent. And for these reasons, we're respectfully requesting a no vote for the bill to be amended to address all of our concerns. Thank you. Good morning, Honorable Chair and members. Alexander Rosito here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association and respectful opposition to Senate Bill 716. We understand the purpose of this measure and do not take this issue lightly. And we fully share the goal of preventing future catastrophic events. We also appreciate the author's work to narrow the bill to threats to health and safety. I appear today to raise the concern that because threat to health and safety is not clearly defined here, the measure still casts a wide net. In local codes, that phrase routinely encompasses minor non-emergency items, from weed abatement to vending machines. Well outside the severe scenarios this bill is intended to target, we strongly urge further clarification of the scope. Further, we are concerned that this measure enhances liability based upon building size, which has no bearing on the conduct taking place within the facility. We urge the committee and the author to avoid creating a penalty scheme based upon square footage and instead focus on the severity of violations. Thank you for your consideration, and I respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, good morning. Kirk Kimmelschew here this morning on behalf of the International Warehouse and Logistics Association in opposition. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition. Morning, Chair and members. Rachel O'Brien on behalf of the California Groceries Association. Good morning, Chair and members. Sarah Bridges on behalf of Perner Government Relations for PPG and the Can Manufacturers Institute, in respectful opposition. Good morning. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in opposition Thank you Marisol Ibarra on behalf of Consumer Brands Association and the Family Business Association opposed unless amended Good morning. Allison Barnett, on behalf of the California Self-Storage Association, also opposed. Thanks. Good morning, Chair and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed unless amended. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jack Johnson, Slogan, Jensen, on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Adam Regley on behalf of CREDA, SoCal, formerly NAEP SoCal, in respectful opposition, unless amended. Thank you.

Okay. Well, I think I made my point in my opening remarks. This is a really serious issue. I know there are a lot of communities, our communities, especially poor communities, immigrant communities, working class communities that are particularly impacted. impacted, and we want to keep that into consideration because when something, a disaster like this, by the way, it has to be a federal and state disaster for there to be this scaled, the 10 times penalty. So that's not taken lightly. This is about health and safety. We narrowed it down to that. I don't know what else we could do short of gutting the bill that would satisfy the opposition. The opposition should be glad that this sort of thing is being proposed so that they could take our issues more seriously. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Calderon. For item number five, SB 716, the motion is due pass. Carrillo?

Ta, no. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Pacheco, not voting. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Rubio? Rubio, not voting. Stephanie? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I here to present AB 1457 which closes a compliance gap in SB 1000 that was passed over a decade ago It sets a clear deadline of June 30 2031 for jurisdictions that have not yet adopted their environmental justice element It strengthens transparency so communities can see what's being proposed. It includes meaningful public engagement so residents can participate in shaping their own neighborhoods. We've also worked with local governments and other stakeholders to land on a deadline that was more comfortable for them. Additionally, we explicitly added safe harbor language for local jurisdictions that have already completed their environmental justice element or are very close to doing so. This bill is sponsored by the California Department of Justice, and with me to testify today is Jana Stanaford. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Jana Stanaford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice, and on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I want to start by thanking Assemblymember Bryan for authoring this important bill, which the AG is proud to sponsor. The AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our Bureau of Environmental Justice to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards. Our Environmental Justice Bureau developed this bill because a decade after the seminal SB 1000 passed in 2016, many local governments with disadvantaged communities in their jurisdiction have yet to address environmental justice in their general plans as envisioned by SB 1000. The trigger for SB 1000 has proven to be ineffective. AB 1457 would instead set a deadline for local governments that are subject to SB 1000 and have not yet addressed environmental justice in their general plans. It would also add transparency and community engagement processes to SB 1000 modeled on the requirements for housing element adoption to ensure that local governments engage and consider the input of impacted communities as they plan. The Attorney General is proud to sponsor AB 1457 to ensure that SB 1000 is fully implemented so that marginalized communities are not left behind as we plan for a healthier, more just future. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi, good morning. on Jennifer Ganada with Communities for a Better Environment, but I'm also doing Me Too's for Leadership Council for Accountability and Justice, Sierra Club California. Thank you. Hi, my name is Grecia Orozco. I'm here on behalf of the Center on the Race, Poverty, and Environment and Support, but also on behalf of the following CEHA Action and CEHA Partners, as well as the Central California Asthma Collaborative and the CCAEJ. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Deja McCauley with Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Hi, Tracy Ryan, the Royal County Representative of California. We were in opposition. We appreciate the author's amendments. We still do have concerns, but we are removing our opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia representing the American Planning Association. We did not have an opposed position, but did have concerns around how planners would implement this. We really appreciate working with the author and the sponsors. I still remain concerned on how those jurisdictions who are already underway doing their environmental justice work under the existing law will be affected by the change in the new requirements. So we're hopeful that they have the opportunity to finish that work. We appreciate the six months, but it may not be enough time for all jurisdictions. Thank you. Thank you.

Mark Newberg, California State Association of Counties, also have the same concerns outlined by RCRC and American.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

For item number 2, AB 1457, the motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in Carrillo.

Carrillo, aye. Taugh, Johnson.

Johnson, no.

Pacheco, aye.

Ramos, aye.

Rubio, aye.

Wilson.

Good morning, Chair and members. AB 2728 will clarify existing law to ensure California's groundwater management law is working as intended. In 2014, the legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SIGMA, to direct local entities to work collaboratively through groundwater sustainability agencies to manage their aquifers. This allowed locals to consider their unique situation and come up with a groundwater sustainability plan that best suited the region's needs. One of the mandated aspects of these plans was groundwater monitoring. Under SGMA groundwater sustainability agencies, agencies may collect fees from large groundwater extractors while specifically exempting the de minimis extractors, those that pump less than two acre feet per year. However, one agency has discovered a legal issue where this requirement could be perceived as conflicting with fee restrictions on Prop 218 and Prop 26. In Monterey County, when their Groundwater Sustainability Agency developed their monitoring plan, they decided to use the county's pre-existing groundwater monitoring program instead of reinventing the wheel. This program was supported by a fee on extractors under the authority of Prop 26, which was strict legal standards on who can be exempted from paying fees. This raised a legal question as to whether the exemption for the de minimis extractors could be applied in Monterey's situation. In order to eliminate legal confusion, AB 2728 clarifies that the existing groundwater monitoring fee exemption under SGMA meets the legal requirements under Prop 218 and Prop 26. Here with me today to testify in support is Ara Azdarian, General Manager of the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. Good morning, Chair, members. Ara Azdarian, General Manager of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. It's an honor to be here with you today to talk about the need for AB 2728, which would restore protections for our most vulnerable well owners by allowing local governments, the same authorities held by groundwater sustainability agencies, to exempt unregulated de minimis well owners from the implementation costs of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. SIGMA clearly recognizes that in order to achieve sustainability it is the significant extractions of groundwater that must be managed and it did so in part by expressly authorizing groundwater sustainability agencies to exclude unregulated de minimis well owners from SGMA implementation costs In Monterey County and in Salinas Valley specifically, there are two public agencies that are collaborating on the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. One is the Salinas Valley Basin GSA, which is primarily responsible for the planning, development, and implementation of management actions. The other is the Water Resources Agency. Our focus has primarily been on the monitoring of groundwater, data analysis, and reporting findings to inform those management actions. The Water Resources Agency is not a groundwater sustainability agency, and therefore the authorities provided by SGMA do not clearly convey to us. AB 2728 fixes that. It provides the clarity necessary to restore the exclusions that our most vulnerable owners enjoy and shields them from costs that they were never intended to pay. So for these reasons, the County of Monterey is proud to sponsor this bill. I am honored to be here today to solicit your support and stand ready for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair and members. Ashley Walker on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in support. Good morning, Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you. Good morning, Charles Delgado on behalf of California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you, Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

For item number three, AB 2728, the motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.

Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members. I am pleased to present SB 328, which will provide an exemption within, not from, but within the Surplus Lands Act, as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. I would like to express my thanks to the chair and also committee staff for their help on this incredibly important bill. SB 328 is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long-planned transit-oriented development on the site of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing, job-creating facilities, open space and environmental improvements The Concord Reuse Project Area Plan anticipates no fewer than 10 housing units with 25 of the units affordable to lower households up to 1.6 million square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, and sports facilities, as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space. SB 328 will help bring this long-anticipated and much-needed project, which also has the potential to create years' worth of construction and construction-related jobs closer to reality. In 2010, after a multi-year process with substantial public input, the city certified an environmental impact report, we know as EIR, under CEQA and adopted the Concord Naval Weapon Station Reuse Plan. In 2012, the city adopted an addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plan's policies and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapon station storage facilities into mixed-use, transit-oriented, and sustainable community. The Navy completed the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, environmental review of the disposal and reuse plan under the area plan and issued a record in decision on 2017. Although redevelopment of the Concord Naval Web Station has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under both CEQA and NEPA, as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process, implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years. So SB 328 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Webstation for qualifying projects that, among other things, maintaining 25 percent affordability, affordable housing and labor agreements that fall within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents. SB 328 does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Webstation projects from review and oversight. It simply leverages review and oversight already completed for the Concord Naval Webstation. The bill is supported by the City of Concord, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Building Trades and Construction Trades Council District, Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and vicinity and Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. I respectfully ask for an eye vote at the appropriate time. My witnesses can self-introduce through the chair. Thank you, Senator.

My name is Josh Roden. I'm with Brookville Residential, the developer working with the City of Concord and you all. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on SB328. The project is within the City of Concord limits. It's included in the city's general plan and supported by completed CEQA and review for the reuse plan and area plan, as the senator has outlined in depth. It will create more than 10,000 construction worker jobs and more than 16,000 permanent jobs. It creates 880 acres of additional park land, in addition to the 2,500 acres that's already been deeded to the East Bay Regional Park District that we will be providing utilities and infrastructure too. It has over $2.2 billion of infrastructure improvements and community benefits during the life cycle of the project It 10 homes is the minimum That over 2 affordable homes in the community These provisions reflect an extensive work with legislative committees and leadership Thank you. The governor's office, HCD, and the city of Concord housing advocates, labor, and environmental stakeholders. We didn't all get what we wanted. There's a lot of compromises to get here, and certainly appreciate the amount of effort and work that everybody took to do it. SB 328 gives this long-planned project CEQA and Surplus Land Act certainty needed to move forward while maintaining environmental protections, labor commitments, and substantial community benefits. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support for SB 328. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetsch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union. I personally have been engaged on the conversion of the Naval Weapons Station for over 20 years. In my 39 years of working in this building and working with the trades, I can't think of a project that has been more thoroughly discussed and reviewed. The local community collaboration that this has gone on for over two decades my clients have invested literally millions of dollars engaging on this particular project. There is not another more consequential project in the Bay Area than this project. It impacts all nine Bay Area counties. It's a transit-oriented development. It is a unicorn that cannot be replicated anywhere else. It's an opportunity that simply cannot be lost. and so we would just urge your support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Luis Morante with the Bay Area Council here to help with any technical questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Iron Workers in very strong support and I'd like to thank the author for his commitment and work on this bill. Hi, Sophia Kwach on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project and a coalition of groups that have worked to expand and strengthen and enforce the Surplus Lands Act. I want to be clear about our position on this bill because it hasn't changed from the initial introduction of SB 1146. earlier in the year in the conversations we've had with the author's office, and we've been very clear on a number of issues. Number one, we're open to an exemption to the SLA, provided that it ensures the production of affordable units, and that that is an enforceable obligation. And that position has not changed. And even when the bill changed, we came back to the table with additional ways in which we could make sure that that certainty was there. It's not as simple as putting 25% in the statute, we need to make sure it's 25% of a real number. We need to make sure that that real number is enforceable through the SLA, which includes its enforcement and penalty provisions. So the bill before you today, we're pleased to say, makes a lot of progress in that regard. But there's also a lot of remaining ambiguity. And a lot of it hinges on what this DDA does or doesn't say and whether or not the ambiguity in this bill leaves that enforceable. So we're going to be watching that very closely, but we're concerned that even though we've made progress with the author and the sponsors, we're not all the way there. And that's what happens when we draft a bill when the amendments have been presented to us the evening before the hearing. So we're going to continue to review it. We're going to continue our conversations. We hope that if we can reach reasonable agreement on additional amendments that may be needed to achieve what everyone says we want to achieve, that we can clarify those in the coming session. But today we remain imposed, but we do appreciate the continued conversation and the movement forward on some of these critical pieces. Thank you.

HCD is comfortable, and we are as well in the negotiating parties. The HCD has the tools to enforce that through reviews. There's some mechanism.

Simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Chair.

For item number 4, SB 328, the motion is due, passed, and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Yes.

Act to modernize the composition of the district's Board of Trustees and improve governance efficiency, responsiveness, and operational effectiveness. AB 912 modifies the board's composition to reduce governance conflicts, improve fiduciary independence, and ensures the district can continue to effectively manage long-term infrastructure and service responsibilities. The district's current governance structure presents practical and legal challenges because city council members constitute a majority of the district board. In situations involving negotiations, litigation, and other conflicts between the district and the city, recusal from one governing role does not fully resolve governance conflicts and often creates quorum concerns. The conflicts and quorum issues consistently hold up negotiations on contracts, which further delays projects and necessary agreements for the basic functionality of the district. This bill seeks to address these issues by returning the district to a modified governance structure consisting of two Vallejo City Council members one Solano County Board of Supervisors and two at trustees appointed by the remaining trustees It is worth reminding that AB 912 is supported by all parties, including the city, the county, and the sewer district. Here with me today is my witness, Paul Gonzalez, representing the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District.

We're first and a second. First by Rubio, second by Ms. Johnson. Anybody else that wants to out in support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we have a person a second. Unless there are any comments or questions, we're good. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you for presenting your bill. I will be supporting your bill today. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Secretary, please call the roll. For item number one, AB 912, the motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Carrillo?

Ta.

Johnson, aye.

Pacheco, aye.

Ramos, aye.

Ransom, aye.

Rubio, aye.

Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Ward, aye.

Aye. Wilson, aye.

Thank you. I didn't think I would if you told me that this is a bit of a different thing. Thank you Thank you

Ransom, aye. Stephanie?

Aye. Wilson, aye.

Ransom, aye.

Ransom, not voting.

Wilson, not voting.

. Thank you Thank you. Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1367 today, which prohibits cities and counties from approving new land uses that would allow the construction of detention facilities or permit the conversion of existing buildings into such facilities. Amendments and Assembly of local governments simply include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and therefore apply to all cities including charter cities The goal of this bill is to protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities particularly those not designed for long human habitation. The bill ensures that its land use policies are not used to facilitate human right abuse and builds on the state's leadership in limiting detention expansion and moves us closer to a future rooted in dignity, safety, and accountability. With that, respectfully,

I think there's someone coming.

Hi, I'm Zenit Yahya with ACLU CalAction in strong support.

Thank you for that.

Aye.

Aye.

No, no.

Thank you. Thank you.