Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. I would like to remind the public that for this and future hearings, testimony will be in person. As we no longer are using a moderated telephone service, we accept written testimony through the position letters portal on the Committee's website. So we'll go over a few of the ground rules for appropriate conduct. Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committees and floor proceedings in the last few years.

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 and threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or the 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 continuing 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'll request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. Well, here we go, new year. We have a replacement on our dais today.

Assemblymember Flora will be stepping in for Assemblymember Dixon for today's hearings. And I'll welcome Mr. Flora when he arrives. And I would also like to welcome other new Members of our Committee. Assemblymember Pacheco. Welcome Assemblymember Waldron. She's new, but also not new as she was formally served on this Committee. And Assemblymember Wilson. And welcome, and welcome back to all of you here in the audience. We have seven items on the agenda this afternoon. One of these items is proposed for consent. Item number five.

AB 588. By Assemblymember Robert Reevis. Assemblymember Robert Reevis will also be presenting AB 281 for assemblymember Grayson today. We will also be adopting our Committee rules. We will hear all other bills in the order shown on our agenda. Unless otherwise noted. We will take up two primary witnesses in support and up to 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.

Only secretary, I believe we have a quorum. Would you please call the roll?

Agria Curry.

Agria Curry. Present. Laura? Bernard Harback.

Here.

Bernard Harback. Present. Pacheco.

Here.

Pacheco. President Ramos. Robert Rebus. Robert Reebus. Present. Waldron. Waldron. Present. Wilson.

Here.

Okay, we have a quorum. So our first item on today's agenda is the adoption of the Committee rules. Do we have a motion? Motion by Assembly Member Reevis. Seconded by Boerner Horvath. Just doing that for you. Let's see here. And, secretary, please take the role. Okay, let's see. I think Ms. Some of you remember Revis is the only one here so far. Right. Would you like to go first? Welcome. This is file item number three. AB 49. Nine. Lou Revis.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, and for the motion and the second. I want to begin by thanking Angela from the Committee for her thorough evaluation of this measure. AB 499 would authorize the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to use job order contracting as a project delivery method. This measure would allow for a more efficient procurement process to enable LA Metro to rapidly and efficiently address small maintenance and repair projects at their property.

Job order contracting is a procurement process that allows government agencies to issue smaller, more individualized construction contracts. Job order contracting includes a catalog of individual construction tasks to be performed, each at a pre-established price, and which includes the cost of local equipment, materials, and prevailing wage labor costs. Also included in the contract are a set of technical specifications and standard drawings establishing technical quality standards for each of the tasks listed in the catalog.

This method has been used in California for nearly 20 years, and it has proven to save time and money. Today, in support of this measure, I have the bill sponsor, Michael Turner, with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Welcome.

...Process for routine maintenance work, which is specified in the bill. I should also note that we have protections in the bill to ensure compliance with our project labor agreements and to ensure that there is no conflict with our collective bargaining agreements with our employees. So with that, we ask your support and thank you for your consideration.

Is there anyone else in support of the bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition of the bill? Well, this is your lucky day. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing no questions. I have a motion by Assembly Member Boerner Horvath, and I have a second by Assembly Member Robert Rivas. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

This is a good bill. I want to thank you and your staff and sponsors for working with our Committee on this bill, and I'm happy to support allowing LA Metro to use job order contracting for the type of work it was designed to address, repair, remodeling, and other repetitive work, and not new construction. With the labor protections reporting to the legislature and other safeguards in this bill, I'm happy to vote aye for your bill today. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Vote is 4-0. We'll wait for the others to add on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we are up with item pulled back up to file number two, AB 436, Assembly Member Alvarez. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the enthusiasm, colleagues. Yeah, I love this Committee. Former council member, love the work that you do. And thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you. It's a fun bill, it's an exciting bill. But it's also actually important to the communities that it's going to impact. And you'll hear some testimony about that from my witness that's here with us.

But since the 1950s, car clubs and family members have converted older cars for cruising, for shows, and for competitions at different events. They are uniquely modified vehicles that are also seen in movies and in our community events. However, for years, actually, since the 1980s, those cruising have done so with fear. And it's time to cruise without fear of being stopped or judged. That's why I introduced AB 436, Cruising is Not a Crime Bill.

I want to acknowledge the work done last year by the ACR that our colleague who just presented, Luz Rivas, presented. We received unanimous support for that ACR calling on our local governments to lift the bans on cruising. And some have done so, and we appreciate that. But others have chosen not to do that at the moment. And this bill would ensure that every community has the same access to this historic, culturally significant, what I think is demonstration of art.

Cruising is a part of many cultures, many multicultural communities, the black community, the Latino community, and others throughout the state. AB 436 will unban the local cruising bans and highlight the role of cruising. By creating community expression for art and bringing unity. The bill will allow for the historic legacies of cruising to continue for many generations to come. Thank you to all those who are cruising advocates and all the other advocates that have paved the way to be here today.

We are also very thankful for the bipartisan co-authors that we have on this bill from throughout the entire state, from every region. I'd like now to introduce Marcus Bush, Council Member from the City of National City, who is here to testify in support. Marcus.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez. And good afternoon, Chair Aguiar-Curry and local government Committee Members. My name is Marcus Bush. I'm a Council Member for the City of National City, located in District 80. And I'm so honored and proud to stand before, to sit before you all and advocate for AB 436.

Part of the reason I'm so proud to be here is because this is part of a recent movement that started in my hometown in National City, which currently has a ban on cruising. And for those who don't know the story, the spark of this movement was one of our residents, a woman named Marisa Rosales, National City resident, member of Duke's Car Club. And she's an award winning lowrider with a 1949 Hudson Commodore she names Christine. I don't even know what Hudson Commodore.

I don't even know cars like that. But I appreciate that love and that passion from her and this community. And she started these pop up cruises on National City Boulevard in December 2020 as a Covid-safe activity for families, community members who were just honestly exhausted and depressed from being isolated, being in lockdown all the time. And this was beautiful, fun, family friendly celebration that me and my wife actually biked to. And so it was awesome.

And our law enforcement and city staff did have concerns with the events. So to address those concerns, I worked with Marisa and I worked with her to form a coalition with local car clubs, community activists. Want to acknowledge the President, Jovita Arellano, Executive Committee Members. I could go on all the individual names, but it's really individuals and from really diverse backgrounds and groups. That group today is known as the United Lowrider Coalition in San Diego County.

And they were formed with the number one stated goal and purpose, to work with the Council and community to repeal our city's no cruising ordinance. They spent over a year doing tons of community events, vaccine drives, toy giveaways. Finally did a massively successful and well attended inauguration cruise on Highland Avenue on May 6 of 2022. So just last year. That cruise had a very positive economic impact for the City. Retails and restaurant had estimated 10 to 28% increase in sales that day.

And that translates directly to our sales tax revenue and our General Fund that provides services to residents. So the low riders were, the community was told that the City would work with them and eventually repeal the ordinance. The City did not do that. And long story short, against the opposition of myself and Council Member Jose Rodriguez, my colleague, the City betrayed the lowrider community, proposing to charge this group 18,000 for cruise and halting all conversations on the repeal.

So, in short, that's why we need state action, that's why we need AB 436, because our situation is not unique in National City. The discrimination, the negative stereotypes associating low riders as gangs and as crime. And let's remember that this is an activity enjoyed predominantly by black and brown communities. And so it's personal to me, being black and brown myself. I'm black and Mexican, Blaxican. Again, and this is part of my identity. This is part of my community's identity.

We embrace lowriders and whether it's after charger games, going up and down Highland Avenue, just celebration after soccer games, we want to bring that unity and work with our law enforcement, having our law enforcement out there getting to know the community as well. So that's what this bill would do. And I just really ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Also, is there any other witnesses in support of the bill?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez here in my personal capacity as a child who grew up in the Duke's Car Club of Orange County, in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any others? We have a couple others it looks like.

Good afternoon. My name is Olivia Fonseca, member of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission and member of the California Lowrider Alliance. I support the bill. Cruising is not a crime.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Francine Mata. I'm Chair of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission and proud member of the California Lowrider Alliance, and I am in strong approval of this multicultural bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. I don't see anyone here. Are there any questions of the Committee? Yeah.

What car do I have? I have a 2007 Dodge Nitro. It is not a lowrider.

Well, maybe next time, right? Anyone else? Entertain a motion. Oh, that's right. Excuse me, Assembly Member Boerner Horvath and Assembly Member Wilson seconded. All right. Would you like to close?

Yeah. First of all, thank you. Having a car like this requires a lot of time, talent, and certainly money. It's a beautiful hobby that some of us, unfortunately, don't have the time to engage with, but those that do, it's a beautiful expression of art. And that's why we have, again, bipartisan and invite any of you to join our ever growing list of co-authors on this bill. And it's supported throughout the state, in rural areas, cities big and small. And we would appreciate your support out of this Committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You're very welcome. And I just want to say, Council Member, I appreciate you coming up here to have this conversation. What you showed me, just by our conversation, was you're bringing leadership to the community, to all colors. Showing leadership. You're showing community involvement and the importance of community involvement and economic development for your community. These little steps that we take that you just don't realize how far you're going to get. And I really appreciate you for authoring the bill.

I agree that prohibiting local agencies from regulating cruise is long overdue. I also agree that cruising is not a crime, and I am happy to support your bill today. I'll be voting aye, and I ask to be added as a co-author. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill is out. The vote is 5-0.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Okay, Assemblymember Carillo, you are ready? Item number four, AB 562. You can start when you're ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, I am pleased to present AB 562, a bill related to the repeal of fiscal controls of the County of Los Angeles. Existing law requires the county to annually submit its proposed budget to the Governor, the Legislature and the State Auditor, among other requirements.

These provisions were enacted in 1996. I was in high school at the time when the county was suffering from a fiscal emergency. The county has since recovered and as seen by the county's strong credit ratio and debt ratio. Even more so. Technological improvements now allow the county to post its recommended and approved budget on its website for public view. The bill has no opposition. Here to testify in support is Marvin Deon, chief legislative representative on behalf of the County of Los Angeles.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thanks for having me today. I'm Marvin Deon, Chief Legislative Rep for the County of Los Angeles, and on behalf of the county elect and the sponsor of this bill, I'm here to ask for your. I vote AB 562 is a bill that removes a nearly 30-year-old provision that specifically requires the County of Los Angeles to send its proposed budget to the state each year.

The code section was enacted at a time when the county was in fiscal shaky space and since the county has recovered significantly. As stated by the author, the county now enjoys AAA credit rating with standard and poors. I'd also like to note that back in 98, the information called for by this statute was posted and has since been posted online on the county's website. Available to the public.

In closing, I like to say that this bill simply removes an outdated statutory language that was relevant when implemented, but is now a relic of a time period before the online posting of such information with standard practice. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any opposition? No, there's no opposition. I'd like to bring it to the Committee for questions, comments. Everybody good? We do have a motion from Assemblymember Boerner Horvath and seconded by Assemblymember Wilson. The Chair is thanking you for presenting the Bill, and she is supporting it. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. Would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair, just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. On record that I'm requesting the aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

You have a vote of 4-0.

Vote is 4-0. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Haney is here to present item number six, AB 1114. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members, I first want to start by accepting the committee amendments and extending my gratitude to the committee staff for working with our office and the sponsors on the language. AB 1114 will help my district and help our state build much-needed housing by prohibiting appeals on approved post-entitlement building permits in the final hour. Right now, all housing developments go through a series of steps, from the initial proposal to certificate of occupancy.

This includes application period, acquiring entitlement, securing building permits, construction, and finally, people moving in. In most cities across California, the process of securing a post-entitlement building permit is an automatic action. This means there are no opportunities to appeal the permit once the project has already been approved by the local government. San Francisco is one of the only local governments that does not have automatic approval for post-entitlement building permits.

This is because the permits in San Francisco are discretionary, meaning that lawsuits can be filed on the issuance of all building permits for new housing, even if the permit is to build something that has already been approved by our Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. With the current process in place, it takes almost two years for an applicant to receive a post-entitlement building permit in San Francisco. The unique appeals process exacerbates San Francisco's already severe housing shortage.

And while existing law prevents post-entitlement building permits from being frivolously appealed and requires them to be approved within a specific time frame, the discretion on San Francisco's post-entitlement building permits makes them exempt from these protections. To help our city meet its affordable housing goals, AB 1114 will address the postapproval appeals problem and help build more housing in San Francisco by clarifying building permits for projects that have already received approval from the local agency are not subject to additional appeals.

Here to testify in support with me today is Corey Smith, Executive Director for the Housing Action Coalition, and Louis Morante, Vice President of Public Policy for Housing from the Bay Area Council. Did I say your last name?

You got Morante.

Okay. Moranti. Okay.

Thank you, Assemblymember, and good afternoon, everybody. Good to see you all. My name is Corey Smith. I'm the Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition, or HAC for short. We're a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for building more homes for residents at all income levels and proud co-sponsor of AB 1114 because it's going to help deliver more homes and more affordable homes in San Francisco.

Last year, the Housing Action Coalition sponsored AB 2234, which aimed to set reasonable shot clocks for cities and counties to review building permits. At the time, we were aware that San Francisco's process was a little bit of an outlier, as the Assemblymember explained. So even if a project is fully approved by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, any individual can file an appeal against the building permit. That extra process, which exists uniquely in San Francisco, adds additional time and cost onto new housing.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle report found that the average permit took 627 days to approve, nearly two years to approve a permit, a 100% subsidized affordable housing project in San Francisco, one block from light rail and one block from Golden Gate Park, has been sued repeatedly, I believe up to nine lawsuits at this point in time. And while the project still moves forward, those delays prevent families from moving in.

Assembly Bill 1114 is a straightforward approach to closing a loophole that delays housing in San Francisco and would align the city's permit review, approval and appeal process with cities around the state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Assemblymembers. My name is Luis Morante. I'm the Vice President of Public Policy with Bay Area Council here in strong support of AB 1114 and as a co-sponsor of it.

The Bay Area Council has a unique perspective, I think, on construction in the Bay Area as our members develop everywhere in the Bay Area, including San Francisco. On average, it takes them 400 days longer to develop in San Francisco through this process than it does in Oakland and 300 days longer than it does in Berkeley. Similar cities. The City of San Francisco in this project that my colleague just mentioned, 2550 Stanyon, has invested $36 million of its own money to build the affordable housing, and the state has invested much more.

And these delays cost money and make that process significantly less efficient. Both from a taxpayer perspective and from a city governance perspective. This does retain all local control to City of San Francisco. It mostly just affects that city. And I want to emphasize that this is a real tool that the city can use to improve its process, make its affordable housing dollars go further, and ultimately house more Californians. Thanks.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support?

Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association, the home builders. We're in proud support of this bill.

Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, proud co-sponsor to the bill.

Thank you. Is there any opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Questions of the Committee, comments? Assemblymember Boerner Horvath.

Yes. Thank you for bringing this forward. I abstain from the original bill this is modifying. My only question, and I'm happy to support this today because it seems like it's your San Francisco problem and then you're the San Francisco Legislator, so you can solve your own problems. But how do we know only San Francisco? Like somebody audit all the charters from all the cities? So we know that San Francisco is the only one that has this problem.

It's the only one that we're aware of. I'll turn to Corey.

For a year and a half, I've literally asked every person I can find that question, and most people give me this bewildered, wait, that process exists in San Francisco? It's unique.

Yeah. Even in Encinitas, we don't do that.

San Francisco is special in many ways, but this is not one we are proud of. We just want to be like all of you in this case.

So this would only apply in San Francisco because this is only a problem in San Francisco and not in LA County, which I'm surprised about that it's not a problem in LA County. There's so many cities over there.

So San Francisco is the only city where you can appeal a post-entitlement building permit. That is not a process that exists in LA. There's obviously many other steps where projects can be appealed. This is not intended to affect CEQA in any way. This is a very rare process that exists in San Francisco where these permits, after all other approvals have been made, can be appealed. I don't know if there's any more to add on that?

The bill applies statewide, but the only city that we're familiar with that has a process that would be changed by this bill is San Francisco.

That's interesting. Okay.

We're not trying to give anybody ideas either.

I do think Encinitas now has an idea.

Are there any other comments, questions? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Again, thanks so much for the amendments. And we know that there was a letter with some concerns from the building trades, and we will continue to work with them. I think our amendments did address a number of the concerns that they brought forward, and we will continue to discuss those issues with them. And I respectfully ask for your, aye vote.

Thank you. The Chairwoman wanted me to mention that she was alarmed when she read about the amount of time it takes for a project to be permitted in San Francisco. And she supports your desire to ensure that San Francisco has to abide by the same permitting deadlines as every other jurisdiction in the so. And we all on the Committee also appreciate you working with us early to ensure that the bill is appropriately tailored to address the issues and unique circumstances.

And the state building trades has expressed concerns, and the Chairwoman encourages you to work with them to resolve any outstanding issues as the bill works forward. We do have a motion. The motion is due pass as amended, to Housing and Community Development Committee. The motion was by Assemblymember Wilson, seconded by Waldron. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the Bill is 4-0 on call.

Thank you. Thank you.

Regarding item four. And the same issue regarding item four is on call as well. Did you do consent calendar? We can entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Okay, so, consent calendar moved by Assemblymember Boerner Horvath. Seconded by Assemblymember Wilson. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

That's 4-0 and is also on call. Okay, in the essence of time, we'll have Assemblymember Rivas present item number one, AB 281.

Well, thank you, Madam Vice Chair and colleagues. And this legislation. This is the wrong folder. So, on behalf of Assemblymember Grayson.

Know he is thankful that the committee's hearing the bill in this legislation. What it does it seeks to establish time frames for special districts to weigh in and provide feedback on a post entitlement phase permit application for a housing development project. And as the bill suggests, the proposed time frames would range from 30 to 60 days, and that depends on the size of the development.

And what this bill does is it builds on work from last session, specifically the post entitlement reform legislation, Assembly Bill 2234 that was signed by the governor, which now requires cities and counties to process nondiscretionary permits within 30 to 60 days, which depends on the size of the housing project. However, these same timelines, they don't apply to special districts that are also engaged in the permit approval process.

In this legislation, it proposes to hold special districts to the same standards as cities and counties in an effort to help and prevent costly some delays and reduce barriers to housing production. Assemblymember Grayson has worked closely with a wide range of special districts to ensure the bill addresses the different types of situations that the various special districts may need to go through as they go through the post entitlement the permitting phase.

This legislation recognizes the incremental adjustments that may take place throughout the development process and allows a special district to review and assess information as it may arise. With me here to testify is Corey Smith, who is the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

And hello again, assembly members. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, I will skip part of the spiel. Last year, the Legislature passed AB 2234, which set shock clocks for cities and counties to review and issue post entitlement building permits. This was a logical next step in that process and applies the same concept to special districts.

It was always the goal to improve the process of issuing building permits and a logical effort that is paralleled with the state's effort to improve the entitlement process. But these are different pieces and the reasoning that applying these timelines, we believe is sound. It was always our goal to make sure that the worst actors were really the only ones that would be potentially impacted and are continuing to work in good faith to make sure that those operating in good faith would not see any disruption.

Last year, a 100% affordable housing project in Palo Alto with 136 units and a dozen backyard ADU cottages faced significant delays due to an issue with a sanitary district. In this situation, the building permit was held up, which means negotiating a new deal on fees, leaving hundreds of new homes delayed. These types of delays drive up costs and further exacerbate our affordability and displacement crisis by setting reasonable time frames for special districts to review and comment on these permits.

We're taking another step to create good government guardrails around the home building process. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Velaktang with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Good afternoon. Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association, the Home Builders. We're in proud support of this bill.

Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. We actually don't have a position on the bill, but I just wanted to thank the sponsors and the author's staff and also the committee staff for working with us to make sure that the current language reflects the process of special districts. Aqua represents, I think, over 90% of our Members are special districts. So we really appreciate the work on this. And that's all I want to say. Thank you.

Brian Staff from Lighthouse Public Affairs for our clients, SPUR, and Habitat for Humanity, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association. We do not have a support position. However, we did want to thank the author's office and the sponsors for working with us and a particular special shout out to the committee consultants for convening all the stakeholders and working through this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Member Boerner Horvath.

Just help me understand what special districts would have housing projects on them. I'm not aware of any of mine that have them in San Diego, county, but maybe there are other special districts in the state that I'm unaware of.

And so I'll defer to the sponsor. But my understanding. So this involves the post entitlement, the permitting phase.

They're providing feedback on the permits themselves. So, for example, if you need water hookups that would somehow involve a water district, is making sure that that water district is engaging in a timely fashion on the issuance of the building permit, which would ultimately done by the city or county.

Okay, I'll second the bill if we don't have a second. Any other questions or comments? Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask an aye vote on behalf of Senator Member Grace.

Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion, and the motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 4-0 on call. Thank you. And we have one bill left item seven and we wait for the author. We can go back and lift the call for absent members. Madam Secretary, start with item one. Everybody was here. Fight on.

It.

AB 499 [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is six to zero and it's out. Thank you.

AB 562 Wendy Carillo. The vote is 4-0 [Roll Call]

5-0 out.

AB 1114. Haney. The vote is 4-0 [Roll Call]

That bill is still 4-0. And call.

Adoption of the Committee rules. Wilson.

Okay, so we wait for an author. Right now. We can do an add on to item number two. AB 436.

AB 436. Rivas.

Item number two.

Rivas aye. 6-0.

That bill is 6-0. It's out.

And thank you so much, Madam Chair. Chair Aguia-Curry is actually presenting in my committee right now, so, you know, we're just having fun this afternoon. And it AB 1649 would increase change order thresholds for the County of Santa Clara until January 12027. The county would also be required to submit a report to the Legislature by July 12026. The provisions are the same as AB 712 from 2021, authorizing the same changes for Los Angeles County.

Change orders are amendments to a construction contract that changes the contractor's scope of work, such as moving the location of a wall to accommodate some other design element, and usually increases the contract price. Existing law limits the maximum amount of a delegated officer engineer can approve without requiring a vote by the Board of Supervisors. These limits have not been updated since 2011 and do not reflect inflation, changes in construction, market pricing, or changes in the scale of projects.

The result is that the maximum threshold requiring a Board of Supervisors vote is frequently reached, often leading to costly delays as the number of necessary change orders increases. The County of Santa Clara has a series of relatively large projects in the construction pipeline, including a new behavioral health services center and seismic retrofits for hospital buildings. Adjusting the change order thresholds to the same cap as Los Angeles will allow the county to avoid possible delays on these large, time sensitive projects.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Doug Koenig, deputy director of the Santa Clara County Facilities and Fleet Department.

Thank you. As it was just mentioned, we do have a series of very large projects in the pipeline right now. We've started construction of a new 600 $1.0 million behavioral health services center, and this bill given us, increasing our authority to process the change orders, will definitely eliminate possible delays in our projects.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to committee. I'll second the motion. Or we have a second. Now. We do have a second. Okay. Any questions? No.

Mr. Kalra, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, so we do have a motion. The motion is do pass by Assemblymember Boerner-Horvath. Seconded by Assemblymember Rivas. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. ]

[Roll Call]

So we're at 4-0 on, 3-0. Bill is on call.

Thank you. Thank you.

So much. Yeah.

The Bill is 4-0 on call right now.

Yes, we did have the rules.

Adoption of the rule we need to redo that vote because the microphone was off.

Okay. AB 1649 Wilson Wilson I.

4-0 Bill is on call.

Adoption of the Committee rules. Wilson Wilson aye.

That Bill is out. Adopted.

I never.

Okay, we will do some more add ons starting at the top.

[Vote]

7-0 the bill is out.

[Vote]

6-0 the Bill is out.

[Vote]

6-0 the Bill is out.

[Vote]

Vote is 6-0, bill is out. Thanks for coming. Thank you. You got me everywhere. Okay. Go ahead.

Make sure we you.

Finally go to see you're.

[Vote]

7-0? Bills out, 7-0. Okay, looks like we are done with the local government. What do we have left? Who do we have left to vote? Okay, we'll keep the roll open for missing members. All right, we'll do the add on.

Committee. Adoption of Committee rules.

Okay, adoption of Committee rules.

[Vote]

Okay, that's 8-0. Assembly Bill. Where's the number 281? Grayson?

[Vote]

Okay. AB 436. Alvarez.

[Vote]

Okay, we have seven votes currently. Did Pacheco already vote? Okay, we're done there. Okay, we have AB 499 lose Rivas.

[Vote]

Bills out 8-0.

AB 562 Wendy Koreo.

[Vote]

8-0 bills out. AB 1114 Haney.

[Vote]

Bills out 8-0. AB 1649 Callra

[Vote]

7-0, currently. Consent. AB 588.

[Vote]

Okay, thank you.

We are going to go through all of the votes today for final disposition. Secretary.

Adoption of Committee rules. Final vote, 8-0. AB 28-

Wait wait, put this to your mouth.

[Vote]

Bill's out.

[Vote]

Bill's out

[Vote]

Bill's out

[Vote]

Bill's out

[Vote]

Bill's out

[Vote]

Bill's out

[Vote]

Bill's out. Thank you for all of you in the attendance and in the audience today. Gavel down. We are adjourned.