Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud or threatening abuse of language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the capitol building. I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the capitol building. Okay, today we have 15 items on the agenda.

This afternoon, two of these items are proposed for consent. Item number four, AB 529, by Assemblymember Gabriel. Item 15, AB 1753, by the Committee on Local Government. We will hear all bills in the order shown on our agenda. Unless otherwise noted, we will take up two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill.

We don't appear to have a quorum right now, but we will operate as a subcommitee until we are able to establish a quorum. Let's see. And the first item today on our agenda is AB 434 by Assemblymember Grayson. Please proceed when you're ready. And this is item number. Item number one. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. Start when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, AB 434 seeks to provide greater accountability for local governments by authorizing Department of Housing and Community Development, otherwise known as HCD, to notify a city, county, or the Attorney General when the local entity fails to comply with state housing statutes. California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability gap. Six of the nation's most expensive large metropolitan rental markets are located right here in this state.

According to the Roadmap Home 2030, California needs to build 1.2 million new affordable homes that's 120,000 per year to meet the needs of low income families over the next 10 years. Yet California has never produced more than 20,000 new affordable rental homes in any year.

As the legislature has continued to respond to the senate's shortage, or to the state's shortage of housing, there have been a number of new statutes passed in recent years that have been meant to facilitate the building of new housing stock and prevent the delay of project approval. Many of these statutes have given HCD the clear authority to report violations to the AG for enforcement. However, there have been some housing statutes where HCD and the AG's role in enforcement has been unclear.

Among these have been SB 6 and SB 9, as well as bills governing the sighting of accessory dwelling units and junior ADUs. Without clear authority to enforce these laws, there really is the possibility that even if an entity is found to be in violation of these much needed housing laws, HCD may be unable to bring in the AG for an enforcement action.

AB 434 will harmonize the enforcement of these important housing policies by clarifying the roles of HCD and the AG and enforcing what is already current law. Specifically, AB 434 clarifies existing statute and adds to the list of housing laws covered by government code Section 65585 for which HCD can report violations to the Attorney General. This will ensure that the Attorney General and HCD have adequate enforcement authority commensurate with other state housing laws and that local governments may be held accountable to the law.

Ultimately, this will reduce the cost of housing development and facilitate meeting California's housing needs. AB 434 is supported by the Bay Area Council, the California Housing Partnership, as well as the California Apartment Association, among others. This measure passed out of the Assembly Housing Committee with a 60 vote, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Are there any other witnesses here in support of the bill? Thank you.

Mark Stivers again with the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition of the bill? Oh, you're in support. One up. I'm sorry.

Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium, in support of this bill.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Any opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Do any questions? Anyone on the committee have any questions? Assemblymember Dixon?

Thank you. Mr. Grayson, help me understand the current enforcement.

As we all know, it's public information about the City of Huntington Beach, which happens to be in my district. In fact, there was an article in a local paper that there are only 15% of the Bay Area cities are in compliance with the housing element. My home city, Newport Beach, is in compliance before the deadline. So I understand compliance and how important that is. I'm just struggling to understand from it with wearing my city hat, what more laws?

I mean, over 100 laws affecting housing and local government mandates bills were made into law last year. Local governments are really doing their best, and now you want to put the stronger arm of the law on them. From my understanding and observation, I worked through the Newport Beach's housing element for three years, constant back and forth with HCD to be in compliance, to be in compliance.

And the threat of HCD's non compliance power was powerful, or their authority was powerful, and that forced a lot of cities, obviously, to become in compliance. I'm just struggling one more law, one more mandate forcing the power of the state when states and local governments, rather, local governments, I believe, are doing the best they can to reach compliance.

Why are we doing this heavy hand of the law when the AG already has a filed suit against the City of Huntington Beach, as we all know, when there's so many cities that haven't even submitted their housing element and HTD has that option. So I'm trying to understand why more is needed.

Thank you so much for that statement of why we need this bill, and then also for your observation of some of the struggles and challenges that we are facing. So with that, we'd be more than happy to entertain conversations and possibly partnering in a policy that addresses HCD's responses.

I love it.

And their timeliness to those responses. I understand that is a challenge, having my local hat on. Also, in addition to that, we were very careful in drafting this bill to make sure that we weren't piling on. But I believe, and I can stand to be corrected, this would only add to the list seven of all the laws that have been passed. It would add seven to the list. So your phone operates right now, tonight or tomorrow night or next week.

If it's an Apple phone, whatever, and you have it set on auto, it's going to automatically update. We don't have that luxury in the state that our enforcement policies automatically update. So what we have to do as legislators, come back every once in a while, do clean up legislation or update legislation. And in this particular case, all we're doing is not giving the Ag additional power that the AG already enjoys that power.

All we're doing is updating the housing list from all the new laws that are coming in, a select few that we believe would make the difference and move the needle. That we also believe the cities have the capability of rising to the occasion and meeting.

Okay, well, I'll take you up on that opportunity to have further conversation.

I look forward to that.

All right. Thank you very much.

Enjoy working with you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. If you don't mind, we're going to take the role. We have a quorum, and so we can move you through. Okay.

[Roll Call] You have a quorum.

Okay, we have a quorum. Would you like to continue? Do we have any other questions from the committee? Okay, so now we can entertain a motion. Now you can move the bill.

Yes, we have a motion by Assemblymember Wilson. A second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

And this Bill will be going to the Appropriations Committee once we get all our votes in. Okay, thank you. That bill needs more votes, and the bill is on call. Okay, let's go to item number 2, and again, Mr. Grayson, would you like to begin?

Once again, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for working with us on this Bill. AB 821 is a simple bill that would help prevent delays in housing production and also help facilitate the much needed housing that this state needs. This bill seeks to address instances where the local jurisdiction's general plan may be inconsistent with the local jurisdiction's zoning ordinances.

Under this bill, if there is a situation where an application is submitted where the general plan and the zoning plan are inconsistent, the local jurisdiction would have two options. They would either have to process the application for the development and allow it to move forward or amend their zoning ordinances to make them consistent with their general plan within 90 days. Local jurisdictions are required by statute to have their general plans and zoning ordinances consistent with each other.

Once again, that's required by statute, but this is not always the case. Inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning may happen for several reasons, including general plan amendments and or updates. Currently, if there is an inconsistency, local jurisdictions must amend their zoning ordinances to become consistent with their general plan within reasonable time. While this is the requirement, there is no defined timeline for what a reasonable time is, leading to delays of months and even years.

AB 821 will help bring a clearer timeline to what is considered reasonable and will help prevent further delays in housing development. With me to testify through the chair today is Michael Lane, state policy director for SPUR.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Michael Lane with SPUR, public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm also a former city council member myself, so trying to bring some local government sensitivity here. But as Mr. Grayson said, for 50 years, it's actually been required in the statute that the zoning code align with the land use.

But it said within a reasonable time, and that's what we're trying to address, is that the courts have said that's a little bit vague and they need more guidance from the legislature. So we looked at the language in SB 330, which already allows us for developments that are two thirds residential, and said, could we expand that to mixed use developments as well with that same kind of a regime? And it's only for live projects. So this is not just in general.

It's only when there is a development that could come forward but could be subject to litigation. If you do have the discrepancy between the zoning code and the land use, it would be able to fix that with notification. Grateful to have been working with the consultant on the committee on this and the APA as well, to get to this type of language right here and respectfully request an I vote.

Thank you very much. Are there other witnesses in support? Please join us at the microphone.

Madam Chair, Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and Company, that's Howard Amundsen, Jr. an Orange County philanthropist, in strong support.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus, the Lighthouse Public Affairs, in support on behalf of Sandhill properties and Habitat for Humanity California.

Thank you.

Denita Stromgrun, volunteer on behalf of AARP California Capital Response Team, in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium, in strong support of this bill.

Great. Thank you very much. Seeing no other in support, are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and Members. Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association.

We're actually in a kind of tweener position right now, not opposed to the bill. But as Michael has said, we are working with the author and the sponsors right now on trying to refine what really is a reasonable timeframe to make sure that when the general plan is updated. That there is time to get that zoning ordinance in place. And just understanding what the scope of the bill is for our members to be able to implement that. But we really appreciate those conversations and the work of the Committee on the Bill thus far. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you for your comments. Anyone in opposition? Okay, seeing none, the question is the committee. Yes. Assemblymember Dixon.

I'm in support of this. I just actually echo the gal who just spoke. Is 90 days enough? I mean, you have to go through the study process. They have to do their investigations, has to be gentized for City Council Planning Commission, and City Council just takes time.

Is 90 days in your opinion, too, you think that's sufficient on an expedited basis or 120 days? I understand the merits of it. I totally agree. I just am trying to again, be cognizant of the demands on our local planning staff.

Assemblymember Dixon, I think that's a great observation, and that's why we remain open and continuing to have conversations and work with all stakeholders.

And if I may, I would just add to the jurisdiction, could also choose not to go ahead and update and allow the project to go forward using the land use designation on that density and the development status that have already been adopted by the council.

Great. Yeah. Assemblymember Wilson.

I was going to give the same echo, is that I support the proposal and thank you for bringing it forward. As you know, production, as you've stated with data, production, is an issue in California. The issue I have coming from local gov, is that 90 days at different times of the year is not 90 days.

When I think about what my city has to go through during the holiday times and the vacancies and positions or people being out and the timings where you don't meet because of holidays, and the same time, when I think about when we're trying to pass the budget, there are specific times of the year that 90 days is really not 90 days.

And so even if it's not expanding the number of days, but allowing, like, a one time 30 day, if they wanted to do that, because they did want it to match the general plan and not prove the project, I don't think that's onerous. But I do support what you're doing, and we'll give it support here and on the floor. But if you can take that into consideration, either extending the time or just allowing a one time 30 day something to that effect.

Thank you so much for that suggestion. We'll take it to heart.

Thank you.

And make it a part of our conversation.

Those are great questions. Thank you very much. Any other questions? We have a motion. Okay. We have Assemblymember Pacheco and Assemblymember Wilson. Thank you, Assemblymember Grayson, you're trying to fix something that should have been fixed years ago, but nevertheless, I'm pleased to support your bill today. The motion is do passed to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

And let's see here. Okay. That bill needs. The vote is 50, and we will leave it open for absent members to add on.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair.

Assemblymember Ramos, would you like to do your bill? I don't see anyone else here yet.

Sure. Thank you. Madam Chair and committee members, today I'm here to present AB 5116. It's aimed at increasing transparency, among other things, through the Mitigation Fee Act. Small businesses are a pillar to California's economy and often struggle the most due to unforeseen expenses, one such being development fees for permits. As it stands, this process often leaves small businesses in the dark as they feel that the money they pay for these development projects sit idly in accounts.

My bill adds requirements that a local agency must include information for delays to these projects, as well as information as to when the construction might begin or resume. We also require that a local agency informs those paying these fees that they have a right to request an audit of these funds. This is one step in providing clarity to the mitigation fee act for small business owners across the state.

Thank you very much. Are there witnessing witnesses in support? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in the room? Seeing none. Are there any questions from the committee? Yeah, Assemblymember Dixon. Okay, sounds good. Well, guess what? That might be a vote. Okay, we have a motion by Assemblymember Dixon. A second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Let's see here. Would you like to close?

I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos, for working with the committee on your bill. I believe your bill establishes appropriate new transparency measures for the Mitigation Fee Act, and I'm pleased to support your bill today. The motion is do passed to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the vote is out. 5-0.

We will leave the roll open for absent members and add on.

Yes, please.

All right. This is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you and your committee for your work on the bill. Very much appreciate it. AB 901 creates a partnership between local agencies and the state to fund affordable housing construction.

The bill encourages local governments to create affordable housing financing districts, collect the tax increment from these districts and pool the funds collected at the state level to acquire bonds. By creating these affordable housing financing districts all around the state, we have the opportunity to pool this money.

By raising those funds at the state level, we can have greater efficiency rather than having every single redevelopment district or infrastructure financing district or city actually go and float these bonds themselves. So by streamlining this approach, we could actually leverage the state's lower rate, their ability to borrow and pool these revenues.

This creates a prospective and reliable funding stream for affordable housing, which is something that we've been clearly lacking. I have one witness, Tom Lockert, who's been a municipal finance banker for over 37 years.

Just refer to him.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you very much. Welcome to you. My name is Tom Lockard. I live at 153 Bifur Street, San Francisco. I'm testifying in support of AB 901. As Assemblymember Ting pointed out, I've been an investment banker in public finance for the past 37 years.

I'm now winding down a business, so I'm essentially not conflicted and won't benefit from anything that might come out of this legislation. The proposed legislation will streamline the process for establishing tax increment financing to capture property taxes associated with property value appreciation.

Under the proposed legislation, tax increment revenues would be pledged to bonds issued by CalHFA for the express purpose of assisting in the creation of affordable housing. So again, just for affordable housing, bond proceeds would be maximized.

And that's important here from the limited tax increment revenue pledge. By combining statewide districts to provide investors with greater property ownership and geographic diversification, which is very important if you think about how the state previously used tax increment finance.

Such diversification will permit a lower bond debt service coverage ratio, lower the commitment of bond proceeds to a cash funded Reserve Fund for the benefit of investors, and lower the cost of capital because of a higher credit rating.

This will produce the maximum amount of bond proceeds for affordable housing. All other things being equal, the proposed legislation lowers the cost to creating a tax increment financing district by simplifying the process for establishing a district.

Proceeds will be contributed to the capital stack requirements for developing affordable housing, which will extend other public resources available for affordable housing. If you like math, I can give you an example.

If only 5% of a single year's future state property value appreciation were pledged to a tax increment financing district, that would translate into approximately $20 million of annual revenue for affordable housing. Pledging this $20 million to a tax increment revenue bond issue would produce approximately $300 million in affordable housing funds.

This assumes, these are the assumptions. The value of California real estate is approximately $8.3 trillion. We'd imagine a 2% annual increase is permitted by Prop 13 by a county assessor.

The 1% county tax rate, which, as you know, pursuant to AB 8, gets divided up among cities, county schools, transit districts, special districts, et cetera. We cut that down again. Let's say in this case, we're only using 25% of that 1%.

We then apply a 1.15 times coverage factor, and we amortize that over 30 years at a 4% cost of funds, and that produces, on just that one year, approximately $300 million that could be used for affordable housing. I available for questions, if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the math. Sure. It helps. Okay. Is there any other witnesses in support?

Michael Lanewhisper in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? I see someone.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Roger Dickinson, on behalf of CivicWill, formerly the Local Government Commission, in support.

Thank you very much. Any others? All right. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Are there any questions from the committee? Yes. Assemblymembers.

This is more of a Mr. Ting. This is more of a generic question, and maybe your expert witness could have a comment, too. Since the end of redevelopment agencies about 10 years ago, 11 years ago now, I think it was 2012, there was a lot of adjustment to that. It's still going on, I guess.

But one of the learnings that I personally made at the local government level was the tax increment financing, which I always thought was a positive thing because it scooped that money off the top.

But what was left at the local level, whether for schools, whether for cities, whether for local agencies, was a takeaway from the local budget. And since then, since that time, that money has been used by local governments to have a complete General Fund budget fund.

There are just a lot of expenses now that have been added on to local governments, and the public employee pension system is probably the first that comes to mind. So when you have cities all over California, the majority of cities have a large unfunded liability for public employee pensions.

That's a concern of mine, that we're taking money off the top. So I would frankly, before, and I know that there are some other bills related to tax increment financing. I don't know. I'm new here.

Has there been an analysis about the current status of. And you would know too, Mr. Ting, how we really stand on that and how it would impact local government.

Yeah, I could step in. Thank you. These are very helpful comments. What happens here wouldn't be statewide, it would be done by each jurisdiction would set up a district.

So a city or a county would have to make the decision to do that and to divert the property appreciation from the General Fund, as you're suggesting, to addressing the need for affordable housing. So it would be a jurisdiction by jurisdiction decision to do that.

The benefit is that we hoover that all up and we issue it through the state, as many other states do, but California doesn't. This will create the ability of getting this geographic distribution, which we like in California.

Because of the risk associated with wind fire, earthquake, we're giving investors greater security by using that geographic diversification as well as property ownership diversification. But it would be up to, and this is the important point you're raising, doing it jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

And they would each have to make that decision.

Very much.

Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have a motion? We have a motion. Before we go any further, would you like to close?

I mean, I think the only thing I'll just add to Member Dixon's question was when redevelopment was dissolved, which is before I got here, I think part of the challenge was, and I forget all the financing schemes, but there was state money involved too.

So I think that's what sweetened the pot for local governments and that I think hence what's changed over time. Now the state's money is back in the General Fund, the locals money back in the General Fund.

The challenge is there's nothing that's really dedicated to affordable housing. And now we have this huge affordable housing crisis, not just in my city, statewide, it's no longer just an urban issue. So I think this is just one way to potentially tackle this should folks decide to opt in.

So it's not mandatory, it's an opportunity to opt in. And then this creates a potential vehicle to be able to get more affordable housing money. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for presenting the bill. Thank you for working with our committee to get the Committee Amendments adopted last week. We're finding new and innovative ways to finance the build. Affordable housing is critical to meeting our affordable housing needs.

I will be supporting your bill today. The motion is do passed to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

We got the motions on this, right? Didn't I get a motion on this bill? I thought so did I. But I heard several voices, some moves. Why did I think.

Okay. I am so sorry. Assembly Member Wilson and Assembly Member Ramos. I thought we had.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill needs more votes. The bill is on call. Okay. Assemblymember Ting, would you like to start with your second one?

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Very much appreciate and your committee's help on AB 796. AB 796 is very simple. Currently, in order to build an ADU or to take advantage of many of the streamlining benefits of ADUs in the state, you need to be an owner occupant of the property.

This would remove that owner occupancy requirement, would remove that sunset. And we think that this will really open up more opportunities for ADUs, get more housing built. The bill's got no opposition, respect for, ask for aye vote on AB 796.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Would you like to speak, witness and support?

Absolutely. Afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, my name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY, here as a proud sponsor to speak in support of AB 976.

California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work and raise a family for all Californians. Especially dwelling units, ADUs our homes are built on existing property to expand a supply of housing.

While ADUs can be built in both single and multifamily neighborhoods, they cannot be sold as separate units, meaning they are most often used as lower cost rentals, playing a key role in increasing the affordable housing supply in neighborhoods across California.

Not only do ADUs offer affordable housing for the tenant, but they also create stability for homeowners as well. For many, this rental income can serve as an important source of financial security, in many cases providing stability for lower income and elderly homeowners.

According to research from the UC Berkeley Turner Center, ADUs produce more affordable homes, typically occupied by low income families and individuals. AB 976 is a straightforward solution by permanently expanding the law, the existing law, which eliminate owner occupancy provisions.

This measure ensures that these new units will continue to remain affordable for both the renters and the homeowners. ADUs are a proven tool to address California's housing shortage, and we should do all we can to ensure their continued success.

We believe this measure strikes the right balance, and for these reasons, we respectfully request your support on AB 976.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Michael Lamisburn, strong support.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no others, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any questions of the committee? Assemblymember Dixon. That's good.

It's becoming a regular thing. Okay. I think ADUs are fantastic and many permits are going through the expedited process in my local communities.

However, when this was going through, many communities, constituents of mine when I was on the City Council were concerned that these units would become short term rentals.

And the fact that there was a three year abeyance period was a relief. So now I'm going to go through this all over again. And the concern that they become, it's not permanent rentals like long term rentals are fine. Short term rentals are a problem, especially to coastal communities. Is there anything we could do about this?

I apologize. I'm pretty sure when I did my original bill, doing a lot of the streamlining, we had provisions restricting the amount of short term rental use. So that was definitely an issue when I did one of my original streamlined four or five years ago. So I believe that's already in existing law. So I will double check for you, though.

Great. And that would be my only concern.

All right.

Yes.

But again, that's something that has always been a concern. And the whole point of building Adus wasn't to create short term rentals, it was to create long term rentals or to create housing for extended family.

Yes. Right, good. All right. So we could talk further on that. Thank you so much.

We'll get back to you the details.

Very good. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. Entertain a motion. Motion by Assemblymember Wilson, second by Assemblymember Ramos. Would you like to close?

Just respect your vote.

Thank you. You've become a champion in ADU. We appreciate all the work you've done on these in your time in the Assembly, and I am pleased to support your bill today. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call on the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill needs more votes and the bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you very much, Assemblymember.

All right, looks like we have. Assemblymember Bains is here. File number five AB 892. Proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you Chair and members. Proud to be here. AB 892 is specifically a district bill that specifies that Kern County Hospital Authority and its associated entities are subject to the Myers Milius Brown Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and the California Public Records Act.

Kern county was authorized to create the Kern County Hospital Authority by enabling legislation passed in 2014 and 2015.

This change was critical to ensure the long term financial health of Kern's only public hospital, which has served the county since its inception in 1867. While this new governance structure has created many new opportunities, it has also created some new challenges.

Ensuring the long term health of Kern medical is of particular importance to me as it is a hospital where I completed my residency after medical school. In addition, it was provided me my research assistant hours, my medical student hours, and my residency training hours.

I spent a total of 11 years at that hospital providing giving back to my community. I know how important Kern Medical is to the most underserved residents in Kern County, as I personally have seen it as a physician providing health care there.

The hospital has a medical caseload north of 70% and it is also our region's only Level Two Trauma Center. Losing Kern Medical would mean losing lives and as the closure of Madeira Community Hospital has shown us, the San Joaquin Valley cannot afford to lose a single hospital, clinic or doctor.

The Valley is already one of the largest health professional shortage areas in the nation and our residents need more healthcare infrastructure, not less.

While already a good Bill, AB 892 also represents a legislative vehicle that will be used to reflect a compromise and consensus building process that Kern Medical and SCIU have agreed to work through with my office.

We will explore opportunities to operate the hospital with more public transparency and accountability, while also putting Kern Medical in the best possible position to grow in a financially healthy way.

I want to thank SCIU and Kern Medical for both agreeing to participate in this process, which is already proving to be very productive. And I'm very honored as a past resident of a hospital to be able to negotiate in between. With me today in support of the bill is Beth on behalf of SCIU.

Welcome, Beth.

Hi, good afternoon and Madam Chair and members, Beth Malinowski, the SCIU California, privileged to be here today to offer just some brief remarks on why SCIU California is proud sponsor of AB 892.

First, I'd like to start by acknowledging Dr. Baines and her staff for jumping right in and working with us to bring forward some important conversations regarding the Kern County Hospital Authority. About a decade ago, legislative body really took the important action of establishing this authority, KCHA.

It is a public entity with sole purpose of maintaining and operationalizing Kern Medical Center, its network of outpatient clinics and services. The authority is critical to the health of Kern County.

As I just spoke to in the years since the authority was established, the board seated and we at SCIU have started to see where improvements are needed. Improvements to guarantee greater public transparency and accountability between the authority, the public, and its workforce.

This bill before you today is focused on reaffirming and strengthening language in the enabling statute regarding the Brown Act, CPRA, and MMBA, clarifying they apply to all entities controlled, owned and administered by the authority or funded by the authority.

And with your aye vote today, as noted, you'll not only be moving this policy forward, but the broader conversation that has been started.

Again Dr. Brains, as she just acknowledged, has graciously created a space of dialogue between SCIU and the authority that we hope will lead to addressing additional policy concepts through this bill vehicle. For these reasons, we are proud to sponsor AB 892 and to seek your aye vote today. Thank you.

Do we have any comments in support, please? Any speakers in support, please come forward. Seeing none. In opposition, please come forward. Any comments at the committee level? No. All right, your closing comment.

Thankfully, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And do we have a motion? By Mr. Ramos and Wilson. Thank you. All right, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Here we go. Okay, this bill needs more votes, and the bill is on call. Thank you very much. All right, we will go to AB 894. Assemblymember Friedman.

Good afternoon, chair and members, I accept the suggested Committee Amendments on page five, section nine of the analysis. I understand that these amendments will be adopted in the housing committee. I want to thank the committee and their staff for their work on the bill.

There are 15 million parking spaces in the Bay Area, enough that if they were put end to end, they would stretch around the world 2.3 times.

Los Angeles is almost 6 million parking spaces, or one and a half for every resident, including children. Often, what appears as a parking shortage is actually a shortage of parking that's accessible to those who need it.

Jurisdictions frequently require construction of new parking, even though there's abundant unused parking nearby. Excess parking comes at a high economic, environmental, and social cost.

Parking is often considered free, but the actual cost of building and maintaining parking shows up as higher costs for goods and services, as well as higher rental costs and housing costs for residents.

Parking also makes walking and biking between destinations further and often more dangerous impacts that fall disproportionately on the poor, people of color and seniors. Excess parking creates heat islands, reduces groundwater recharge, and increases the amount that people drive.

However, many of us look around our communities and see that our parking lots are often empty, especially at predictable times of the day or week, which creates an extraordinary opportunity to share that parking with other uses and avoid unnecessary parking construction.

This bill is about shared parking. Shared parking can promote economic development by making businesses viable in more circumstances, reduce the amount of land needed for parking and the cost of maintenance, and accelerate the production of housing in places where land is constrained.

Yet many jurisdictions do not allow for property owners to share available parking with adjacent developers or nearby uses. AB 894 designates circumstances where shared parking should be allowed as a way to meet parking needs without creating burdensome expenses for businesses and residents, including requiring public agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces be shared with the public, a private entity or other users, requiring public agencies to allow shared parking to count towards parking requirements in specified circumstances.

Now, I have a district office in Burbank, and my office is in a building that has a parking lot that it shares with the next building over. That parking lot, even during peak times, is absolutely empty.

And yet, if a business was to come into downtown Burbank, or if somebody wanted to build an apartment building next to this empty parking lot, the city would require them to add hundreds of new parking spaces. It doesn't make sense to private property owners who know how much parking their customers need better than the city.

It doesn't make sense environmentally with all the concrete and the aggregate that we're shipping all around the state, it doesn't make sense from a smart land use perspective. It helps absolutely nobody. Testifying in support on behalf of our sponsor Spur is Michael Lane.

Also in attendance is Stuart Cohen, a consultant with Spur who's here to answer technical questions, and I would request an aye vote on a very common sense measure.

Great Madam Chair and members, Michael Lane with Spur this is really a light touch bill. The intent is really to provide a framework and support for local jurisdictions. Oftentimes there's a diversity of staff, capacity and resource at the local level, but over time, the Urban Land Institute, known as ULI, has developed best practices.

They actually have a handbook that's now in its third edition over the last 20 years, really identifying what those best practices are and creating data driven at the local level to determine what is an underutilized parking space or lot. And then how much could we use to share that with other uses, and that's really driven at the local level with these methodologies.

And we wanted to provide that framework across the state so that we can really best utilize the spaces that we already have without forcing projects to develop additional parking that oftentimes goes unused.

Did you want to speak as well? No. All right. Any comments speakers in support.

Roger Dickinson, on behalf of CivicWell, in support. Thank you.

Lauren De Valencia, on behalf of the American Planning Association, in support. Thanks.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

My name is Mia Kong and I'm with the Council of Infill Builders, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none. Up to the committee, any comments? Yes, Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. So thank you to the author. I know this is a narrow scope because it's only shared parking, but I am always mindful of parking situations because I was on local government, City Council, and one of the biggest complaints that we received are parking.

People would complain that they couldn't park in front of their homes, that they couldn't find parking on their streets. We had one huge issue with the business owner not having enough parking.

And so the residents complained that everyone who was going to that it was a taco stand, going to the taco place was going and parking in neighborhoods, creating a mess, playing loud music. So I'm always very mindful of parking.

But I will be supporting this bill because I know it's narrow in scope, but I'm always mindful about parking issues in different, especially when it comes to residential neighborhoods. But I appreciate the author and this bill and I will be supporting today.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I just had one comment. Does it have to be a requirement? Just as you were saying, organizations are providing frameworks for this. Does it have to be a canopy? Highly suggested and recommended to local governments.

Thank you for the question. Well, local governments can already do this and they're not doing it. And it's easier for them, quite honestly, to continue the status quo, to keep putting the burden on private developers, to create more and more parking.

And just to the point that was made, what's often frustrating to residents in my community is they'll go, let's say, into our downtown and they can't find a parking space.

But we all know that there's a dozen office buildings that are absolutely empty because it's after 05:00. And so what a better way of planning for our cities to make arrangements that the residents, when they're going out to eat in our downtown, can now use those empty Optus buildings.

Because we've entered into a shared covenant, indemnified them, maybe allowed them to make revenue from doing this, following best practices for everybody's benefit.

But these are resources that we've invested, that the developers and the cities have invested millions of dollars in that take up a tremendous amount of land. And they're just, some cities are doing something like this, but very few. So we think that given the lack of aggregate, the lack of housing, the burden this puts on affordable housing to have to add all this parking.

We have heard from developers time and time again in Housing Committee and this committee, I would have built the building, but those parking requirements at $60,000 a space make it to where it doesn't pencil to be an affordable building. But I'll turn to.

As parking codes are updated across the state and many cities either do it for a district, an area, or for the citywide. Shared parking is increasingly allowed because it's now seen as a common sense thing for all the reasons Assemblymember Friedman laid out.

But it takes a long time. Often it's 2030 years before a city fully updates their parking code. So this just really brings us up to what's really understood as a modern best practice across the state. And it makes it allowable.

It doesn't require anybody to do anything at all. It just makes it allowable. And just to Assemblymember Pacheco's instance, what will often happen is I don't know the exact geography where this taco stand is, but there's a decent chance that within a block or two there is an empty parking lot, an empty parking lot of an office, of a dental that could be able to share that. And this bill would make it allowable that if it was underutilized, let's say it's in the evening.

Currently, many cities might say, well, this use was not in your original designated entitlement. This would allow them to actually gain some financial benefit while easing the parking problems in your community.

The only comment I would make is that all cities aren't alike. I represent the coastal cities and there's not enough parking for residents, much less than anything else. And cities can take the creative approach, as I know many cities have done for restaurants in the era of Uber and Lyft.

Cities have relaxed their parking requirements for restaurants for that very reason, and to provide the pickup and drop off places and therefore reduce their parking requirements. So that is being done.

I don't know if it takes 30 years to do that. I see cities respond much more quickly. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that. Should we call the roll? I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I just want to add upon that because I know it's only for parking lots that are underutilized and there would be an agreement because I noticed that's one of the amendments, that it would be an agreement. So it's an agreement between that business owner and whoever owns the parking lot, correct?

Yeah.

Which I think is good.

We're not forcing them.

Yeah. So nobody's being forced.

Indemnification. Is that part of the bill or that would just be an encouragement.

It's not part of a bill. The private property owners could come up.

Because we've run into that situation in beach community where, to your point, you're absolutely correct. There's a bank parking lot. It's closed at night. There's no restaurant available. Parking. But there's legal issues.

Right. But the developers, they can work that out themselves.

Yeah.

Offering that is not a bad idea.

Okay. All right. Closing statement.

Take it at that. And I would appreciate the vote so we can continue the conversation.

Move the bill. Do we have a motion? Okay. All right. And if you would call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

The bill needs more votes than the bill. The bill needs more votes than it is on call. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. We're on to item number 10, AB 910. Or did we miss something else? Excuse me, Ms. Assemblymember Friedman, one more. 930.

Assembly Bill 930.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I accept the suggested Committee Amendments starting on page 5, section 9 of the analysis. I understand that these amendments will be adopted in the jobs, economic development and Economy Committee.

I want to thank the committee and the committee staff for their work on the bill. Many cities in California have longstanding and ambitious goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve climate equity and quality of life goals for the state's residents.

SB 375 by Darryl Steinberg in 2008 launched a process for regional per capita greenhouse gas reductions. And more recently, the California Air Resources Board has proposed in its 2022 scoping plan update, achieving a per capita vehicle miles traveled reduction of at least 25% below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045 in order to meet the state's climate goals. Yet the state is moving in the wrong direction on VMT.

Many local governments would like to boost investment in infrastructure and transit oriented infill development. However, lack access to funding and projects are economically feasible, are infeasible due to a lack of available land, high infrastructure costs, and expensive and risky entitlement processes.

In other words, it's really hard and expensive to build infill housing in the areas that need it. The most our urban areas.

AB 930 would permit two or more local governments to jointly form a reinvestment infrastructure for a sustainable and equitable California district, to unlock tax increment financing for infrastructure and equitable development in location efficient areas.

For jurisdictions that opt in and this is a voluntary opt in to form what we're calling a rise district and have state approved rise plans. The state will provide state sales tax increment and revolving loans to jumpstart equitable development and investments in infrastructure.

AB 930, the RISE Act, will align planning and infrastructure investments to refocus growth towards community centers while reducing car dependence, lower carbon emissions, and encourage economic development and climate resilient housing production near transit in walkable, bikeable communities.

Testifying Mia Kang, Senior Vice President with Related California and Director of the Council of Infill Builders and Roger Dickinson, Policy Director with CivicWell and I respectfully would request your thoughtful consideration and aye vote.

Hi, I am Mia Kong and I'm a founding board member, also Senior Vice President with Related California and founding board member for the Council of Infill Builders. We are a proud co-sponsor of this bill, and we thank Assemblymember Friedman for her leadership.

I've been developing affordable housing for the last 26 years in California. I've built about 2500 units statewide. The common theme for every single development is that there is not enough money for infrastructure.

Many locations that are transit oriented often do not have the type of infrastructure that will support the denser new housing. So that requires then affordable housing to spend millions and millions of dollars to improve the local infrastructure that benefits beyond just the housing development.

It actually improves the public's infrastructure for many of the neighborhoods as a result. This is a barrier to new housing.

Having to provide the infrastructure funding and capital investments is a major barrier to the production of new affordable housing statewide, especially in the transit-oriented areas in our state that have been proven under SCS's that new development will reduce VMT.

So in the very places we need to invest in affordable housing, most local governments lack the resources to do regional investments in infrastructure as well as lack investments or lack capital to invest in affordable housing.

AB 930 for the first time will align affordable housing planning and finance with infrastructure planning. The rise district is aimed to provide 50% of the funding towards supportive infrastructure. That's dedicated new money for local governments to have for infrastructure.

That then would unlock development potential in privately owned land or land all around these transit areas, underutilized land, those parking lots next to taco stands, these areas could be unlocked for housing.

This plan allows MPOs to have a position to also certify that these rise districts are in compliant with adopted SESs, thereby showing that we can actually align our resources around affordable housing and infrastructure. Since the investment in infrastructure is very difficult to do because you are relying on funding that often local governments will just require developers to fund.

So by having the rise district work collectively with affordable housing finance agencies and transit agencies, we can begin to align entities in the local government sphere and align that with planning so that we can meet our state's goals of increasing affordable housing production and reducing vehicle miles travel so that we can provide affordable housing in location efficient areas. And I strongly urge this committee's aye vote for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Madam Vice Chair and members, I'm Roger Dickinson, Policy Director for CivicWell, previously the local government commission. Assemblymember Friedman has described the bill well and we certainly want to thank her for her leadership.

I've been deeply involved in efforts to integrate land use and transportation for multiple decades as a county supervisor, as a Member of the Assembly, and as a citizen to promote a stronger economy, a healthier environment and sustainable communities.

Including as a principal coauthor of SB 628 by Senator Bell in 2014, which authorized the creation of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, or EIFDs.

AB 930 builds on the concept of EIFDs by allowing local governments to dedicate growth in local property tax revenue to finance investments in infrastructure and affordable housing in geographic areas, near transit and location efficient areas.

In so doing, AB 930 provides a form of value capture. Properties that enjoy enhanced value due to their proximity to transit or their desirable location will help underwrite the cost of public investment.

Local governments will be able to focus that public investment where it will yield the greatest return in fostering the elements on which sustainable communities depend.

A greater supply of affordable housing, a development pattern that reduces trips and greenhouse gas emissions, and a setting that provides walkability and social cohesion.

AB 930 can jumpstart projects that will bring these results through the concept of a state revolving loan program and dovetail with AB 2011 and SB 6 from last year to accelerate the rebirth of neighborhoods and communities.

AB 930 provides a significant new tool for local governments to use as they endeavor to grow smarter. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 930. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments in support please.

Michael Lane With Spur, co-sponsor of this bill as well, in strong support.

Thank you. Any other comments in support? All right, any comments in opposition? Wait, we have one.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Madam Vice Chair, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council. First, a couple of positive comments. We understand and are grateful that Assemblymember Friedman has added language to a housing bill that does ensure that the workers building the housing will not be forgotten.

We have a quibble with some of that language that's in there, but we are grateful for the conversations we've had with our staff and her.

Actually, from high speed rail to housing. We're talking to her about a lot of things and a lot of her bills, but we do thank her for putting language at the start in a bill that does protect the workers on the job site. We do have a concern with part of the language that is in the bill, particularly around at 62436, the language dealing with the construction of housing.

We remain steadfast in our belief that the healthcare component, specifically in that language that all of us first saw in maybe 2011, last year, will be preempted by federal ERISA law when it finally goes into effect. That language hasn't even gone into effect yet, and we remain concerned about its preemption issues.

Unfortunately, what many people may not realize is that this is going to lead to a further erosion of the health care and worker protection benefits that exist in the residential construction market.

Current proponents aside, this is a part of the construction economy that is very much in the underground economy. Very much does not take into consideration the workers who are building single family homes or high density places to live.

So again, we are grateful that the Assemblymember put language in the bill to begin with. We look forward to continuing the conversations with her and her staff and the sponsors on the specific area that we have concerns about. We remain opposed today unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back up here. Any comments of the committee?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on some of those comments, I mean, the bill is still being worked out, so some of that is still being worked out with opposition. To fine tune some of those components in the bill.

We're always happy to sit down with stakeholders, especially important stakeholders like our friends in labor, and hope to be able to come to an understanding and agreement.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Do we have a motion and a second. Move the bill. And a closing comment?

Just we know we need to build housing. We know we need to revitalize a lot of these urban cores. And right now, who's paying for that infrastructure, for the water upgrades, the electricity, the public transportation?

All of that's falling on the cities without much support. This will help develop true public private partnerships, and it'll help bring revenue into these areas. With that, I would ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. If you would call the roll, please.

The action is do pass to jobs, economic development and the economy.

[Roll Call]

This bill needs more votes. The bill is on call. Moving on to item number 10. AB 910. Assemblymember Wilson. I guess these two visiting members, I think. Do Committee Members go after Committee Members?

All right, my witness can leave.

Okay. My apologies, Mr. Wood. I think you came in first.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I'd like to start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill. AB 1256 would authorize the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 1% if an ordinance proposing the tax is approved by the voters.

Earlier this year, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a resolution asking the state Legislature to pass a bill allowing the county to put a proposed roads tax on the local ballot. If approved by the voters, would surpass the 2% limit California's on combined local transaction and use taxes.

Humboldt County, which is recovering from recent natural disasters, needs legislation due to parts of the city county partnership having reached their limit with respect to how high certain taxes can go.

With me to testify in support of the bill is supervisor Rex Bohn from Humboldt County.

Okay, sir, please proceed.

Madam Vice Chair and assemblymembers, I'm a four term county supervisor. I think I've been here too long because I'm asking you for taxes. Completely immoral. But I'm here mainly Humboldt County, as you well know. 4800 sq. Mi. 2.9 million acres.

I travel about 800 miles a week and the roads have deteriorated in front of us with the recent storms we've had. We actually flew over 900 bales of hay into 41 different ranches because they couldn't get to them to feed them.

We still had livestock losses, but what has happened with the runoff and everything else? We've had great road damage. And with that, we also had a snowmageddon, we had rains, and we've also had high winds, which have created.

And to top it off, we've got 123 homes sitting off their foundation right now from a December 20 earthquake, all in Humboldt County. So we've hit it all. With that the county sales tax in the unincorporated area is still way under the limit.

We have an incorporated area that is up against the limit and for us to collect this tax, we're asking you for this concession. And as this goes, and it will probably be a half percent. We say 1% because you never know, but it'll probably be a half percent is what we're going on.

And I appreciate Assembly Woods, again, supporting us in our endeavors up there in the northern part of his district for 136,000 people. But this is important to us. I wouldn't be here asking for more taxes if it wasn't important. And like I said, it is a tough situation. And we come to you asking for your help on this. And the caveat to this is you're not just approving the half cent tax.

The voters are going to get their chance at the polls, decide if they want to give us a half cent, if we've earned it, or whatever the tax rate may be, to apply it to our roads and our public safety.

So this is just to get it on the ballot to exceed that limit. So I appreciate your time today. The five hour drive home, the roads are a lot better because SB 1 has worked really well. But in our unincorporated areas, as some of you well know, coming out of local politics, it's a tough situation.

And it's not just barking dogs, it's potholes and everything else that we have to deal with. So I appreciate your time today.

And I've had to speak in front of the assembly quite a few times, as Assemblyman Woods will know, and it's usually about cannabis, and I'm really excited that it's not. So I'm kind of excited. So thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you. Any comments and support, please come forward.

On behalf of the County of Humboldt Board of Supervisors, in support.

Any other witnesses or comments? In support, any witnesses or comments in opposition, seeing none, will come up here. Any comments from the committee? Seeing none. A motion, motion and a second. Mr. Wood, your closing comments.

I just appreciate that supervisor Bohn made the five hour trip down here. I'm glad the roads were kind and appreciate the opportunity to present respectfully ask your aye vote.

Okay, Madam Clerk.

The motion is do pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee.

[Roll Call]

Bill needs more votes. The bill is on call. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.

All right, we're back to item number 10. Ms. Irwin? Oh no. Mr. Alvarez. All right, AB 1476.

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. It's great to be back in local government, where I got my start, and I know many of you as well. I am here to talk about AB 1476.

I thought it was important that we in the legislature, as the Chair, who is not here, and other members who have been here for a while, have been focused on the significance of bringing back an important tool that we had for those of us who served in local government, which was redevelopment.

It was critical to creating affordable housing opportunities. It was critical to investment in communities that were underinvested.

And unfortunately, now, 10 years away from when dissolution occurred, it's a tool that has not come back. And it's a tool that is desperately needed back in our local communities in order to ensure that we have opportunities to build affordable housing and to invest in disinvested and historically disinvested communities. So that's what AB 1476 is about.

I will also acknowledge that this bill is largely based on work done previously before I came to the assembly. But we try to build on that work to create more accountability and more transparency in this language.

So AB 1476 would allow cities and counties to create affordable housing and infrastructure agencies to Fund economic development through tax increment financing in underdeveloped communities.

Again, over 10 years ago, I was on the City Council in San Diego. I arrived with the tool of redevelopment available in our tool belt.

We built a lot of affordable housing in communities that desperately needed it. And unfortunately, again in 2012 and 2013, with disillusion, a tool was no longer available to us or to any other city.

And I think we've seen a lot of the repercussions of that, the lack of affordable housing funding stream on a regular basis. Unfortunately, rdas back then, the lack of adequate state oversight and financial protections resulted in inefficiencies and really put a target on their backs.

And Governor Brown and the legislature at the time did away with them.

1476 recognizes the importance of RDAs and their shortfalls by reestablishing them with much stronger oversight provisions, including the controller's oversight that includes penalties for noncompliance.

Opportunities for public input that we did not have before, pass through, payments for taxing entities to ensure that they remain whole, so that our schools and our community colleges remain whole, and a requirement much higher than before, of 30% of the funds being dedicated to building low and moderate income housing.

Some of the oversight provisions include the state's approval of the establishment of all agencies. So the state has to say yes before they exist. And the controller's annual review of the agencies to determine that the state fiscal impact that would allow the controller to cap the creation of new agencies.

So no more new agencies unless the controller deemed appropriate based on Prop. 98 obligations or school obligations. Admittedly, following the dissolution of RDAs, the legislature did create new tools.

They can opt out. I also acknowledge that there are some concerns about eminent domain, and that is something that I believe is addressed and can be further clarified if needed. I appreciate that protections that are currently may not be enough.

I was one of the cities that, probably one of the first cities that created an EIFD, the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, which was the legislature's response to RDAs going away.

Unfortunately, that has not led to the same level of participation, the same level of success, and certainly not the kind of affordable housing funding stream that we had and we enjoyed prior to that.

It is a useful tool, but it certainly is very difficult and challenging and very few places actually have EIFDs in place.

This tool is important and I would just cite the governor's own OPR report in 2021, only two years ago, which found that our current tax increment financing tools, including EIFDs, are not working because, among other things, they do not require taxing entities to participate.

And again, if we need to focus on that, we will do that going forward. I look forward to continuing to work with those of you who have concerns and others. And again, as someone from local government and those of you that have served the legislature created this tool decades ago.

It was very useful. It was very successful. Unfortunately, there were abuses and we saw what happened. We need to keep the drum beat.

We need to keep talking about the opportunity to reinvest in communities, to reinvest in affordable housing. That's why I have this bill before you today. And to testify, I have a witness to share their perspective as well.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, I am here to provide a perspective on AB 1476, the Community Redevelopment Act of 2023. Excuse me. My name is Michelle Willard and I'm the chief public affairs officer for the Greater Sacramento Economic Council.

Here in the state capitol region, we are the leading economic development organization and a public private nonprofit partnership which is rare throughout the United States of America.

So we have 40 CEOs and 21 communities focusing on growth, sustainability, equity, inclusion, and competitiveness as it relates to economic development. Housing is a vital component when we attract or keep talent in the state capital of California region.

If we can't provide affordable housing, the company will look elsewhere throughout the United States of America to expand or relocate operations into another state, ultimately hurting the economic vitality of the region and the income tax base, not only for the State of California, but for our local communities.

I've personally lived in 10 different states and have seen affordable housing options, when there is enough supply for the demand. There is less homelessness in the downtown area and the urban core is thriving when this can happen.

Redevelopment tools allow communities to develop, infill affordable housing, place making and economic development projects that address urban blight, equitable access to housing and jobs, and environmental concerns of sprawling development.

Practitioners need a comprehensive toolbox. Right now, we have very few. The bill builds out that toolbox and adds protections for the public. Redevelopment agencies are vital to make sure that there's a focus on affordable housing in communities where people are left behind.

Unfortunately, the state capital of California's downtown is suffering from an exodus of employees due to remote work, businesses and new investments. And then people are currently moving to the suburbs.

There's currently around 9000 individuals experiencing homelessness in Sacramento County, a 67% increase from 2019. 72% are unsheltered.

When we prevent development and reduce investment in the community, it ultimately hurts job creation for low income and underserved communities, as well as affordable housing. We need a vibrant downtown.

I know throughout the State of California, everyone needs a vibrant downtown, and the redevelopment policy that Assemblymember Alvarez is asking to move forward will move us in the right direction.

I want to make two points about redevelopment that are important as we begin to think about bringing back this tool. First, redevelopment is essential as cities or groups of municipalities engage in the development, especially of their downtown quarters.

And second, that redevelopment is fundamentally a place making tool and is essential in a time when there is both a priority for reinvigorating our downtowns for reasons of both equity and environmental sustainability.

One exciting aspect of this bill is it focuses on addressing climate change through building this requirement directly into the goals of the program.

Redevelopment was a key tool for cities to be intentional, active and influential partners in creating affordable housing for the homeless and other low income populations within their jurisdictions.

Though these are lean budget times, restoring redevelopment agency is an important public priority, especially in California, where cities generally do not have access to the same types of financial incentives to encourage companies to move and expand in California.

And let me tell you, I do this for a living and it's extremely tough. But I fight for California every day. We need to be able to show that we can provide affordable housing as well as vibrant, climate smart cities for these companies to grow

Redevelopment is an essential tool for making that happen. And we encourage the committee to examine its benefits closely and thank you for your time and consideration today.

Thank you. Do we have witnesses in support? Please come forward.

Witnesses in opposition, please proceed.

Madam Vice Chair Members, I'm Bob Naylor. I represent Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. An Orange County philanthropist who's very much in favor of an aggressive funding of low-income housing. In fact, we have great respect for the author, especially his work in the density bonus area and streamlining affordable housing. And we've been supportive of his bills.

But respectfully, we have to oppose this bill if it brings back the regime of eminent domain abuse that this state experienced through the 60 years or so of the community redevelopment law, which this bill reenacts. The California Reparations Commission did a whole chapter on eminent domain and they excoriate redevelopment and eminent domain for what it did to black and other minority communities. The number one example of many that they cite was in San Francisco.

Starting in about 1956, the Fillmore district, which was also known as the Harlem of the West, was essentially raised. And according to the Commission, San Francisco closed 883 businesses, displaced 4729 households, destroyed 4500 victorian homes and damaged the lives of nearly 20,000 people.

Now, when I came to practice law in San Francisco in 1971, yes, I know a long time ago, it was still mostly vacant in that part of San Francisco a few blocks from here, there are still businesses, business fronts, I should say boarded up businesses in blocks of businesses that were taken in the 1960s in Sacramento redevelopment.

So. I urge the author to, and I'm glad he made a positive remark about working out something on eminent domain. But Senator Kamlager set a good example in her SB 6792 years ago when she accepted an amendment. And this is for a Los Angeles County housing authority to bar the exercise of eminent domain. It's nice and clear. We've asked the author to consider that. We hope he does. Without that amendment, we urge the committee to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Yes, I'm Steve Greenhutt, Western Region Director for the R Street Institute. We're a free market think tank. I covered redevelopment agencies in Southern California as a journalist, even wrote a book about it. And what I saw was repeatedly the misuse of eminent domain.

It destroyed lives as cities took homes and businesses based on flimsy blip findings. We saw in Orange County, where they targeted an entire neighborhood in Garden Grove on spec so that the area could be redeveloped by the City of Garden Grove into a theme park to compete with Disneyland. You can imagine what it did to the mostly middle-class and lower-income residents in the neighborhood. It destroyed their lives.

I've seen small businesses that built and built, and then the city comes along, does a blight finding. Often those blight findings are flimsy. They take the property and they give it to large developers for pennies on the dollar. So we saw that repeatedly. So the Assemblymember, respectfully, he talked about new oversight, but the financial incentive of redevelopment just made it so compelling that that overturns any sort of technical oversight. So we saw that it diverted dollars from traditional public services.

And I see in the Assembly discussion here that this bill would explicitly allow money to be diverted from schools once again. It distorted development decisions. So even though redevelopment provided 20% for affordable housing, it also discouraged cities from permitting affordable housing by encouraging them to permit sales tax-generating big box stores and auto malls. So it actually, in part, helped create the housing crisis that we have.

In her dissent to the Kilo decision, the US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that by allowing eminent domain for economic development purposes, it gave license for governments to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. So essentially, it harmed the poor and it harmed the powerless. And we saw with the Bruce's Beach situation, that obviously way predated redevelopment, but it shows how eminent domain can be abused to harm the.

You know, here in Sacramento, K Street is the street that's most dominated by government planning and redevelopment. They even spent millions of dollars on a mermaid bar and pizzeria, which I believe is no longer there. And that's the city that has been unable to redevelop the most. So Governor Brown was right to eliminate those agencies in 2012. I think it was his crowning achievement. Please, let's not bring them back. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none. We'll bring it to the committee. Comments? Yes, Ms. Pacheco.

Yeah, so I just wanted to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. In Downey, we definitely used redevelopment. The last project that we used, it was for affordable housing, and that's the last affordable housing that we were able to do in the City of Downey.

So unfortunately, I wasn't able to take advantage when I got onto City Council because I got it onto City Council in 2016. But I do want to commend the author for bringing this bill forward, and I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on what the opposition spoke of.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. I think first and foremost, if it needs to be made any clear about the protections as it relates to eminent domain, we will. There was new laws that were approved because of some of these abuses. I remember specifically a Senator from, a legislator from San Diego, Chris Kehoe, on protections as it related to eminent domain and the abuse of it.

And so to the extent that we need to clarify that, that's certainly something we'd like to do. There's no intent. I come from a community where this was utilized as a tool and where we're concerned with not just what eminent domain does, but the gentrification that it also can bring. That's why there's also provisions in this Bill that did not exist before about protecting against displacement of individuals who live in these communities because we don't want to invest there.

And then the people who had been living there for a long time then don't get to actually benefit from those investments. So there's protections against displacement of residents, but specifically on eminent domain. If we need to make it clear, we will do that. I understand that concern, and I actually am in line with some of those concerns.

Yes, and I figured you would be. And please add me as a co author. I think this is important for our cities.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Vice Chair Dixon?

Assemblymember Waldron.

Thank you. Now, I just wanted to ask, back when we had redevelopment agencies, it was wonderful to be able to get the housing set aside funds and to be able to go out to bid and get projects in the community, especially infill projects that ended up being like some of the best things that ever happened to those areas and actually spurred development and improvement all around and other especially residential development around it.

Would this kind of be set up in the same way that you would be able to have the set aside funds, maybe call it something else? I don't know. But you would be able to work with and have a developer come in, and then they could also apply for tax credits and things like that. Does it work the same way?

So you're absolutely right. So usually, again, those of us who serve the local government, what we used to do is cobble together multiple funding sources in order to make affordable housing projects. And sometimes it's tax credit allocations and it's redevelopment money.

I can tell you, just like some Assemblymember Pacheco mentioned earlier, in my region, we had a vacant parcel from the 1960s that we turned into 170 units of family housing, 60 plus units of senior housing, and we also were able to do about 15 units of for sale for those who are buying their first home.

That would not have been possible if it weren't for all of the different funding sources and the very last funding source of redevelopment dollars, just like it was in your city, came from redevelopment in order to make that project happen, that lot would continue to sit vacant without opportunities for one, for housing, for sure, but two also, these are mixed-use projects, so there's opportunities for economic activity on ground floor leases. So this would set aside 30%. The old law was 15%.

This law would be 30% of the funds that were acquired through tax increment would have to go to affordable housing projects, middle-income and lower income.

Any further questions? Any other questions? Oh, yes, Ms. Wilson.

Thank you Vice Chair Dixon, thank you to the author for bringing this forward. My city had a great, benefited greatly from the redevelopment agency, and it was a poster child forward, and a poster child forward in the other way, too. It became overly reliant on it and used yet in other ways that wasn't necessarily beneficial in increasing the appreciation of property tax to continue it going forward.

I too appreciate the adjustments that you've made from the previous iteration to now to basically the 2.0 version, which also protects displacement, allows for more increases to affordable housing that's set aside for that. But I do want to make sure, and I know that your heart is in the right place.

As noted from my colleague, some of them in particular, in regard to taking seriously the considerations regarding eminent domain, as we know that those are part of a legacy that really is rooted in racial discrimination, as well as further displacement of communities and gentrification.

And so as you're navigating through this, through the rest of the legislative process, please make sure that those protections are ironclad in there, guarding against that, as well as making sure that the language in your bill does not subvert the language in there and allows for a carve-out, so to speak, or an exception to the rule. And I think that's probably what's most important. But with that, I do support your efforts and would like to make the motion.

Thank you. I have the same concerns about eminent domain because it's explicitly provided for in the language of the bill. So I would like to see that removed. Also, just as we've been talking this afternoon, and this comes before local government, it's about tax increment financing. I mean, I think I just have problems with it. I mean, I've seen it from the takeaway from local government funding. That's what concerns schools and investments and their own infrastructure. I mean, this just takes money off the top.

And I know we all have confidence in the real estate market value increases of California real estate. I just think that it's money that should stay in local communities. And I do know over the last several years, private-public housing finance corporations. In fact, the assembly, I believe, is AB 444. I know the Orange County Housing Finance Agency was approved that creates a public-private partnership to provide that gap financing for affordable housing. So I support the private and public efforts. Tax increment financing.

It's something that really, in my opinion, has not been thought through in terms of the impacts to particularly underserved communities and educational funding and other needs in the local communities and infrastructure and all this housing. Who's going to build the schools and the roads that we've talked about earlier and fire and police?

I mean, there's a lot of additional infrastructure and service costs that are going to be coming with all this additional housing that we have to support and we want to support in the right way. So I'm just concerned of this takeaway from the top that have we truly adequately assessed the ramifications? But I appreciate your good intentions and we all come from local government and you know what is needed in your local communities.

And I'm just being very sensitive to that as well, from what I see. So do you have any closing comments?

Thank you. And if it helps clarify, the bill is pretty clearly written to hold harmless both our educational institutions, which actually have to be guaranteed with Prop 98 funding. So funding does not go away from schools. And 70% of the tax increment that is created doesn't have to go to affordable housing. It can go to all the other things that you talked about, and it's actually outlined in the bill.

Things that are important to me and to all of us as local folks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, public infrastructure can be financed with the remaining 70%. This only says that 30% must be used for affordable housing. Doesn't mean that it all has to be used in that way. And cities have to opt in into this program and the state has to give them authority to opt in. So there's a lot of mechanisms built in place to try to prevent that.

But thank you very much for the opportunity. And I would just ask that we continue again, as those of us who believe that this tool is critical to economic development, to affordable housing funding stream for our local cities, that we put forward a proposal that has been put forward before by many members of the legislature and through this committee, and hopefully with these new changes we can have more reception and move this even more forward than it has in the last couple of years.

And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. All right, we'll call the vote. Thank you.

Motion by Wilson, second by Pacheco. This is a due pass to Housing and Community Development. [Roll Call]

Okay, the bill is out, but we'll leave the roll open. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, Assemblymember Irwin, come right up. You've been waiting patiently.

Third time's a charm.

Okay, please proceed.

Well, good afternoon, Vice Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 1637, which will require local governments to migrate their public-facing Internet websites and email addresses to the .gov or California.gov domain. The public's trust in government is foundational for a healthy democracy. With rising levels of misinformation and fraud perpetrated online and more sophisticated threat actors intending to confuse and mislead, we can no longer be haphazard about how local governments are presented online.

A review of local government websites finds that about a third of cities and counties already use .gov, but many still use .org, .net, .us, and these other domains can easily be purchased by anybody and can spoof a legitimate local government website by registering a domain with a slight typo or adding a hyphen. And just now, especially for the previous mayor of Suisun City, we found that we could purchase Suisun.com in about five minutes for one penny. And then what would happen with that domain?

Some bad actor could send email out to residents of the city and they could think that it was a legitimate website, and then obviously they could wreak all sorts of havoc without uniformity and websites only using a .gov domain, our constituents are being conditioned to believe that any .com, .org or any easily spoofed website could be real government information.

California's local government should take every effort to safeguard the public's trust in our institutions, especially when they rise to the level of being requirements for federal grants and offered free of charge by federal and state authorities, which is the case for .gov. I would like to acknowledge the practical tech aspects of this bill could pose challenges to some smaller local governments with less IT capacity, and I am committed to working with the opposition coalition to find a way to add technical assistance into this bill.

This technical assistance was actually done in New Hampshire, and my staff is in contact with both the New Hampshire CIO, as well as getting technical assistance, such as a help desk from our Department of Technology or Office of Emergency Services. But I want to note also that many local governments, large and small, urban and rural, are already on the .gov domain. I've spoken to all my cities in my district and the County of Ventura.

They have migrated over to .gov. And one of my smallest cities is in the process of migrating over to .gov. I believe it is important for all Californians, regardless of where they live, to have confidence and trust in their online transactions with their government. And finally, I would like to thank the committee for their analysis and accept the amendments noted in the analysis, which will be adopted in the next policy committee. And that's all we have.

Thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. Those amendments, did it also include extending the deadline to give a little bit more time?

Yes, the committee has asked, and when we spoke with the opposition, they asked for some additional time, and we added a year.

Good. Okay, great. Any witnesses in support, please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Okay, it all right. Two minutes each. Are you separate organizations?

Yes.

All of you separate. You're going to share your time? Yeah, we have two.

Madam Chair, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. I'll keep my remarks brief. We have a member city here who I'll yield my time for.

Very good. Thank you.

We appreciate the intended goal of this measure and appreciate the author and staff's time meeting with us and working with us. We remain, however, deeply concerned about the added costs associated with migrating to a new domain name.

The sheer scope and size that this bill proposes to capture cities, counties, fire districts, police, sheriff, schools, county hospitals, the amount of jurisdictions it captures and the huge expense that is involved deeply concerns us, and that the locals just would be inadequately prepared to make those migrations, even with the adjusted timeframe.

I have with me the chief informational officer from the City of Roseville who has gone through the migration and is going to be able to at least share some actuary costs and answer some additional questions.

Okay, very good. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and all committee members. My name is Hong Sae and I'm the CIO with the city Roseville. So one of my other capacity served as the previous immediate past president for a lead group of IT professionals called MISAC. And I was the state board member as usual, as today as well too. So MISAC stands for Municipal Information System Association of California. It consists about 350 local government agencies from San Diego all the way to Sacramento to San Francisco.

So all the chief information officer IT leadership group is in that groups out there. So this measures out here will require thousands of California local government city, county, special district, municipal utility, water parks, sheriff, school district and also county hospitals and all that would require us to move over to a .gov domain and as well as changing our email address. There are three major components out here. One is cost expenditure, two is timing and also the funding that are available to us.

And also third is about security. So number one, cost while applying for obtaining a .gov domain literally has no fees, but there are other significant costs to it. Website has thousands of lines of coding changes, mobile app ADA compliance, your vendors, you're paying for credit cards. All those changes would have to take place significantly. We are talking about approximately 3000 agencies in the whole entire State of California that would have to migrate through this process out here in less than a year time frames.

For example, one large government recently went through the process of migrating to a .gov domain, require 15 full-time staff members plus contractors and all that, and took about 12,000 hours of employee time in contractor to go through those process. So as Damon mentions out here, Roseville has gone through a website changes. It took us almost two years of a whole entire process just to migrate our websites over. That's just alone in the City Roseville itself. Second is about timing.

So I also serve in the Cal OES and Department of California Office of Emergency Services on their cybersecurity investment time investment task force. So currently there are no federal and also state requirement for us to move the gov requirements out there. Third and finals out here, I'll be sure, is security while obtaining a domain's name for .gov may be an authorized credential as mentioned from the staff member, but domain name security, it's not easily hackable from anyone that are out there.

Bottom lines is that we respectfully ask for this bills even though looking as the front end is security, but at a very high cost in a short amount of time that we have to move through mountains just to get things to get done out there. In the end of it, we have to balance both of our life on cybersecurity and local governments. So we look forward in future partnership with the Assemblymember's office in updating this bill.

Okay, thank you. Next speaker please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. Not used to being in local government, but pleasure to be here, Madam Chair. We share many of the main same concerns as our local government colleagues for us though, however, on the fiscal hit, we are looking at Prop 98 dollars that are otherwise spent on school programs, students, classrooms, employer-employee salaries and other pension liabilities.

We do also appreciate the committee's analysis and the author considering the timeline change for implementation. However, midyear through the school year could create further complications as we move from .edu or k12.ca.us to a .gov website. So hope we can continue the conversational implementation.

And then while school administrators take cybersecurity seriously to protect the local agency data, student data, employee data, we have invested significant local dollars in this and would be concerned that this might divert or delay some of the local programs in order to put forward the .gov security measures. So we remain opposed, less amended and look forward to the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, we have other witnesses in opposition come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members Jean Hurst here today. On behalf of the Urban Counties of California, I'd like to align our position with opponents testifying today.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Kaylin Dean, California State Association of Counties. Want to thank the author and her staff and also align our comments with the opposition today. Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi On behalf of the City Clerks Association of California and also Redwood City, also aligning our comments with the league opposition. Thank you.

Very good bringing it up here to the committee. Yes. Ms. Blanca.

Yes, I just wanted to also know, I'm concerned about this bill because of what the opposition said. I come from local government. In Downey, we didn't have a .gov.

It was downeyca.org, so it was bpachecodownyca.org, and it's our Downey Police Department that uses the same domain, .org. And so my concern is Downey is the biggest city in my district, and I have a lot of smaller cities who may not be able to comply with this. And so that's my concern. The time that it would take, the confusion for a lot of residents, a lot of residents were used to emailing me at the downeaca.org. They're used to emailing staff on that and the other council members.

So I'm kind of worried about that confusion, the amount of resources. So I understand the opposition. So I'm hoping that you can all work together because I have concerns for my smaller cities.

Thank you. Any other comments?

So can I just have somebody you.

Would like that there?

Yeah, just to answer the bill does allow you to continue to use the same URL and just point to the .gov website. And obviously, I come from local government too, but it is actually the smallest cities that are most at risk if they are not secure. And it is the residents of the smallest cities that are in the most vulnerable position if they have a URL that can be easily spoofed. To get a .gov URL, you have to prove that you are actually a government.

To get a.com or one of the website, you just purchase it for a penny. So we are quite aware that it is going to be, for some cities, a longer process. We have asked for amendments how long it actually would take. But I have to say that when the ask was to make it voluntary, it has been voluntary since 2002. And so we really need government to move in this direction because it's not only about a safer website, it requires two-step authentication and preloading documents.

There are safety measures in .gov. It's not everything to keep a city safe, but the exact organizations we're talking about. Let's say we're talking about water districts. If this makes it more difficult to hack, we are all safer. A water district being hacked is extremely problematic. LAUSD how much money did they spend dealing with the hack? They know they'll say, well, .gov is not the answer to everything. No, of course not.

But it is a very strong part of an overall system to make all of us in California safer. The Federal Government is already requiring it for all states that have taken federal grants, which California has taken. Every single Federal Government Department is going to have to migrate over, and those are huge departments, but there are definitely automation tools.

And while I am sure that the Roseville experience was a very long experience, we spoke to the IT folks in this County of Ventura, and we can certainly call the County of Ventura up, took them two IT people one week. And so there is a large range, depending of course on what the it capabilities are of the city or the county. But we're working also on getting a help desk or sort of a .gov in a box at OES or at the Department of Technology.

We're still working on that part. And there is already one grant funding source specifically for this, which is a cybersecurity grant program, which that funding is to migrate. This is a federal funding to migrate websites over to the .gov website. In addition, there are other homeland security grants that are available too, and we're looking at where else we can find funding, but to say the smallest cities can't do it.

We know it's going to be more difficult, but they are also absolutely more vulnerable if they get hacked. And their residents can be easily fooled into clicking a link and being hacked and sending maybe money for a bill over to what they think is city government. So unfortunately, this is a painful step. Again, I understand the issues that local governments have but I think it would be very irresponsible not to start this process.

Just one more thing, and I do understand about the hacking and cybersecurity. I'll just briefly state, I know of a city, I think it was last year of Zamani, they actually couldn't even hold council meetings because their emails were hacked. Their whole system went down. And I believe they were out one or two council meetings that they weren't even able to hold. So I completely understand that part too well.

It's just a balance. It's painful, but we want to work and get to a solution. And again, as I talk to individual cities in my county and LA County, whether they're there yet or not, they all are saying that they know they need to get there.

Thank you. Oh, yes, please go ahead.

Thank you Vice Chair Dixon, thank you to the authors for bringing this forward. I know your focus has always been on cybersecurity and keeping people safe and these types of issues.

And you've been a leader on that front, not only in terms of making sure that we as a state government take care of every single agency in this regard, but even the legislators making sure that we're all protected, even because we are vulnerable in a lot of ways due to our position.

My concern is related to cities and not just small, large, medium, doesn't matter to counties and also to even the school districts, them changing their designation from .gov or ca.gov from k12.ca.us, which has been a pretty safe, I would say, regard for our educational system, those public entities. And more what it was related to is the timing.

So you talked about that this has been a voluntary program for a number of years and people have not volunteered to go, which a lot of times people have to be voluntold, which is what you're transitioning to. And so my concern is that going from such a long time to a volunteer opportunity to then immediately, now you must do it. You must do it in now a year and a half with the extension of a year still seems too short.

It seems like a one size fits all approach. When you talk about the County of Ventura being a week or two weeks, and we have the City of Roseville saying it took two years. And the fact that when most cities, counties, local agencies received ARPA funding, there was a portion in there related to upgrading their systems, providing more opportunities to have virtual agency, whether it's virtual city hall, Virtual County, know all those things.

So a lot of cities, if you look at, I'm sure if you did a survey, I know I saw a bit, because before I came here, that's what I was doing as mayor, right? And serving on Calcities and being Vice President of the North Bay League. That was part of what we talked about is how much dollars we were spending from ARPA to upgrade our systems to provide them to be more secure.

A lot of resources have recently been spent and so it would seem like only a natural reaction if we're transitioning from volunteering to being volunteered to give some length of time, potentially five years, up to five years, so that cities, counties, agency can do it at their normal intervals and when they go in and upgrade sites. So I take it, for example of my city. My city is suiusun.com suisun.com. It has been for a number of years.

We navigated years before I was on the council away from the suisuncity.gov because it was confusing. We had two names, people were making all kind of stuff. And so they switched to a simpler suisun.com. And we still have the .gov, right? It still exists somewhere, nothing's on it. But we did that and we did a whole overall of our site and all that stuff. And in about five years my city would be ready for a refresh.

We don't have resources to spend on it at this particular moment to totally migrate our entire site. Every single new app we bought that was integrated into the system, our new economic development tool that we have now that is integrated and totally within our system based on the suisun.com. The resources and the manpower are not there, but I know within the next five years they would be because we would automatically be doing that refresh then.

And so I think if we're moving from a volunteer to a voluntold and now you have to do it, is that there does need to be that allowance of time to have it in the natural progressions. Most cities should not go that long without refreshing their it just because the nature of hacks and things like that. So that is my biggest concern. And I know I expressed that before about that plus cost.

And the cost is not the cost to do it, it's the cost related to do it and the timing that's allowed. This says that now you have to rush and do it in a year and a half versus having it be the natural progression. Okay, by the time you do your next refresh, this is what you have to, you're not allowed to do anything else. And that's what I would like to see and would like to have that included as you go forward.

And the time when I see some more time. I think that'll be when I'll be able to support your bill. But I think the effort, the intent is absolutely spot on and needed.

So the committee has added, we have two years right now and we have not gotten any feedback about what a reasonable time is from the coalition opposed. And so we are certainly open to whatever is reasonable. We know this is not easy for a certain government to do it, but we have to do it at some point. It has to be done.

We'll find if as soon as they give us a time frame, as opposed to saying make it voluntary, then we are happy to incorporate that.

Go ahead.

So going off of that, I just want to hear from the opposition. Do you have a timeline that you have in mind? And if you don't have one right now, I'm hoping you could talk to the author about it. But I'm curious five years, and again, you don't have to answer it, but I'm curious if you do have a timeline.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Well, we definitely would welcome an extension of five years. I think it would definitely help provide an additional kind of grace period for a lot of local jurisdictions that are on the cusp, or at least not as well-healed as others. For us philosophically, another unfunded mandate, while we recognize and the author has been accurate to illuminate pathways to existing grants, those are paltry in nature compared to the scope and size, and those are first come, first serve.

As we learned in last ARPA runs, there were a lot of cities that just didn't have the labor on staff of individuals to even write the grants, identify and write the grants, let alone apply for them. And now having to compete against fire, county hospitals, so on and so forth, I think would be a recipe for disaster. And we're quite frankly just not aware of the problem that this bill kind of purports to solve. So happy to work with the author on looking at extensions.

I think additional time is welcomed. I can't speak on behalf of the others in the Coalition for Fire and Hospitals and others, but would definitely welcome the additional time. Thank you.

And I'm just curious to hear from you to see what you think about it. I know it's two different organizations.

Sure. And so we work with CITE, which is the California Information Technology Educators. Thank you, MISAC, as well as others. So we're still reviewing this measure with their interest, but additional time is definitely appreciated and even we see this with a lot of school facility builds upon your next update.

That's when you would integrate it much to the committee member's comment about not necessarily a specific time frame, but upon your next certain updates are made, that would be an appropriate time because the investment has been made and is part of a sort of cyclical process that is budgeted for and planned for already. So that integration, I think would be a really strong adjustment.

Okay, sorry.

Can I mention one thing? I echoes both League of California City and also the School District's Administrator's comments out here, but a good cybersecurity measurements is not just about changing our domain name to .gov. It's about hiring great people, talented workforce training, a good process in place, and education trainings and all that, and awareness and also good technologies that are in there, all combinations. The .gov domain name is just a single component of all of it.

Any other questions? Just at the risk of asking one more question, I couldn't hear clearly on edu's like the UC system and will they have to .edu change to .gov?

I think it's only higher ed.

Okay. And that would what, stay .edu?

So we have local entity, local city, school districts, county offices of education that use .edu as part of their.

Would that remain .edu?

Not under this bill.

All right. Okay. All right. Any other further questions, why don't we call.

and I just want to say higher education has not come to us with any concerns.

Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, should we call? Do we have a motion?

Move the Bill.

Okay. And let's call the for the vote.

This is a due pass to privacy and consumer protection.

Excuse me, did you make your closing comment?

No. I appreciate our conversations with all the local governments, and we have a long process. We're certainly willing to work on that. As was mentioned, the .gov is only part of the solution. It's very important that local governments do everything they can to protect themselves and their constituents and their finances to make sure that they can keep operating. So we will not say this is the be all, end all, but we will say at the federal level it is being mandated.

One thing I want to say about the five years is that the grant funding will be expired before five years. So it'll be really important for us to find out exactly what a reasonable time frame is. But we want to make sure that the grants are available.

Okay, now we'll go to Madam Secretary.

This is a due pass to privacy and consumer protection. [Roll Call]

Okay, where are we? This needs more votes. The bill is on call. All right. Thank you very much. Where are we now? Do we go back to Ms. Wilson? No, I got Mr. McCarty. You keep getting pushed down. All right. Assemblymember McCarty, please come forward. AB 1504.

Thank you, madam Vice Chair. This is, of course, a local government committee. This is kind of a hybrid bill with transportation, local government, and frankly, dealing with natural resources and our air quality. So if we're going to tackle our climate change and air quality goals in California, we need to address our fleet, and that's our automobiles and our mobile sources. We know that.

And so as well as getting 100% clean cars on the road in the next decade, a big focus is on infrastructure and zev infrastructure, charging infrastructure, not just the grid, but plugins, whether they're as residential or curbside or at sites across California. First of all, I want to thank the committee staff for working with us on this bill, and we appreciate helping come up with some tweaks along the way. And also I want to note that we have worked with the opposition.

We'll hear from earlier, and we've, I think, got closer with them, but continued to work with them. Most of the recent amendments have taken away the opposition's previous and primary concerns, but again, we're still committed. So again, in order to mate our state's continued quest to lead the world with climate change and clean energy, we need to focus on zero emission transportation infrastructure. This bill accelerates California's ability to do just that.

Specifically, this measure asked cities and counties to include curbside charging infrastructure plans in their local government plans and asked the California Energy Commission to access what is needed to meet those goals. California residents, a lot of residents in apartment complexes, don't have the opportunity to plug in at their home.

And the reality is three quarters of people who have electric cars, including some people on this dyess, probably charge at home, but the quarter that don't have to go to charging locations, but many times they could do it on the street if they had proper curbside charging. Local governments are attempting to do this, but just frankly, not fast enough and not in the more expedited manner which we need to do. With me today is one of the supporters and sponsors of our bill, flow energy.

Ask you, we hear from them and later ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and committee members. I'm Cory Bullis. On behalf of FLO EV Charging here in strong support of AB 154 I would also really like to start by thanking the committee staff for their hard work and research and collaboration with us to evolve the bill and make ultimately what I think is a stronger bill. Just to kind of add some stats or finer points to what the Assemblymember commented on. Nearly 50% of Californians live in multifamily housing.

And yet, according to the California Energy Commission, when they did a survey of those residents, no more than 33% of those residents can access home charging. And the study also found that people who are typically lower income and people of color tend to have lower access to home charging. And really, home charging is one of the most convenient, cost effective options to help drive EV adoption. So if you cannot access home charging, what are the alternatives?

And there's certainly a suite of options that the state and the locals are working on. But we see curbside charging as a really, really important equity tool to increase equitable access to home charging. And that's essentially because, as the Assemblymember touched on, you can be citing these chargers in the right of way adjacent to a multifamily housing project. We at flow have multiple curbside charging projects across North America.

We have 1000 curbside chargers with the City of Montreal, we have nearly 400 with the City of LA, and we have multiple other deployments across the US and Canada. And really, that's one of the most important benefits we're seeing with curbside charging is that it allows us to more equitably deploy chargers in areas that might not otherwise have the real estate to actually host a charger. So we see AB 154 as a really important tool to have more proactive planning efforts around curbside charging.

This is something we've just seen from our existing deployments, our existing expertise doing this work is that to make curbside charging happen, you really need to plan for it, you need to really want it. And that's because there's just a lot of additional considerations to think about when planning for curbside charging that you might not consider when you are deploying in a public parking lot or at a retail shopping center.

So we think 154 has a really good planning framework in place that would help move the needle and move these conversations forward at a local level. And for those reasons, would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support, please come forward. None. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Thank.

Madam Chair and Members Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. I hate to sound like a broken wheel. We are very appreciative of this last iteration of the Bill. Want to continue to work with the author on this measure if it were to advance. We still remain deeply concerned about added costs associated with the new requirements that would be for development and assessment and review of these. So we believe that there is some middle ground.

So we're looking forward to working with the author as this measure moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California. We sent in our letter after deadline of opposition, but want to take a moment to thank the author staff for their willingness to continue the conversation with us and try to address our issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mark Newberger, California State Association of Counties kind of echo and kind of follow up to the comments from Cal Cities and RCRC. We definitely submitted our letter late as well, but appreciate the author and look forward to continuing discussions on this Bill.

Thank you very much. Any comments up here at the Committee? Seeing none. I have a question. At the local level, again, wearing my local government hat, I can't think of a single development that I'm aware of that isn't being built with charging stations. So I think market forces are at play. The government didn't build gas stations when the automobile was invented. I just think that this is a great market-based opportunity for businesses to see the advantage of working with development and local governments. I know.

I think your companies work with some of our cities in Orange County to install them at your cost. I think it was, and I think that's really a benefit that can be made. So I think it's great. I applaud getting to that high number, but I believe that let's let the marketplace pile on and make sure we put every charging station on every block. I think that'd be great. Don't you see that?

Or maybe, Mr. McCarty, do you see that with local governments and private businesses putting in their own stations?

Yeah, I think we want to unlock the marketplace to install these, and we're putting a lot of money into this, billions, not just California money, but from the Federal Infrastructure Bill to this. But some cities, unfortunately, are dragging their feet. And I came from local government, just like you. And just like I think everybody here on this dais. Yeah, I'm looking around. And some do it better than others. So this kind of just cajoles them to push them in the right direction, isn't a mandate.

I had another Bill a couple of years ago that focuses on citing them on kind of off the street. Now we're focusing on kind of the curbside, not just the development, but next to think of a light pole. I wish you had a picture right here. Think of a light pole or a parking meter that already has infrastructure right there to be able to utilize that. It's a parking space. People are already there.

And companies like FLO would wish to utilize that public infrastructure for public charging. And so we're focusing on that.

If I could also add, I think it's ultimately a little bit of both. And just to kind of frame the discussion, the Energy Commission has calculated we need over 1 million chargers by, I think, 2030. And we have a very long way to go to fulfilling that goal. And certainly we're closing that gap through businesses. A lot of our customers are businesses that want chargers as an amenity to their customers.

But that doesn't get at all the locations where you need chargers to support EV adoption and to support drivers. And so having, I mean, local government is an integral partner in this transition. We obviously can't do it without them. We see them as a partner. Again, a lot of our customers are local governments, like the City of Montreal, for instance.

We don't really see businesses wanting to deploy chargers in the right of way because it's public property and not necessarily where their business is.

Or on their private property they do.

Right. I think an example of where we're seeing the benefits when local governments do more proactive planning. I would just note City of Portland is actually in the process of developing one of the most robust policy planning tools we've seen with curbside charging. City of Sacramento has also been a leader in this space of actually developing a process and a bit of a plan when it comes to deploying curbside chargers.

That means a world of difference to companies like FLO on where do we concentrate our time and resources to deploy curbside chargers? If we can see that local governments have a process in place, that there's a positive signal that they're interested in this solution and that they're going to work more collaboratively with us, that's a huge, attractive market signal for us.

And that's part of why we see so much value in AB 1504 as written, because we think it has the potential to do that for cities across California.

Okay, thank you very much. Well, the Chair is back. All right.

Are there any other questions from the Committee? Okay, seeing none. Entertain a motion? Okay, we have a motion by Assembly Member Rivas, a second by Assembly Member Ramos. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Before you came here, I thanked your team for working with us to make the Bill better. We still have a little bit of opposition, but we will continue to work with the entities. But big picture, if we want to get clean cars 100% in the next decade, as we said, we need much more EV infrastructure, and this is a piece of the puzzle. With that, ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you for the Bill and working with the Committee staff and the author's amendments that we adopted last week. I believe we have found a good balance that will result in more EV charging stations in places where they help our constituents most without unduly burdening local governments with permit timelines that were not designed for the public right of way. I'll be supporting your Bill today. The motion is do pass to the Transportation Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Okay, the vote is five sero. That Bill is out. We will leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Whoa. Guess who's last? Is it because you're a W?

No, they bumped me. They said not file order.

I was a Member. I had to wait.

I got it. Okay. This is file number 10, AB 910, Assembly Member Wilson. And you can begin when you're ready.

I am ready. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 910, which will set clear requirements for individuals who want to run for County Auditor-Controller by providing more information to the experience and educational requirements in Government Code Section 26945. Government Code Section 26945 includes the prerequisite education and work experience that is required to serve in the position of County Auditor-Controller.

Portions of that section are extremely broad, which has caused conflict regarding the lack of qualifications for individuals who appear on the ballot. This Bill would also amend Election Code 13.5 by providing more direction to the registrars to verify the background and claims of the candidates prior to placing their name on the ballot. It is important that individuals who are interested in running, meet the qualifications and are prepared to fulfill the duties of a County Auditor-Controller on day one.

My witness today is Matt Siverling with the State Association of County Auditors.

Welcome.

Madam Chair. And Members. Matthew Siverling with the State Association of County Auditors. Not to be too repetitive with what the Chair said, I know you guys have had a long hearing today. We were looking to add a little specificity to the government code section that clarifies who's eligible to run for the position of County Auditor, who's basically the local gatekeeper for finances with the county government. It's a very important and high-profile position.

We had also initially put in some more strong language into the Elections Code to compel the elections official to literally verify the people that are coming through the gate to make sure that before they get on the ballot, those people are actually screened and been provide the documentation that we're looking for. We've actually peeled that back just based on baby steps, just making sure that the elections official knows what they're looking for.

We're not mandating it, but we're sort of asking for a little help to make sure that, again, before the toothpaste gets out of the tube and the people are on the ballot and people are voting for them and they're unqualified, we try to screen that to make sure that the candidates are qualified, and if they won the election, they could serve in that position, and we urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support in the audience?

Izzy Swindler from Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, representing the Board of Supervisors, Solano County, in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition? No one's there, Ms. Wilson. Okay. Are there any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Entertain a motion. A motion from Assembly Member Rivas. A second by Assembly Member Ramos. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I thank you so much for my witness and testimony. I had an opportunity to serve in the Auditor Controllers Department for my particular county, one of my early jobs in my career, and recognize the importance as the fiscal agent for the county and the watchdog, that the people who serve in that top position are absolutely qualified when their name is on the ballot and the people have a good choice. So with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much for this, because I really like that we need to make sure the qualifications imagine that first county auditors are equal to the tasks they perform for our constituents every day. I'm happy to support your Bill. What the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

[Roll call]. That's eight-zero.

Okay, that Bill is eight-zero and it is out. All right, we now need to do the consent calendar. Secretary?

Aguiar-Curry?

Sorry. Okay, we have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson. Second by Assembly Member Waldron.

[Roll call]. Eight-zero.

Okay. All right. The consent calendar is out. Eight-zero and that's out. Okay. All right. Okay, we're going to do the on-calls first. AB 434. Grayson, current is four-zero.

[Roll call].

Bills out, six zero. Okay. AB 5116, Ramos. It's current five-zero.

[Roll call].

Bill is out, eight-zero. AB 892, Bains. Current is three-zero.

[Roll call]. That's seven-one.

Bill is out seven-one. We have AB 894, Friedman. What? I would like to on. AB. 892, Bains, it's actually seven-zero. That's 892, seven-zero bill is out. Okay, thank you. AB 894, Friedman. Current is three-one, do pass to Housing Community Development.

[Roll call].

That's vote six-two. Bill is out. AB 930, do pass to Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy. Vote is currently four-one.

[Roll call].

Bill is out, six-two. Next is AB 901, Ting. Do pass to Housing and Community Development. Current is four-one.

[Roll call].

Bill is out, six-one. AB 976, Ting. Do pass to the Floor. It's currently four-zero.

[Roll call]. You have seven-zero.

Bll is out, seven-zero. This is AB 1256, Wood. Motion do pass to Rev. and Tax.

[Roll call]. You have five-two.

Bill is out, five-two. AB 1637, Irwin. Do pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection.

[Roll call]. That's six-zero.

Bill is out, six-zero.

Now, these are add-ons. Don't change.

AB 821, Grayson. Do pass to Housing Community Development. Vote is five-zero.

[Roll call]. Seven-one.

Bill is out, seven-one. AB 1476 Alvarez.