Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning, everyone. It's going to be a busy day in this room, and if you could keep your voices down, particularly out in the hallway, we'd appreciate it. Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. I would like to remind the public for this and future hearings. Testimony will be in person, and we are no longer using a moderated telephone service. We also accept a written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

I would like to go over the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee 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 or threatening or abusive 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 act.

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, and if the conduct does not stop, I'll request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the capitol building.

We have 23 bills on the agenda today. The three of these items are proposed for consent. Item 13, AB 1046, by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Item 16, AB 1318, by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Item 23, AB 1270, by Assemblymember Dixon. In addition, one item has been pulled from today's agenda. Item 22, AB 817, by Assembly Member Pacheco. We will hear all other bills in 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 the name, their organization, and their position on the Bill. I would like to take a moment to note that today is administrative Professionals day. I would like to recognize and thank our Committee secretary, Marisa Lanchester, for all her hard work supporting our Committee. I would also like to thank my scheduler, Melinda Gutierrez, for all her hard work supporting my office.

And a big thank you to all of the wonderful secretaries, schedulers, administrative assistants, and the many, many other administrative professionals that keep this Bill going. Thank you every one of you. Okay? Do we have a quorum? Okay, we do not have a quorum, so we will operate as a Subcommitee until we are able to establish a quorum. Okay? The first item for our agenda today looks like it's the one and only Mr. Assemblymember Bryan. File number 5, 764, and followed by file number 6 ,1248. And you may begin when you're comfortable.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You can't. We don't have four. Yeah, we tried there. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. Thank.

2021 and 2022. There's a lot to celebrate about the improvements that California has made to the redistricting process, but there's still more work to be done. In particular, we continue to see incumbency protection prioritized at the expense of keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest together. Furthermore, the first round of redistricting conducted under the Fair Maps Act highlighted the potential for refinements to further improve the process. AB 764 builds on California's good work in promoting a transparent and inclusive redistricting process.

It prohibits the consideration of incumbency protections in redistricting and strengthens public engagement requirements and transparency measures based on lessons learned from the 2021 redistricting cycle. AB 764 also extends key reforms from the Fair Maps Act to school districts and special districts. Finally, AB 764 creates a clear procedure, including a notice and cure process, to ensure compliance with these important reforms. Joining me to testify in support are Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause and Sky Allen with the Inland Empire United.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm Laurel Brodzinsky, Legislative Director for California Common Cause. California Common Cause, along with our partners ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and Asians Americans Advancing Justice, monitored over 100 local jurisdictions in the 2020 redistricting cycle, specifically focused on their implementation of the Fair Maps Act, or FMA, for the first time, which established standardized redistricting criteria and public engagement standards.

Our organizations worked together to put out a report, The Promise of Fair Maps, which analyzed both what went right and what went wrong with this cycle. While overall implementation of the FMA did improve redistricting in cities and counties, including increased public engagement and fairer maps, that doesn't mean there weren't loopholes, deficiencies, or ambiguities in the law which need fixing.

Problems included confusing deadlines, loopholes allowing for jurisdictions to not post written public testimony, and attempts to cap oral testimony. Some jurisdictions even appeared to not comply with their federal Voting Rights Act obligations, only doing analyses after prompting by civic organizations. And across the state, incumbency protection took precedence over empowering communities, taking advantage of the lack of a specific prohibition like exists for the State Redistricting Commission.

Examples range from incumbents stating that their primary goal was adopting districts which would benefit their own reelection chances to official policies that new districts had to conform with maintaining incumbents in their districts. AB 764 responds to the lessons learned from the implementation of the Fair Maps Act.

It would strengthen the FMA's redistricting criteria, administrative requirements, and public engagement standards, transparency measures, including explicitly prohibiting incumbency protection or discrimination, increasing public access through remote testimony options, and extending the mandatory criteria to additional jurisdiction types to establish minimum standards. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, Sky Allen got stuck in the airport, but we have backup witnesses. Ms. Dora Rose.

Hi, I'm Dora Rose with League of Women Voters of California, standing in for Sky Allen of Inland Empire United. But I will testify from the League's perspective here. So the California League helped lead the fight for state level independent redistricting and all the criteria that that includes. Our local leagues work to ensure that the local redistricting process is transparent, that participation is robust and meaningful, that every community is engaged, so that line drawing results in fair representation of the area's diversity.

But it's a Sisyphean struggle when the public isn't given sufficient opportunity to participate or when there aren't enough hearings to ensure that meaningful comments on the draft maps are actually taken into account. We saw that many jurisdictions did the bare minimum of hearings in the last cycle and that this led to situations where there's only one hearing where the public could request changes to draft maps.

We saw public FAQs that included avoidance of drawing incumbents into the district as a consideration, which it should never be. We are a majority minority state, but we don't see that diversity represented in local government. We've got to have institutionalized public outreach to make sure line drawing's an inclusive exercise. These amendments to the Fair Maps Act will help get us there.

We did a study post-Fair Maps Act to make sure that we were looking carefully at what we needed to do to expand this to other localities and to improve the process that was put into place originally, and we ask for passage of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. If you don't mind, if we could pause. We have a quorum and we would like to make sure we get bills out. So if you don't mind, Secretary, could you please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Present. Aguiar-Curry, present. Dixon. Dixon, present. Boerner. Pacheco. Pacheco, present. Ramos. Ramos, present. Rivas. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson, present.

We have a quorum. Oh, and we have a motion to move the bill as well from Assembly Member Wilson. Okay. Are there any other people in support of the bill? Where's the microphone? We want to get the microphone. Your name, organization.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you.

Hatzune Aguilar in support, CNC Education Fund. Thank you.

As you can tell, we really need to speak pretty loudly into these microphones today. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Good morning. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of Asian Law Caucus in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support.

Thank you.

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action, proud co-sponsor. Also providing a me too, a by proxy for AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, CURYJ, Indivisible California State Strong, Initiate Justice Action, Santa Monica Democratic Club, Secure Justice, and Thrive, the Alliance of Nonprofits for San Mateo County. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other?

Good morning. Lori Pesante, Dolores Huerta Foundation, strong support.

Good morning. Alejandra Ramírez-Zárate with OC Action, strong support.

Good morning. D'Artagnan Byrd, American Federation for, sorry, American Federation for State County Municipal Employees, in support.

Are there any other witnesses in support of AB 764? Seeing none. Is there anyone here to witness in opposition? Anyone for opposition of 764? Okay, seeing none. Are there any questions of the Committee?

Sorry. Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties, in regrettable opposition unless amended, along with Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I think we've got that done. Any questions of the Committee? Okay, we have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson. We have a second by Assembly Member Pacheco. Would you like to close?

Yes, ma'am. So prior to being in office, I was an elected redistricting commissioner for LA USD. I know this process intimately and I know how little engagement there is. We took a tiered approach to this bill so that larger jurisdictions would have greater requirements for public access and hearings to accommodate the need for small jurisdictions. But we are working diligently with the opposition and the Elections Committee staff and others to make sure that we do this right. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for bringing this forward. As we all know, redistricting was quite cumbersome last time. And I know that you're working hard to ensure transparent, participatory, local reduce districting process. I will be supporting your bill today, encourage you to continue working with our locals, our local government partners, to address their concerns moving forward. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. No. Dixon, no. Boerner. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Okay. The bill is on call.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, next up is item number six, AB 1248. Assemblymember Bryan.

So you may see a theme here today, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB 1248. This bill levels the playing field across California and would give counties, general law cities, charter cities, school districts, and community colleges that contain over 300,000 residents the requirement to establish an independent redistricting commission by the next time we draw the lines in 2030. Over the last several years, we've been piecemealing this process. An independent redistricting county commission for Fresno, an independent redistricting commission for Riverside.

An independent redistricting commission for Orange County, which is incredibly important in moving through this year. Now's the time to really step up and include this in a more robust conversation. In Los Angeles this last year, we saw very intimately what can happen when an independent, people-driven community process is not included and elected officials have the power and the potential to conspire behind closed doors to gerrymander for their own political preservation at the expense of keeping community of interests together.

This bill doesn't put a state mandate so much as it puts the guardrails that require that all jurisdictions, over 300,000 people do the necessary community work to build out their own independent redistricting commissions by the time that we draw the next set of lines. This conversation can't wait till every nine years when we're scrambling at the 11th hour to make sure that we do a fair, transparent, open, honest process. We learned a lot of lessons during the last redistricting process. This is one of those lessons and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much and would you like your support?

I have Laurel Brodzinsky with me again and then Faith Lee from Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

Thank you. Laurel Brodzinsky again, Legislative Director with California Common Cause. Voters and communities should have the right to choose their elected representatives other than the elected officials choosing their voters. Putting the authority to adopt new district boundaries into the hands of an independent body means putting communities first. While some jurisdictions may do a good job on their own of creating an inclusive and fair process, many do not.

In our observations of the 2020 local redistricting cycle across the state, independent redistricting commissions were more likely to draw maps that kept communities whole, especially marginalized or underrepresented communities were more likely to encourage and be responsive to community feedback, were more likely to run transparent and high integrity processes, and showed no evidence of trying to protect incumbents or draw maps that advanced the interests of one political party over another.

Independent commissions also generally led to significantly higher public participation because testimony would be incorporated into new map or the community had more confidence their testimony would be incorporated into new maps compared to if elected officials were drawing their own lines. AB 1248 recognizes that local gerrymandering is a problem across the state in need of a comprehensive solution to truly empower Californians. AB 1248 would require the use of independent commissions in larger counties, cities, and educational districts' future redistricting processes allowing for them to establish one that meets their local needs and setting in place a standard process if they fail to meet the deadline. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Chair and members. My name is Faith Lee. I am with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, also known as AJSOCAL. AJSOCAL is a social justice organization and also a legal service provider serving the AAPI community and beyond in LA and OC. At the most recent redistricting cycle, AJSOCAL worked with the AAPI and AMEMSA State redistricting collaborative to capture our community's diversity and interests to develop responsive and equitable district maps.

Our experience in mobilizing our community showed us that neighborhood and communities are from the bedrock importance of independent redistricting commissions. Through IRCs, residents really have a platform to share what unites their neighbors and communities and they're able to learn from each other through presentation and public comments and draw the district lines, and identify district lines that empower those most often disenfranchised and underrepresented by partisan mapping.

IRCs, for the most part, did the deliberation and line drawing in public and sometimes even adjusting district lines in real-time in response to community testimony. I'll share an example that's listed on the Promise of Fair Maps, a report in San Diego, more than 300 refugee community Members in the Black, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian, the BAMEMSA community participated in the state, county, and city redistricting process.

These members reported a starkly different experience organizing in San Diego County which used an IRC compared to the City of El Cajon which was located in the county but did not have an IRC. These folks did not feel like their testimony were well received by the City of El Cajon and some share that they felt intimidated.

The City Council ended up adopted existing map without any changes and when they participated in the San Diego IRC process, they felt much more welcomed with their testimony where they can testify remotely or in person and the IRC even allowed time for presentation by the group and made community members felt that the San Diego IRC were committed to growing their understanding of the BAMEMSA community. So here I am urging your support on 1248 so more Californians are empowered to participate in the political process and have their voices heard in drawing the next district lines that suit their communities. Thank you.

Thank you for your speech. I need also right now witnesses in support. Name, organization, position only, please.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, deputy director, co-sponsor, and in strong support. I also have the proxy to register support for Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment Education Fund. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in strong support. Also have a proxy for Initiate Justice and support. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lori Pesante, Delores Huerta Foundation, strong support.

Hatzune Aguilar, Communities for a New California Education Fund. Also strong support.

Alejandra Ramírez-Zárate with OC action, also in strong support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Teja Stephens, Catalyst California in support.

D'Artagnan Byrd, American Federation State, County, and Municipal Employees in support.

Are there any more witnesses in support of AB 1248? All right, are there any witnesses in opposition for 1248?

Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties. Also on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California in opposition unless the bill is amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Are there any questions from the committee?

I have a question.

Okay, we have a question from Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your intent for wanting to make our redistricting process operate better across the state. I am concerned. Maybe you just need to explain it to me. What is the partisan affiliation or balance, if any, are you recommending for the composition of the committee or the commission?

I believe that we are recommending that they match the composition of the areas. That's right. It's up to the locals. We're deferring all of that to the local jurisdictions. They have to create their own. I'm not mandating a single set independent redistricting commission.

You just say set up the commission.

I'm saying you and your jurisdiction, based on the residents in your community have a responsibility to set up an independent redistricting commission that works for you. So long as it's an independent process, that's all that we care about.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Assemblymember Boerner.

So much easier, isn't it? Thank you for bringing this. When we look at independent redistricting, it has been really important in San Diego to have the voices heard of all community members. And so I really appreciate you bringing this forward and allowing local control in it and for the locals to decide how that process do. Did we already move the bill? Move the bill.

Okay, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner. We have a second by Assemblymember Wilson. Would you like to close?

Absolutely, again, having redistricting commissioner experience, I know the independent process gave all of us a lot of headaches here at the state level. The reason it gave us headaches is because we didn't control it, and that's the way that it should be. This is not putting a strict criteria for everywhere across the State of California. It's only impacting the 14 largest cities with over 300,000 people or more, or the largest school districts, which have no controls at all right now.

And it sets guide rails that allow for this process to be driven by the community. And for the community, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excuse me. Thank you, Assemblymember Bryan, for your efforts to give communities more control over the redistricting process and to ensure Independence, transparency, and the best practices for this task. I know you'll continue to work with those that are opposing, and I look forward to supporting your bill today. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. No. Dixon, no. Boerner. Aye. Boerner, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

That bill's vote is five-one and it's out.

Thank you, Ms. Chair.

Okay, Assemblymember Valencia and I want to apologize. I overlooked you earlier.

No problem.

Looks like it's elections day on the local government today.

Good morning. Wonderful. Buenos Diaz. Madam Chair and members, I would like to start by thanking the chair and the committee team for diligently working on AB 34 and acknowledge our Chief of Staff, Aaron Ryberg, and then also our legislative intern, Kobe Grossman, for their work on behalf of our team on this bill. Existing law allows counties to establish advisory or independent redistricting commissions. However, if a county does not establish an independent redistricting commission, the incumbent county supervisors draw their own district boundaries.

A previous bill was addressing some of the similar concerns revolving around the redistricting process. So in my opinion, this opens up the door for possible partisan conflicts or favoritism. And an independent redistricting commission would help with fairness and redistricting process to prevent the manipulation of district boundaries for political gain by elected officials. It directly increases transparency and accountability in the redistricting process by prioritizing local public input and ensuring that the process is conducted in an open and transparent manner.

And AB 34 specifically is modeled after recent legislation that has been passed in previous cycles. However, AB 34 does go a step further and adds additional elements not seen in previous legislation. These things would include a process for the removal of commissioners, which I think is important in case there are some discrepancies that come up, appointing alternates, requiring outreach materials to be translated into the applicable languages of the constituents, and then additional provisions that would better clarify the makeup of this commission.

In the past 20 years, Orange County has changed significantly demographically and the political makeup, and it is a trend that is expected to continue. The use of an independent Citizens Reduction Commission would impact political fairness and representation of the diversity and interests of the community. With me to provide testimony is Ms. Alejandra Ramirez-Zarate, the Policy Director with OC Action, and then Lori Pizanti, the Civic Engagement Director with the Dolores Huerta Foundation.

Welcome. If you don't mind speaking, right it in that microphone. We'd appreciate it.

Okay, sounds great. How about that? Okay. Good morning chair members of the Assembly Local Government Committee my name is Alejandro Ramirez-Zarate, Policy Director with OC Action. OC Action is an AAPI Latinx labor environmental justice progressive alliance in Orange County. We're responsible for collective community power-building in the region. The seven organizations that anchor our alliance serve the emerging majority of the county's low-income, immigrant, Latinx, and Asian communities.

During the 2021 redistricting cycle, OC Action convened the people's Redistricting Alliance, a coordinated effort comprising 60 community-based organizations to maximize opportunities for marginalized communities in Orange County that drove the work around community participation in redistricting with the Orange County Board of Supervisors. We know that Orange County is past due for an independent redistricting commission that politically empowers people from historically disenfranchised communities and ensures more representative districts.

The creation of Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will enhance the public's trust in the integrity of a districting process by ensuring that it is conducted in a nonpartisan and transparent manner. Again, during the 2021 redistricting cycle, the Orange County communities of color and their communities of interest were divided.

We know that AB 34 will fix these issues by promoting civic participation in community leadership in the redistricting process by allowing community residents, especially those from historically marginalized communities, to have a greater voice in the redistricting process to ensure that community voices are centered first in neighborhood representation and not special interests as we've seen even in recent years.

Through AB 34, Orange County can ensure a future for greater political empowerment for growing majority-minority populations that OC Action represents throughout the region and build a legacy founded on fair representation for all. For these reasons, we strongly urge your support of AB 34. Thank you.

Good morning chair and Committee Members. Thank you, Assemblymember of Valencia, for your leadership on AB 34. My name is Lori Pasante and I am the Civic Engagement Director for the Delores Hueta Foundation, a grassroots, community-based organization with 12 member chapters serving impacted communities in the Central Valley and high desert. In the 2021 redistricting cycle, we organized over 5000 Central Valley residents to engage in the redistricting process and submit maps at all levels of government.

Nothing reveals the flaws of our democracy more painfully than redistricting, and almost without exception, when incumbents are allowed to draw their own lines, they prioritize their own political interests. As we know all too well from the LA City Council recordings. In the Central Valley, many incumbents openly prioritized these interests.

On February 23, 2022 a City of Bakersfield Council Member who is also the Chair of the Kern Republican Party, announced from the dais that he was going to motion to approve an illegal map from his political consultant as soon as he got the chance. I personally witnessed in Fresno County, over 100 farm workers provide testimony about their beautiful communities for months only to be ignored, and indeed the last election, they do not have a candidate of choice in that district.

The Kern County Board of Supervisors is also instructive. Not once has Kern drawn a Voting Rights Act district without having to be forced to do so in a lawsuit. And when they were sued in 2018, it cost me, my family, and my fellow current taxpayers over $12 million just for the lawsuit alone. When one considers how much taxpayer money incumbents already spend on attorneys, staff time, consultants to manipulate the maps, even in the absence of a lawsuit, independent redistricting commissions are absolutely, without question, a bargain.

Additionally, when county-level decision-making is truly representative, we have our best chance to solve our most challenging problems. In this time of climate crisis and pandemic recovery, none of us can afford for any county in the State of California to have suboptimal decision-making systems. Multiple reports now verify that in the 2021 redistricting cycle, those jurisdictions with independent redistricting commissions had the best processes and the best maps.

So last year, when AB 137 AB 2494 and AB 2030 all passed establishing independent redistricting commissions in Riverside, Kern and Fresno Counties, respectively, it was a beautiful, beautiful thing. So today, I respectfully ask for your aye votes on AB 34 so that the residents of Orange County can have this critical democratic reform too. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support for AB 34?

We have a tweener position. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. We have a supportive if amended position with a few recommendations to bring it into closer conformance with the bills that we presented today. But we are huge fans of independent redistricting and very supportive of the concept. Thank you.

Thank you.

Laurel Brodzinski with California Common Cause. Also with a support if amended position. Echoing the comments of Dora Rose with the League. Thank you.

Thank you.

D'Artagnan Bird, American Federation for State, County, and Municipal Employees in support.

Any others in support for AB 34? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? AB 34? I can't wait till they ask if we want peanuts and popcorn. All right. We are going to assume there's no opposition to your bill. Are there any questions from the committee? Yes. Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember. I know you've been working hard on this. There are some commendable aspects of this. However, what concerns me, or really what we should celebrate is that for the first time in over 50 years, the Orange County Board of Supervisors is now majority Democrat. And so this current system that's been in place has created a Hispanic-only district, district two, a primarily Asian district one. And Mr. Chafee is kind of a highly diverse district.

So, frankly, I'm very proud of what Orange County has created. In the last redistricting process. So going forward, if this bill were to go forward. How are you going to moderate the partisan issues that could be balanced? If I understand it correctly, I'm not an expert in redistricting. But the current redistricting requirements require more votes from both parties. So it's either Democrat or Republican before the final map is approved. But correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see that in your proposal.

Just to balance out the party representation, the demographics of Orange County. How do you ensure that we get two-party representation in the vote on the final map?

Sure. The current registration in Orange County is pretty evenly split. So to address that specific point, I don't think there is an immediate need now. And it's going to all be based off of proportional representation, right. So if individuals believe that they align with more democratic ideologies. Then it's their prerogative to register that way. And then, of course, by default, the Commission may shift that way and vice versa. It could go the Republican way as well.

So I think the inherent conflict of interest that's being removed by allowing elected officials who are political individuals as well. To not have a say in that process is what's best.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Are there any other questions of the committee? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner, second by Assemblymember Ramos. Would you like to close?

Again, just to recap. In my opinion, removing an elected official's ability to dictate the outcome of boundary lines that could potentially impact their political future is something that I think we need to remove from our political and civic process. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Gracias.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing the bill forward and to work to foster independent redistricting in Orange County. I will be supporting your bill today. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Your bills out. Five one.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is file number two, AB 400, I think. Hi. Do you have witnesses?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 400 relating to the sunset of Design Build project authorization, which expires in 2025. The Design Build Method is an efficient and cost effective approach to delivering public works projects in which both the design and construction of a project are procured from a single entity. In the traditional design bid build procurement process, the design and contracting phases are separate processes with no direct collaboration between the entity that designs the project and the contractor that builds the project. The Design Build Method streamlines project delivery by allowing local governments to enter into a single contract with a design and construction team that is responsible for designing and building a project. This gives counties and local governments the ability to complete and deliver complex public works projects more efficiently and cost effective compared to design bid build. Current law allows most counties, cities, and other local agencies to use the design build procurement process for specified public works projects. However, due to the looming sunset date, there has been uncertainty about whether these projects would be allowed to reach completion. Extending the existing Design Build Authority sunset to January 1, 2031 will provide certainty for counties and local governments to plan, fund, complete, ongoing, and future public works projects. And I accept the Committee's amendments. And with me today to testify is Matt Randall, Placer County Public Works engineering manager. Thank you.

All right, good morning, Committee Members. I'm Matt Randall with Placer County. I'm an engineering manager with the county. I've worked in public works for design and construction for over 25 years, the last 15 years with Placer County, and I also hold some leadership positions in the County Engineers Association, and I'm the Vice Chair of the Infrastructure and Development Committee, which we worked on this Bill. And I want to take a moment to thank the author's office and Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. Thank you very much. AB 400 is needed to extend the existing statutory authority for local governments to use design build procurement processes, and continuing to allow counties and local governments to use this design build method is critical, as the method streamlines project delivery by allowing local governments to enter into a single contract with a design and construction team that's responsible for designing and building the project. The design build method also allows counties and local governments to complete and deliver complex projects more efficiently and cost effectively versus the more traditional design build process. And I've got a couple of examples of projects and other local agencies, the projects that they've delivered in my own county, Placer County, there was the $23 million animal shelter service in Auburn, a $28 million coroner facility, and also a $90 million south placer adult correctional center as well. And we're currently working on a new health and human services building in Auburn. Other local agencies that have used this method, Los Angeles County, the $1.6 billion Harbor Medical Center, Contra Costa County, the $65 million administrative center, which includes the Board of Supervisors Chambers and Orange County, The East Garden Grove, Weisberg, Channel Project, which is a flood control project, was built with design build and then also locally here in Sacramento, the City of Sacramento constructed the $5 million navigation Center for the in house. So there's lots of examples of projects that have been used for design build to address aging infrastructure and other emerging needs. And definitely the speed and efficiency of design build is the big benefit to local governments and our taxpayers. So with that, I can answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there other witnesses in support of the Bill?

Hi, Madam Chair Members. Bo Biller, on behalf of the design Build Institute of America, pleased to co sponsor the measure and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Kiara Ross. On behalf of the City of San Marcos in support of the Bill.

Good morning. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Transit Association, we actually worked on the initial authorizing statutes back in 2014 and are in strong support of continuing this. Thank you.

Hi, Bridget MC Gowan on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support. Thank you.

John Scogland with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, on behalf of Fresno Board of Supervisors and placer Board of Supervisors, county in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities co sponsor and in strong support. Thank very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the County of Santa Clara, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara.

Jeff Neal, on behalf of the County of San Diego and the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, in support.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Marcus Debtweiler with the California Special Districts Association, in support.

Are there any other witnesses in support for AB 400? Okay, seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 400? Are there any questions from the Committee? Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner and a second by Assemblymember Wilson. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the Committee for all of their work and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Rubio. With the ammendment, I am pleased to support it today. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Boerner. Boerner, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Bills out 6-0. Assemblymember Hart, would you like to join us? File number 3, AB 557.

Thank you, Chair, Members, I'm pleased to present AB 557, a measure to continue giving local governments the flexibility to teleconference during state of emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature enacted a number of laws to allow local government agencies to meet remotely without requiring their members to disclose the location of their private residences. Those measures ensured our local elected bodies could do the essential work they were elected to do while making meetings available and accessible to the public.

Recent storms and subsequent state of emergency declarations have underscored the ongoing need for flexibility in times of crisis. AB 557 will simply remove the sunset on existing law to continue giving local governments the option to teleconference during an emergency declared by the Governor. Testifying in support today are Marcus Detweiler, representing the California Special Districts Associations, and supervisor Ryan Campbell, representing Tuolumne County.

Welcome.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Marcus Debtweiler with the California Special Districts Association, proud to sponsor AB 557, along with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. AB 557 is a modest Brown Act Bill. And I say that because AB 557 only does two things. Number one, AB 557 eliminates a deadline associated with emergency remote meeting procedures put into place as part of AB 361, a prior year Bill.

The second thing that our Bill does is that it changes from 30 days to 45 days the duration of resolutions passed as part of the emergency remote meeting process. So let me back up to that first part. So the deadline put into place on these emergency remote meeting procedures was instituted as part of AB 361. It was a Bill authored by Assemblymember Robert Rivas out of Hollister that allowed local agencies to meet remotely during times where it would otherwise be unsafe to meet in person.

When we originally devised AB 361, it was intended to address situations like wildfire and flooding that made it unsafe for folks to meet in any singular location. That Bill quickly became adapted into the COVID-19 Bill for a similar situation where it was unsafe to meet in person. We're now staring down a deadline where at the end of the year, this emergency remote meeting procedures would be eliminated from law.

And so, while we have moved past the COVID-19 state of emergency, recent events in the state, particularly disastrous flooding, have evinced the need to retain these emergency remote meeting procedures, and they've been used after COVID-19, as you'll see in the testimony from the second district supervisor from Tuolemi county. The second and only other thing that this Bill does is that it makes an adjustment to the duration of resolutions passed as part of the 361 Process.

Originally, the resolutions passed would last for 30 days, and so a local agency would have to renew its resolutions every 30 days for as long as it sought to continue to meet remotely under the emergency remote meeting procedures. Along with the various findings, this meant that local agencies would have to keep meeting in order to keep the resolutions alive. And what we had learned in the intervening years is that some local agencies meet the second Tuesday or third Thursday monthly in a calendar.

And so every so often during the calendar, that meant that there were more than 30 days between each of these regularly scheduled meetings. And so the second and only other thing that this Bill does is change that 30-day time frame to 45 days with that. That is the totality of this Bill, and I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members of this wonderful group here. I am Ryan Campbell. I am the second district representative for Tuolumne County's Board of Supervisors. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Hart for his authorship and CSAC for their co-authorship of this important measure. In the past several months, California has weathered more than a dozen atmospheric rivers, and following a series of winter storms, flooding, and severe damage to counties like mine Governor Newsom, the Governor, proclaimed a State of emergency in 47 counties, including Tawami County.

This was later followed up with a federal emergency declaration. Storms have caused severe damage to our roads, causing long-term closures, including on Highway 120, which, as you'll know, is the gateway to beautiful Yosemite National Park, is also the only access point for the community of Groveland, which severely restricts travel for a large portion of my county.

Damage to our county road system alone is over $30 million at the current estimate, and unfortunately for many rural counties like mine, we are focusing on repairs, and we're going to be doing that for quite some time.

All the while, the threat of additional disasters and emergencies remains as we prepare for wildfire season and the lingering results of historic snowfall and the snowmelt that will follow that Assembly Bill, 557 is a critically needed measure that will continue to permit counties and local agencies to meet during Governor declared emergencies when it would otherwise be impossible for county staff and the public to meet in person safely.

During emergencies, the people's access to their government is of paramount importance and this measure will continue to provide flexibility to the public to watch and engage in proceedings online. This is particularly beneficial for poor larger counties, counties that are rural, that are in sparsely populated areas like mine where communities are very spread apart. AB 557 will increase the people's access to their local government during emergencies. This flexibility for local agencies in emergency circumstances must not expire at the end of this year.

Therefore, I respectfully ask for your support for AB 557 and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support for AB 557? AB 557?

Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the City of Chino Hills and Lafayette, in support.

Bridget McGowan, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support.

Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties, proud co-sponsor in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California, in support.

Kate. Kate, did you want to get the microphone to Kate, please?

Thank you. Chair and Member Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, in support.

Thank you.

Kate Laddish, Chair of the Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, in support.

Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, in support.

Brian Ricks of the Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Devon Anderson on behalf of the California Travel Association, in support.

Hi, Matt Robinson again on behalf of the California Transit Association as well as Monterey Salinas Transit District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz, in strong support.

Madam Chair and Members. Roger Dickinson, on behalf of civic, well, formerly the Local Government Commission, in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities, proud co-sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good. I think it's. Good morning, still. Good morning. Chair and Members. Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, in strong support.

Good morning. Carlos Machado with California School Boards Association, in support.

Jeff Neal on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support.

Matt Kloppenstein on behalf of SMUD, in support.

Madam Chair and Member, Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Goleta and also on behalf of the City of Santa Monica. Thank you.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in support.

Any witnesses in opposition to AB 557? Any opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any questions from the Committee? Okay, let's start with Assembly Member Wilson and then Assembly Member Pacheco.

Good morning. I guess it is still morning. My only concern with the Bill, and I appreciate it. I think that it is needed in terms of extending the time to indefinite because of the threats that do face California in regard to, as was noted, wildfire, flooding, you know, potentially another pandemic.

Hopefully it's once in a generation and our generation won't see it again, but you never know. Exactly. Knock on Wood. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. This will come back on repeat. But one of the issues I have, and it's not just with this Bill, it's with other bills as it relates to tweaking the Brown Act is not telegraph, not doing where you're telephoning from.

I believe that is a right to the Members of the public to know where their elected officials are, maybe not their address, because I know there's security concerns and your Bill doesn't do what that others still do, but to know even what city they're in. And this is because particular I've seen it abused in my own area, even in my own city, that ability to not know where you are being abused.

And so I think it's important that that has nothing to do with the ability to telecommute to a meeting, has nothing to do with the ability to be outside of the region because we saw with the paradise fire there was no place within the geographic limits to be able to conduct a meeting. So I have no issues with that. But that is the one I do have a concern with.

And so I ask that you consider, is that really a necessary component, not to telegraph where your elected representatives are, at least their city, when conducting a meeting and that not being listed. So that's my only concern.

Well, thank you for that input. We'll take that into consideration and have a conversation about that.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Pacheco.

So I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I would love to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Absolutely. Make that happen.

Assemblymember Dixon, did you have a question? Okay. All right, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner. I need a second. Assemblymember Pacheco seconded. Would you like to close?

I respectfully request an Aye vote. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember Hart. You know, it's no secret that I have strong feelings about the Brown Act and any changes to it to restrict public access to their elected or appointed representatives. However, the provisions of this build and its predecessor, AB 361, are very narrowly crafted. They provide certainty for local agencies and their governing bodies during a state of emergency, which I believe is reasonable. I supported AB 361 and I will be supporting your Bill today. The motion is do pass to the floor. Secretary, please take the roll.

[Roll call]. Six zero.

Oh, your Bill is out six zero. Okay. I did see. Oh, there. Assembly Member Arambula file number four, AB 650. Begin when you're comfortable.

Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 650 today as it's good governance for us to be operating transparently and fairly and appreciate the hearing today. AB 650 expands the leadership structure of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to restore the community's faith in the district's governance. Over the past decade, the validity of some of the air district's ERCs emission reduction credit program have been cast into doubt.

CARB found that the air district has continued for decades to issue ERCs in violation of federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. This has resulted in decades of exposure by our constituents to excess pollution that should have never been permitted. This is just one example of the actions by this board that have left local communities unable to trust that their local governments are meeting the obligation to protect public health.

That is why I authored this bill to give our communities in the Central Valley a seat at the decision-making table. First, AB 650 establishes eight-year term limits for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District members. Second, it adds four voting members to the board, two environmental justice board seats, one tribal representative seat, and one youth seat.

It is ironic that the opposition to this bill is using language like disenfranchisement and special interest groups to describe those whose ideas and solutions we are attempting to add to the decision-making table. Since when did we start calling the youth in our communities who are suffering from asthma and cancer through no fault of their own special interest groups? Since when did we start calling members of sovereign nations whose lands are also within the San Joaquin Air Basin special interest groups?

And since when are communities who are living next to refineries and distribution centers who are being poisoned by the worst air quality in the nation but couldn't afford it to make it here today special interest groups? These people are truly the disenfranchised. For years, we in this body have talked about elevating voices that have been historically been marginalized. While acknowledgments of these groups is welcome and essential, what AB 650 is saying is that elevating voices or talking about disproportionate impacts is not enough.

Those who are actually disenfranchised, not just who claim to be disenfranchised, deserve to have a seat at the decision-making table. When those decisions are literally a matter of life and death, they deserve to have more than just their voices heard. They deserve to have a vote. Testifying in support of AB 650 are Rocio Madrigal with the Central California Environmental Justice Network and Michael Claiborne with the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability.

Good morning to the Chair and the committee. My name is Michael Claiborne and I'm a directing attorney with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. We work alongside low-income communities of color in the San Joaquin and East Coachella valleys. Residents we work with struggle with many life-threatening issues, including exposure to the worst air quality in the country.

While dangerous air quality impacts everyone in the San Joaquin Valley, exposure is not evenly distributed, contributing to vastly lower life expectancy in some communities and zip codes than others. And yet, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's governing board does not adequately represent those impacted most by its policies and regulations. AB 650 would give community residents a meaningful seat at the table and make the district more responsive to the communities it serves. The bill preserves local control.

A majority of the board would still be made up of local representatives, and the new appointees will be local. At the same time, we ask you to consider whether preservation of local control unfettered by sufficient state oversight is justified in the face of continuous failure to attain air quality standards. The San Joaquin Valley is the only air basin in the nation in serious nonattainment of EPA's oldest PM2.5 standard.

The district's plans to attain PM2.5 standards have at various times in recent years been disapproven by the US EPA, struck down in litigation, and withdrawn by the district prior to EPA disapproval. The status quo isn't working for communities, it's not working for residents. And in closing, on a personal note, I know firsthand what it's like to watch your child struggle to breathe because of asthma exacerbated by terrible air quality.

My son was born in central Fresno and we had to rush him to the emergency room on several occasions in the first two years of his life because of asthma attacks that were exacerbated by the air quality. And I'll note that he has not had an asthma attack since we moved out of the region or and we haven't had to take him to the emergency room. The district cannot continue to fail communities in the San Jones Valley putting the health and lives of residents at risk. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Rocio Madrigal. I'm an organizer and advocate for Central California Environmental Justice Network. We work in many of our rural communities in Fresno County, and we work directly with those families, those families that are dying early, 5, 10, even 20 years early.

We've talked this morning with Senator Arambula and let him know that not only do they suffer other illnesses because of the physical toiled labor that they have to endure, the pesticide exposures that they have to endure, the loan rates that are not governed by DPR. But now we're asking you, like we said, don't just put it on paper. Don't say you want to include anybody. We need representation. Representation of people, youth, our future. We boast so much about our youth being part of our future.

Let's give them a seat at the table. Let's help them. And what is not working is not working. So giving people terms over eight years is a very grave concern. We ask you to please give your support for this bill. I, too, am a mom to an asthmatic child. I have not had the fortune or the money to be able to move out of that region.

So my child, every winter, once or twice, is in an emergency room, and I'm holding her hand as I pray to Jesus that machine that is helping her breathe allows her to stay alive. It is something very real. This is not made up. And the fact that what we have, the board that we have right now does not have the people represented adequately. We ask you to please change that today.

And we have a lot of people here that were able to come and many that were not able to come today. So please help us. We have so many more issues, but the air should not be one of them. We should be able to have cleaner air in our district. We have the knowledge, and it is not fair that we are getting so much opposition for people to be at the table whom it really affects. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your support.

Thank you very much. Are there additional witnesses in support? Support for AB 650.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Good morning. Dr. Catherine Garoupa with the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, proud sponsor and asthmatic, originally from Madeira, in strong support of AB 650.

Cynthia Pinto-Cabrera, Madeira County resident and asthmatic, in support of 650 and also expressing support for 350 Humboldt, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Central California Asthma Collaborative, Clean Water Action, Climate Action California, Earthjustice, Elders of Climate Action NorCal Chapter and SoCal Chapter, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Mi Familia Vota, Natural Resource Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network, the Climate Center, and Valley Improvement Projects.

[foreign language]

My name is Lupe Rascon, I live in Fresno, California and I support this program. Well, I have asthma...

Hello, my name is Valdez and I'm coming from Fresno, California and we like to have you support and I have asthma. Thank you.

[foreign language]

Hello. I'm Charis Guerzo. I'm from Stockton, California. And I am the representative of Little Manila Rising and I am in support of AB 650.

Hello. My name is Genevieve and I'm from South Side Stockton, also known as Miwok and Northern Yokut's Land, and I support AB 650.

Hello. My name is Marilyn Gonzalez. I'm from Stockton, California, and I support AB 650.

Hello. My name is Hilda. I am from Southside, Stockton, California, and I am in support of AB 650. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Stephanie Regalado-Chia. I'm from Southside, Stockton, California, and I'm in support of AB 60. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Julian Leal. I'm a senior from Stockton, California, and I come in support of AB 650.

Darryl Little, on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, in support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Hello, my name is Joaquin Castillejos, here representing the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, in strong support.

Good morning. Ana Gonzalez, representing the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Also, Alianza Latina. In full support.

[foreign language]

Hi. Moise with climate plan in support of the bill.

Evan Minton with Voices For Progress, in support. Thank you.

Thank you for the testimony for that. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Opposition for 650. Could we get another chair?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Jordan. I'm the senior policy advisor at the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The San Joaquin Valley does have very significant air quality challenges. There's a variety of reasons for that. We're in a bowl. We have the May north south quarter of I-5 and 99. All the goods movement associated with it, and a number of stationary source that our air district regulates. Our air district was actually formed in 1990.

Prior to that, air quality was done county by county in the San Joaquin Valley. And it was formed by an agreement of the local governments. It is a local agency at its nature. We have one county supervisor from each of our eight counties, five city council members, and then we do have two governor appointees currently on our board, a physician and a researcher in health impacts of air quality. Over the decades, the district's board has done the difficult work of regulating stationary sources.

We've reduced emissions by about 90% from the sources under our control. Stationary sources now are about 15% of our air quality of our primary pollutant, NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The remainder are mobile source driven from trucks, trains, off-road equipment, and the like. There's a State Air Resources Board, so there's the structure and air quality. There's a state board that is all governor appointees. They control mobile sources and they also provide oversight for our board.

Our big concern with this bill is that it would be an unprecedented number of state appointees on what is essentially a local agency. We would have six members. We'd have more statewide appointees on our board than we have city representatives on our board. No other air district in the state has that number, and we aren't even aware of any other local agency that's really in that situation. We appreciate the need for a variety of voices in our process.

We were the first air district to establish an environmental justice advisory group to advise our board on environmental justice issues. And through AB 617, we have four communities that we've worked closely with the community to develop intensive air quality plans that they chose the measures to implement in their areas, and we're implementing those measures. So we definitely welcome those voices in our process. But the big issue is we really do feel that this is a local entity, and it should be the local electeds that are principally driving the process. So I respectfully oppose the bill, and I would like to turn it over to my colleague, Brendan Twohig.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Brendan Twohig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, that's the executive officers representing all 35 local air districts. I think my colleague Mr. Jordan, did a good job laying out the issues. We're particularly concerned about the precedent that this bill sets. You'll have nearly one third of this local board, which would be a departure from it really being a local board when you get to nearly one third being appointed at the state level.

And so we are very concerned about the precedent that this sets and moving away from that sort of local participation and focus. And we respectfully urge your no vote. And my colleague pointed out, too, on the mobile source issue, we struggle with that statewide where you have over 70% of the emissions are from mobile sources, but we only have authority over stationary sources. So we do all we can with incentive dollars provided by the state to try to swap out these polluting sources as we can on the mobile source side. So thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California and also on behalf of the California State Associations of Counties, in opposition.

Madam Chair and members. Silvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Fresno, Kern, Madeira, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus, all in very strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute. We are respectfully opposed, and I apologize for the late letter.

Madam Chair and members, Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association, in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in opposition.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association. We're in opposition.

Katie Little with the California Farm Bureau in opposition.

Taylor Roschen on behalf of the African American Farmers Association, California Blueberry and Apple Commission, Cotton Growers and Ginners Association, Western Egg Processors, Far West Equipment Dealers, and Nisei Farmers League in opposition.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, also respectfully opposed.

Thank you, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition.

Committee Members, Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce, here in opposition. Thank you.

Any other opposition? Thank you very much. Any questions of the Committee? Assembly Member Boerner.

Yeah, I appreciate somebody who grew up in the Inland Empire and had third degree smog alerts from, I don't know, it must have been May until September, every single day. And I couldn't run as a kid, well I mean, and I ran anyways because it's me. I appreciate what you're trying to do here. One of the things that we should do, or there are many things we should do, but clean air and clean water should not be a negotiable in California.

However, the problem you described in your opening statement is that they're issuing permits contrary to state laws. So you have an enforcement problem. You don't have necessarily a board composition problem. And so when I look at this, I don't think it's right to have a third of those seats appointed by the states. I looked up San Diego. I didn't know San Diego's Air Quality Control District thing, how we set up the governance, took me like 20 clicks.

By the way, if San Diego is listening, you should fix your website and make it easier to find the governing board. They have like EJ seats and science seats appointed by those board members who are locally elected. And that is good governance. Coming in from the state because we think they're not doing the right thing is not how you fix this problem.

So I have concerns with the bill, and I really struggle on what to do know. Because I heard the testimony of all the people, and of course, you're suffering with asthma. Like, my daughter had a seizure when she was one and a half years old. Watching your kid and having them in your arms is one of the most difficult things I could ever imagine. And so we should not have that in California. But I don't know if this is the right way to go about it.

Assembly Member Wilson.

I didn't know if. You'Re going to respond to anything.

I'm happy to, through the Chair. Okay.

Thank you for your interest in this topic. As it was stated by my colleague that clean air should not be negotiable. And as given by the members of the public who spoke in support of your bill and as those that testified, it is extremely important. Had the opportunity to serve on Bay Area Air Quality Management District for four years prior to, almost four years, just shy of four years.

But it got interrupted by me coming here to the State Assembly. And had the chance to be one of the inaugural members focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion, because there are not that many people that look like me, as you can imagine, serving on that board, as well as be part of the driving change in terms of having a Community Advisory Committee that included lots of voices.

Some of the voices that you are trying to include in your bill here today. In addition being ensuring like, there was a bill that we passed just recently that allowed them to even have payment for that work. Just like the board gets payment, the Advisory Committee gets payment because they're taking time out. We all know that the time that we spend here is so minute in comparison to the time we have to spend preparing to come and be present here. And so it is extremely important.

But I do have to agree with my colleague that the issues are not a composition issue. There's issues as it relates to enforcement, and there's issues as it relates to things that potentially could be happening at the local level and how you're strengthening the Advisory Committee, as well as having a committee related to issues dealing with asthma. I come from, I'm a California, Fresno, California, born and bred. I'm a daughter of the Central Valley and of Fresno.

I was a full adult and could drink before I left Fresno, California. So I recognize, legally drink, I should. And so I recognize the issues that face California. I mean, Fresno. I mean, part of it, no matter what stringent requirements you require of the operators in the area is, we're in the basin, right? I know here in Northern California, we were talking about RSV recently, and people are like, what is that?

But as a child in Fresno, California, you grow up knowing what RSV is, you lose classmates to RSV. I can't tell you the number of students. My first death experiences in elementary school was related to RSV. So there are some issues in the Valley. But once again, I think the composition, when we say that we send our electeds to represent us, that's what they should be doing. And one of the largest complaints, one of the many complaints I get, not only from my district.

But even when I visit home and visit other places in California, people regularly complain about the number of people we're sending non-elected to make final decisions for us. And remember, this body is a rule making body. It is not an advisory body. It is a rule making body. So the people who I want to make the rules that regard my life should be the people that I vote for. And so that's why I cannot support this today is because I want elected members.

And it already has appointed members, but it would be the highest in the entire state of all the Air Quality Management Districts. And so I appreciate the effort. I just think there's another way of going about it to make sure the voices that took their time to come from the Central Valley up here, which at minimum is about a four hour drive if you're on the southern end, that they're heard. And I think there's other ways to do that. Thank you so much.

Assembly Member Pacheco.

So I have the same concerns as well. I also suffer from asthma. And so I appreciate everybody who came here from Fresno to testify. It is a long drive, but I'm also very mindful of taking away local control. And so here I feel like that's what's being done. It's the local electeds who should be on the board. It shouldn't be the state that is appointing members to this board. And so I'm always mindful of that. It's the local electeds who were elected who should be representing.

And so I have the same concerns as my colleagues do. And I, unfortunately, also won't be able to support this bill. I feel like there's another way to go around this. And so, again, I respect the author. This is an important thing, but I don't think this is the right way. Thank you.

Assembly Member Dixon.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify. I agree with the comments of my colleagues on the other side of the dais. Could you, Mr. Jordan, comment on the permits that were issued?

So this is a very complicated part of Air District regulations, but sources, when you build a new facility, you're required to offset any emissions that remain. And the way you do that is through emission reduction credits. There's a federal system for doing that. But California has long gone beyond the federal system.

And so there's a process you can go through to show your program's equivalent to the federal system. Over the years, if you're classified higher in the air quality, more sources have to comply with the federal system. So there was actually a shortfall in our bank of emission reduction credits. And we failed the equivalency test with the federal system. ARB did an audit of our program and there were other emissions added to make the bank whole.

And there was a disagreement over whether that was an appropriate policy. We've gone back and made all the changes suggested in the ARB audit and actually went to our board this last month to make those changes official through rulemaking. We did not issue permits illegally. The bank had an issue with this equivalency. And now we're using the federal system for discount at the time of use is the big issue for any permits going forward.

So there were no permits that were issued that were inappropriate, and you're in compliance with all the necessary laws?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the Committee? Okay, Assembly Member, would you like to respond? It's not a debate, just a response.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll begin, if I can, that the children in the Central Valley, one in four, have asthma. We have three times the rate of ER visits for asthma compared to the rest of the state. Just to contextualize and make sure we're talking about real people and the impact that this is having on my community and public health. And I'll dig in a little bit into the details because I do think that they matter. We're talking about concerns regarding enforcement.

But it wasn't driven by a finding from the Air Board. It was actually our EJ groups who identified that there were permits being given that were not valid. They then asked CARB to evaluate and to audit. Many of these groups sit on that EJ advisory group that he mentioned. And yet they resigned from that advisory group because they saw it as a sham. They saw it as lip service and not actually impacting and being moved by what they were hearing.

So then after CARB got involved are all these changes transpiring. But what we're finding is they were giving permits for decades that should not have been given in the first place. That for decades, they've been polluting into our communities. And that's why we work so hard to make sure that it's not just hearing them, but it's giving them a seat at the table and a vote. I think it's more than just listening to the communities who for too long have been ignored.

It's ensuring that they have an opportunity to change the systems to impact our communities. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote because it's important for my community to have an opportunity to be heard and to have a vote today.

Thank you. I'll assume that's your close. We do not have a motion. Don't have a motion. Well, don't have a motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assembly Bill 981 is an attempt to address what has been mentioned in the last few weeks, a crisis up and down the State of California.

You are presenting on 918 not 981. It's okay, Yeah, but if you'd like to present on that one, you're more than welcome.

My dyslexia kicked in. But 918 is an attempt by our local community to solve what is a systematic problem across the State of California. And that is a recent report highlighted, one in five hospitals in California are financially struggling. This Bill consolidates two existing healthcare districts by the expansion of one and ensuring that the two hospitals in rural imperial county are overseen by one healthcare district. There are tremendous benefits of consolidating and coordinating healthcare services in this region for the purpose not only of financial solvency and stability, but also to maximize the services, the resources, and improve the quality of health care for this region. Just recently in this legislative year or last year, we made an effort to solve the financial circumstances of a hospital in the Central coast communities and we took legislative action to create again, a local solution to a problem taking place there. We recognize that there are other issues that will be required to occur, for example, addressing the Medi Cal reimbursement issues. At the same time, the consideration that is underway for an assessment or a tax on the health plans and insurances, that is a conversation happening on the Senate side. A colleague of ours from the Central. Valley is addressing the issue of emergency funds for hospitals that are in the brink of closing as well. And we too have other legislation that addresses the issue of having a permanent revolving fund that could assist these hospitals up and down the State of California. So we recognize that there is a systemic problem, but AB 9118 is an attempt by our local community to solve a local issue with our own health care circumstances. So I wanted to just thank you here in the Committee for your help on this Bill. We are continuing to hold stakeholder conversations to ensure that the right approach is taken and that at the end of this legislative process, we have the best possible solution to put forward. With me as a witness is Patty. Maysent, CEO of the UC San Diego Healthcare System.

Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you so much and good morning Committee Members. I really appreciate the time. I'm Patty Mason. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of UC San Diego Health. The University of California supports AB 918 by Assemblymember Garcia, which would create a countywide healthcare district and consolidate the three largest healthcare entities in Imperial County, El Centro Regional Medical Center, Heffron Memorial Healthcare District and Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District. I want to thank Assemblymember Garcia for his leadership and really steadfast determination to ensure that all people living and working in the imperial county have access to quality, affordable and sustainable health care. Post pandemic healthcare providers across the country are experiencing record demands for healthcare services. Labor expenses are at an all time high and the supply of critical, and there's a critical shortage of healthcare workers post pandemic, supply disruptions and increased demand nationwide for medical equipment have raised the overall costs of supplies. Reimbursement increases from the federal, state and commercial payers are not close to keeping up the pace of the higher cost of healthcare. Hospitals and communities with high percentages of MediCal and Medicare patient populations are facing severe financial pressures resulting in the elimination of important services or the complete closure of facilities, as we've seen in the Central Valley. Imperial county, with one of the state's highest Medical and Medicare populations, is currently experiencing a healthcare crisis. Historically, there has been a shortage of primary care providers, limited medical and surgical subspecialties, lengthy wait times for medical care, insufficient urgent care services, and a lack of emergency transportation. These persistent challenges, combined with the current financial climate, together pose a significant threat to the health and well being of the people who live and work in Imperial County. While healthcare providers continue to petition for higher reimbursements for MediCal and Medicare, there is something we can do now to support the Imperial Valley community. Pooling resources and coordinating and scaling clinical services between the three trusted healthcare providers in the county will increase efficiencies, remove duplicative services and increase access to healthcare. The legislative creation of a countywide healthcare district is the most effective solution to begin to address the long standing financial issues as well as the emerging financial issues in Imperial County. In the interim, UC San Diego Health is doing what we can to support by expanding the long term partnership that we have with El Centro Regional Medical center in the City of El Centro to provide the stability needed to get to a long term solution. For the past eight years, we've provided El Centro Regional Medical center with a variety of management and clinical services, including our faculty who serve in the emergency department, critical care, stroke, cancer, urology, just to name a few. On February 27 of this year, 2023, we agreed to assume day to day operational, clinical and financial management of El Central Regional Medical center, and we're not alone in this endeavor. Preston Hollow Community Capital, who is the major bondholder for El Central Regional Medical center, is continuing to provide financial and other resources to the hospital as well for operations, capital projects as well as infrastructure investments. On April twelveth, 2023, in coordination with the City of El Centro and El Centro Regional Medical Center, UC San Diego Health announced the appointment of a new CEO to oversee the day to day operations of El Centro Regional Medical Center. Veteran Hospital CEO Pablo Velez is now leading UC San Diego Health's overall efforts to support the strategic and operational plan to stabilize the hospital, as well as to support the development of the healthcare network across the county. UC San Diego Health is committed to managing El Centro Regional Medical Center for the next 12 to 18 months, stabilizing it and supporting the efforts such as Assembly Member Garcia's to reach a long term sustainable plan. Our goal is to further conversations and assist in the development of an integrated healthcare system in Imperial County. UC San Diego Health is committed to continuing conversations on a local, state and federal level with community partners and health leaders, including hospital representatives, public health experts and emergency response officials. The creation of a new countywide healthcare district is a very, very significant step to stabilizing health care in the Imperial Valley. And again, I thank you for considering AB 918, and again, a lot of gratitude to Assemblymember Garcia for leading this effort and bringing the community together. Happy to answer any questions.

Any other witnesses in support? In support of AB 918? There's a microphone up here and I don't know if anyone, your brother's in the hallway.

Thank you. I won't take up too much of your time. My name is Tomas Oliva, Council Member for the City of El Centro and President of El Centro Regional Medical center. Thank you for the motion and the second Madam Chair and members, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hello, Edgar Garcia, Council Member for the City of El Centro and also board Member for El Centro Regional Medical center. Thank you very much for your consideration for the motion and second, we pledge our full support and we ask for it to pass. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none.

Yes. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, we do not have an official position on the Bill, but do want to voice some concerns, mostly revolving around the amendments from 417. We respect the author and have worked with him on many issues, appreciate his commitment to expanding health care in the Imperial Valley. However, we are concerned about any potential dissolution of Pioneers Memorial Health Care District, a functioning hospital district in the Imperial Valley. Any amendments to fully dissolve that district in lieu of this larger district would be problematic for that community and would threaten care delivered by that hospital. We look forward to working with the author on expanding access and combining the healthcare districts. Happy to talk as it moves forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions with respectfully opposed to the Bill, but again, look forward to the ongoing conversations with stakeholders. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other opposition to the Bill? All right, seeing none, are there any questions of the Committee? Yes. Assembly Member Boerner.

I want to really appreciate you, Patty, coming up here today, and Eddie, Assembly Member Garcia, for moving this legislation forward. We know through the pandemic San Diego. When we have a lack of care in Imperial Valley, it affects San Diego. San Diego comes in and then we get impacted. So by really addressing the root cause of what is the lack of health care and hospitals in Imperial Valley, we're actually helping all of Southern California. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. You know, I think one of the things I always think about when we bring this forward is what is the governance that we're creating around it to make sure that we are fair and reasonable. So there's lots of strategies that we have around that as well. So with that, I think I moved the Bill and appreciate the work.

Any other questions? Yes, Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you chair. I think I will support the Bill and I think it's an excellent idea. You folks know what you need to do to support health care in this part of the state. I do have a question, the speaker from LAFCO and just wondered the process, it's really a process question why it didn't go through LAFCO? Does it eventually go through LAFCO? I see that it probably will, but you didn't start there. From a community involvement standpoint.

Sure. For purpose of greater context, an effort to consolidate healthcare districts in the imperial county has been attempted twice in the last 15 years. And unfortunately, the local dynamics, the local politics of who's driving the conversation, who will be in the seat of the governance decision making process has gotten in the way. Today, the sense of urgency pushes us to move expeditiously this Bill and go through the LAFCO process as it's currently before you in this Bill to move the application forward, set some deadlines for the application to be processed gives a bit of some governance structure to the representation of the entire four corners of the county. But with the local discussions that are ongoing, there seems to be even more pressure to restructure the governance approach and the conversation of dissolving a healthcare district, and in this case two, that we allow for ample time for this one healthcare district to be stand up and ready to implement specific tasks, giving the healthcare districts that will be dissolved ample time to shut their doors, turn off the lights and make sure that they put their tent in their car and get going. The goal ultimately is to establish one healthcare district, to improve the coordination and to create a much more solvent path for both of these hospitals to survive. Today the conversation is El Central Medical Regional Center and tomorrow it will be pioneers who also is in a financial, their outlook isn't looking very promising given additional state mandated requirements and other cost implications that continue to go up, whether they be labor or just the cost of care in general. So we feel there's a sense of urgency the local community does as well. And if there's one thing that everyone in the region agrees, is that one healthcare district is one step in the right direction of improving the financial certainty for both hospitals and healthcare in general for the region.

Well, thank you, and I commend you for having the determination, all of you, to make this happen. Thank you.

Any other questions from the Committee? All right, seeing none, we have a motion by Assembly Member Boerner, a second by Assembly Member Waldron. Would you like to close?

Just thank you so much. Your analysis that was put forward, there were some changes that were recommended. We are accepting those. And I just do want to share with this Committee that this conversation is ever evolving and that there could potentially be some substantive changes to the Bill and if necessary, to come back before you and explain the rationale behind those, we will be more than prepared to do that, but the goal at the end of the Bill and this effort is to create one healthcare district, to have a reflective, represented body of all four corners of this district and to focus on two primary issues, the coordination of healthcare services in this region of the state that has 180,000 people, and ultimately the financial solvency plan to make sure that these hospitals are not in the brink of closing their doors. And so those will continue to be the principles that drive this conversation, and I look forward to having further discussions with this body and the rest of our colleagues in the Legislature. So thank you, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assembly Member Garcia. I really appreciate you bringing this forward. As we've seen recently, a lot of articles in the New York Times elsewhere about rural hospitals closing and their struggles, and we just continue to see that, particularly in our rural communities. I commend you for working this, bringing it forward, and I really appreciate the fact that, you know, there's still a lot of more work to do and we're here to help you as we go along the way. I also want to thank you for taking the amendments, to agree to the amendments that revert the Bill back to the previous version. I know you'll continue to work with us on this really difficult issue, and the changes are inevitably going to be made as you move the Bill through the processes. So we offer you the courtesy of being able to move this forward. I would ask that in exchange that you continue to keep our Committee involved, apprised of any proposed changes so that we can support this Bill on concurrence take you. This is a hard Bill, and I don't think everybody understands. We've had a couple of these in the past, and we know there's a lot of moving parts to this. We got to work together. I hope your locals will help. And thank you for helping out, the district, and making sure that his constituents, as well as many, are taken care of. So with that, the motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Boerner. Boerner, aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Okay. Bills out 7-0. Thank you, Assembly Member. All right, we now have file number eight, AB 965, Assembly Member, Carrillo. And it will be followed by your other one, too.

Feel free to start. Just make sure you speak loud into the microphone. Thank you.

Good morning everybody. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 965 and I just want to start by thanking the Committee consultant and the chair for working closely with me and my office on this Bill. But before I continue, I would like to note that I will be accepting the Committee amendments as I remain committed to addressing outstanding issues raised by the opposition. The Committee's amendments outlines the following the complete removal of language that includes that shot clocks and deemed approved apply to non wireless fiber broadband projects. The shot clocks and deemed approved language in the Bill for batch permit processing only applies to wireless broadband projects. This is a reasonable compromise since wireless broadband permits are already subject to state and federal shot clocks. Now we're simply extending those shot clocks to the batch permits for those wireless projects. The amendments also allow local governments to limit the amount of batch permits they are willing to accept and also makes it clear that broadband applicants can work with the local jurisdictions to assist with resource issues to help process the permits. AB 965 seeks to help broadband permits to get processed more efficiently so our constituents can more quickly benefit from high speed Internet. 32 states have adopted legislation to streamline the permitting of broadband infrastructure. When a broadband project is being deployed in a community, oftentimes there are numerous locations where identical telecommunication infrastructure is being installed to provide high speed Internet. They are very simple and very similar. This bills ensures that groups of nearly identical broadband permits can be processed together. In the coming years, we're going to see a huge influx of broadband projects as a result of public and private investment. We are quickly approaching a deadline of December 2024, which is about a year, to spend $6 billion on federal broadband dollars or risk losing it. This funding will get us connected in months instead of years. One thing is clear, the status quo isn't working. It takes too long to get communities connected to high speed Internet, and we saw the consequences, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our kids are struggling to get connected, many of whom live in rural communities and are low income. In a recent report conducted by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, they found that 75% of California voters support statewide streamlining of broadband projects, while 70% support requiring all local governments to follow a uniform, state mandated approval process for broadband projects. I am authoring this Bill because I know firsthand how these permits work. I used to process this as a planner for about 20 years. I work with for cities like the City of Palmbell, Desert, Hot Springs, and the City of Coachella. If this Bill was in place at the time that I was a planner, it would have decreased my workload in having to approve every single permit one by one and would have allowed me to use my time in other areas of need, such as housing entitlements. As you know, we're facing a serious housing crisis. AB 965 also strikes the right balance between efficiency and statewide broadband deployment and local control. And I want to be clear that local jurisdictions will still remain in full control. Permit fees still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine high volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually. Given the public's increased reliance on high speed internet access and the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, job creation, housing affordability, and emission reductions, it is in California's best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible while still again maintaining local control. And joining me to testify in support and answer questions is Rochelle Swanson, external first manager of Crown Castle, and Voleck Taing, Senior Vice President of government relations at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Rochelle Swanson, external affairs for Crown Castle. Prior to that, I was mayor pro tem and a Council Member for eight years, and a big part of that was broadband advocacy, as well as the preceding decade to that. So I'm here the more just representing a company I really, truly believe about broadband and broadband connectivity. Crown Castle is the nation's largest shared infrastructure telecommunications company, providing, installing, operating, maintaining broadband for a variety of customers, including k through 12 school districts, local governments, universities, isps, and wireless cell phone providers, which is critical to connectivity and public safety for first responders. I'd truly like to thank the author and the chair and the Committee Members for your leadership in advancing Internet connectivity in California. This Bill is based on experience, knowledge and desire to get communities connected. Crown Castle works with local jurisdictions every day in the state and across the country to deploy broadband. AB 965 reflects the best practice of permit batching. The Bill simply requires local jurisdictions to make a decision on a group of broadband permits in a reasonable amount of time of two to three months, and it's not intended nor designed to short circuit local governments permitting authorities and their duties. There are simple decisions that are made that also allows for timely deployment. It's approving the permit, conditionally approving, extending the amount of time by mutual agreement, removing permits from the batch that do not fit into substantially similar or have one off issues, and to make health and safety determinations to not allow a permit to move forward. In additions to the state's investment of $6 billion in broadband, the private sector has been investing billions in the state. Crown Castle alone is going to be investing about 110,000,000 this year, so it's critical these decisions are made at a timely manner so that those investments can be put to order. Unfortunately, many local jurisdictions continue to process broadband permits one at a time to have the permits go through several departments with various times and unnecessary delays. We believe both public and private entities involved in broadband deployment must up our respective games to meet the challenge of the day before and not after the critical broadband funds are allocated and dispersed. We genuinely value our partnership with local jurisdictions and feel the amendments proposed by the Committee bring additional clarity to the fact that this Bill will ensure better streamlined handling of broadband permits while maintaining local control. Crown Castle remains committed to working with our partners and local government to best meet the challenges before us. Crown Castle is an enthusiastic partner in this effort and we thank you for your aye vote

thank you Madam Chair and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Voleck Taing. My name is Valak Tang and I serve as the government relations arm for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We are a business Association representing hundreds of companies and institutions that work in the innovation economy. It is our pleasure to support AB 965 with our partners and the author's office. We believe it will accelerate the buildout of critical broadband infrastructure throughout California. Doing so will support the state's economy, grow jobs, and bridge the digital divide. The Covid-19 pandemic seized the migration of work, education, business, and healthcare to online platforms, those to access with high speeds and a reliable Internet transitioned quickly to the new reality of fully remote employment, online classes, or virtual doctors appointments. Sadly, many rural, low income minority communities lack the broadband architecture for sufficiently advanced Internet to keep pace with these ongoing changes. As a result, existing inequities were further exacerbated. AB 965 will increase California's ability to access and leverage online resources by implementing industry best practices that speed up the approval of digital infrastructure projects at the community level. The Bill will allow for approving substantially similar broadband permit applications, simultaneously, avoiding duplicative and redundant red tape reviews that Stymie efforts to expand Internet access. AB 965 will grow the state's economy and jobs. Broadband construction, operation, and maintenance will immediately require greater workers. In addition to that, enhanced Internet infrastructure will also increase the need for workers in digital industries. This includes cyber it data and others. Finally, the Bill offers an opportunity for California to obligate federal coronavirus, state and local fiscal recovery funds for broadband projects by next year's deadline of December 2024. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is proud to stand in support of this Bill.

Jump the gun. Roxanne Gould with the Wireless Infrastructure Association in support. Thank you. Thanks, Jonathan.

Thank you very much. Are there other witnesses in support of AB 965?

Yolanda Benson, representing US Telecom, the broadband Association, in strong support of AB 965.

Thank you.

Jumped the gun. Roxanne Gould with the Wireless Infrastructure Association in support.

Thank you, madam. Chair Members Jonathan Arambel, on behalf of CTIA, the trade Association for the Wireless Industry, also in support.

Hello, everyone. Amanda Gualderama with Cal broadband in support.

Chair and Members, Nate Solo, on behalf of the following organizations in support, Bay Area Council, Cal Chamber, California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association, Frontier Communications. Appreciate your support, as well as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think he got me, but Alex Torres with the Bay Area Council in support. Align our comments with our friends at SCLG. Thank you.

You got a twofer.

Hi, Steve Cruz, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Was there any opposition to the Bill? zero, come on up. There's a seat down here. There's one seat. If you want to sit and talk.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County representatives of California, also on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We do appreciate the author's work and the Committee staff's work on the Committee amendments and making this really a marketedly better Bill. However, we still do have concerns and we view this as a work in progress. There needs to be some clarification around the definitions and requirements and specifically the batching. We do appreciate that now there is a limit or at least a floor on the number of permits that can be put in through the batching process. However, 50 is a large number when you're talking about different types of batching permits of permits. Maybe 50 or more small cell permits may be straightforward. However, when you're talking about maybe 50 or more trenching permits of over 100 miles in the public right away, these are going to be a little more difficult and more challenging for the local jurisdiction to process. Additionally, the health and safety provisions that are in the Bill, I think there are some technical changes that need to be made to that language. It states that the local government can apply the general health and safety. However, it requires that the local government have a written finding of adverse public health and safety findings. So the last thing is tolling. In current law with wireless permitting, the batch process that was put in, or the deemed approved process that was put in place by AB 537 in 2021, there are tolling provisions in there that are really necessary for this to work and you need to make sure that you have complete applications. For these reasons, unfortunately, we still oppose, but have moved to an opposed unless amended. We do appreciate the movement and we look forward to working with the author as it moves forward. Thank you.

Patrick Welch with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We represent public power utilities, both cities and special districts that provide power to 25% of the state. We also appreciate discussions with the author and the sponsor. Appreciate amendment taken today from the author, but unfortunately, we remain opposed to the Bill. Today's amendments incorporate an exemption for public power utilities, but that exemption is a qualified exemption and actually, in our view, creates potentially new layers of confusion for our members when it comes to broadband deployment and poll attachments. Public power utilities are uniquely regulated in this space and continue to feel strongly that AB 965 is not needed. In 2011, AB 1027 was enacted to require public power utilities, and only public power utilities, to make space available on their poles for use by telecommunications providers. The law already has a batching process. Public power utilities are also subject to the 2018 FCC small cell order, which imposes additional pole attachment shot clocks and cost containment mechanisms. So because of this and this new exemption of disqualifications, there's a situation where there could be a lot of confusion about an application for a poll attachment. What applies? Does AB 1027 apply? Does the FCC process apply? Does the new AB 965 process apply? There's a lot of layers that have to be sorted out. So in closing, CMA members are already highly regulated in this space, and we urge the Bill to be amended with a more precise and straightforward exemption for public power entities subject to AB 1027.

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

Madam Chair and Members Greg Cook, representing the Northern California Power Agency. Specifically, our concern is related to the definition of local agency in the Bill. We oppose the proposed amendments that the author has suggested in today's analysis. As a result, we urge a no vote on this Bill because of the potential to have a serious impact on the safety and reliability of our utility facilities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. Because of the amendments, we've changed our position from opposed to opposed unless amended. Look forward to working with the author and stakeholders as the Bill move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other in opposition? Okay. Seeing none other questions of the Committee. Assemblymember Wilson and then Assembly Member Boerner.

thank you to the author. When I first read the Bill and got briefed on the Bill, I had a lot of concerns. I saw a lot of good things about it and had a lot of concerns about it. And I was so happy to see the amendments that you took. Those dealt with a lot of my major concerns and also showed a willingness on your part to get to where the happy medium is and figure out what's the best way, where you said, without getting to an efficient place, but still recognizing that there are needs at the local agencies. And I appreciate your effort on that and I look forward to seeing what the final outcome is. But we'll support it today for that reason, just because, like I said, the big things, hurdles that I was concerned about, you dealt with, and just your willingness to work with the other side has been commendable. Thank you.

Yeah. So we heard this Bill last week in communication conveyance, and the Committee's amendments are significantly narrowing the Bill, essentially just to codify the FCC rule that applies to only small cell wireless facilities. The amendments and the analysis raise the question of whether a broader Bill could have more impact, especially given how much funding is coming through. But it's also good to start small and implement batch permitting as a step by step basis. And so the Bill is arguably improved by making it more narrowly focused on implementing batch permitting process instead of batching plus timelines. I think that was a good amendment, and I think that reflects the good work that the chair does in local government and improving the Bill. And I'm happy to support today. And I think I already moved the Bill.

Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon.

Yes. First of all, I appreciate some of your top line Assembly Member top line issues of local control and giving local governments. You come out of local governments. So you cited specifically how this Bill, if enacted, can improve the planning and approval process, and I commend that. I am supportive of it because your intention is to improve efficiency and timeliness and something that's important as broadband installations in our communities, especially our rural communities. But I guess I will echo other members comments. I just hope you can work together with the industry and other players and local governments to make sure that does influence my thought process about there's something different between a small cell permit and a trench that goes for a mile long. So however you resolve that with the local agencies, I would appreciate that before we see it again if we do, but I commend the efficiency and intent to streamline and improve the timeliness of getting this installed. So thank you.

Assembly Member Pacheco.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author. I know we had a conversation this morning, and I know you've been working with the opposition, and it's commendable of you, and I appreciate that you took the amendments, and I will be supporting today, and I know you will continue on with conversations. And so I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

Any other questions to the Committee? We have a motion by Assembly Member Boerner a second by Assembly Member Wilson. Would you like to close?

I just want to thank you. And yes, we will continue to work so that we can make sure that we address all the concerns. The two main reasons why I believe that this is a very important Bill. One of them is monetary. As I mentioned, there's billions of dollars that are going to be available for us to be able to provide the access that a lot of communities still lack as of today. Education another one we experienced under the COVID pandemic. And by expediting the process, it will expedite access to all students and other areas that I mentioned, health, public safety, even job creation. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. You know that broadband is my number one thing. And with the leadership of Assembly Member Berner too, we're trying to get it deployed. We need to make sure we bridge the digital divide that persisted too many of our communities, and I fully support your efforts to do so. With the amendments, I will be supporting your Bill. I also encourage you to continue working with your opposition to try to address the remaining concerns. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Bills out 7-0.

Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Boerner. Boerner, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Now we'll continue with the Juan Carrillo show, and file number nine, AB 1332. Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you again and for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1332. As all of you know, California has failed to build anywhere near enough new housing units required to keep up with demand. Over the past several years, the Legislator has agreed that accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, should be a part of the solution, and the Legislature has found those that permitting and authorizing ADUs are easier.

I strongly believe that making ADUs more accessible and more affordable should continue to be a cornerstone of our efforts to address the housing short crisis. ADUs are infill, they are affordable, and they're often a critical stepping stone for middle class families to build generational wealth. Whether by providing an affordable option to family members and loved ones or as a rental income, building and owning an ADU can be a life changing asset.

One of the first barriers homeowners run into when considering an ADU is planning and designing the unit itself. This requires the owner to spend thousands of dollars to hire an architect or an engineer just to find out how much more the cost of the unit will be. For many low and middle class income homeowner, this is simply not an option.

AB 1332 will speed up the process and lower the cost of building ADUs by requiring local governments to keep up a catalog of pre-approved ADU plans on their website. By having access to a catalog of pre-approved plans, homeowners will not only save time and money, it will provide much needed clarity to families that otherwise might think building an ADU on their property is too abstract and out of reach. Our goal is to reduce costs for local government too.

Instead of requiring a local government to do the hard work of designing an ADU, this bill allows them to put ADUs as they have already approved on a shelf for other people to use. This off-shelf approach makes it easier for them to review these projects that under normal circumstances. Furthermore, existing law allows local governments to recover for any cost from ADU permitting fees on the housing, so it should be a revenue neutral.

In the long term, this is an effective way to do more with less in a planning department. I'll be happy to answer any questions and I can also let you know about my experience. I do have an ADU. One way that benefits families is by having their children live the ADU once they decide to move on, which is the case with my daughter. She went off to college, I built an ADU. She came back and she lived in that ADU for about three years.

She just moved out this last December. They were able to save some money, and now they're on their own. Another important aspect of this is, as our aging parents, we need to keep an eye on them. What better way to have them right next to you, providing their own privacy at the same time, but being able to keep an eye on them? Another big benefit is for those that are barely able to afford a mortgage.

They could rent that ADU and have additional income to be able to make that mortgage. That will improve homeownership, and it will create the generational wealth that we need to provide to Californians. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion and a second. Do you have any witnesses in support?

No, we don't have any witnesses in support today.

You're the main guy. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? It's your lucky day. Any questions from the Committee? No comments? Yes, Assembly Member Boerner.

I want to thank you, the author, for bringing this forward. My city actually did the pre-approved permit ready plans. Shout out to a lot of the local architects who did that, and they're beautiful, and they're being implemented. I will say it came at a cost. So one thing as you consider going forward is, one of my former cities that I used to have, Vista, they're using their cannabis tax to backfill their General Fund. They don't have the same revenue source that some of the cities on the coast have. And so it did come at a cost to the city to go out for an RFP. Get architects to do these. Architects, go ahead and do them right. That comes at a cost.

So just as you go forward, consider, for those cities who may not be as financially well off, how are they going to afford to do this if it's a requirement? Because there's a cost. The benefit is also great. So you're doing a cost benefit, but cities have to be able to pay for it.

I can answer that by own experience as well. When I worked for the City of Desert Hot Springs, we initiated that process, went through other RFP process, and there is money available for building homes and accelerating that. Being part of the SCAG region, the City of Desert Hot Springs was able to use money allocated from the REAP program, which is the regional early action plan, the REAP program, and also from SB 2. SCAG allocated money to all of those cities that are part of SCAG.

And that's how the City of Desert Hot Springs was able to start that process. And it's very simple, again, having to go through an RFP, select an architect or an engineer that was willing to do that. And what that essentially does is those that want to build an ADU, they just come over the counter and essentially pick a plan that works for them and get the building permit, as opposed to having pay up your own pocket an engineering architect, wait three months at least to go through the process.

Yeah. So the individual, it's cheaper for the individual. The city will have a cost. And maybe there's a way in the future of thinking about pooling all those plans. Because I know the ones in Encinitas I think are beautiful. So I think the entire city, or the entire state, could benefit from those. It's just a thought.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? Okay. Seeing none. And then we have a motion by Assembly Member Boerner and a second by Assembly Member Wilson. Would you like to close?

No, just thank you. I appreciate the work that you do. And I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. And I'll be in support of your bill today. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner. Boerner, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos, aye. Rivas. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Thank you.

Bill 7-0. It's out. Thank you. Assembly Member. Let's see, file number 11. We don't see Assembly Member Maienschein. So file number 11, AB 1000. Assembly Member Reyes, welcome.

Sorry, waiting for my other witness.

Okay, anybody want to stretch? This might be it. We're waiting for our other witness. Yeah, go ahead. Make it quick.

Okay. Assembly Member, when you're ready please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. First, I want to begin by thanking the Committee for their work on this bill and accept the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis. I am also committing to amend the bill to limit the scope to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and reducing the setback from 750 ft to 500 ft with mitigation measures. AB 1000 is the Good Neighbor Policy. It's a bill that works to create balance between our growing logistics industry here in California and the quality of life for residents living around and, at times, right next to warehouse facilities.

AB 1000 creates guardrails so that local governments can approve warehouse projects without harming local residents. This bill is a product of months of research and feedback from stakeholders, state agencies, and community members. Every piece of the bill has a basis in evidence from the size of the warehouse to the specific mitigation measures listed.

I am proud to have labor unions, environmental and environmental justice organizations, healthcare providers, and community advocates, along with clean transportation and clean energy businesses in support of the bill. AB 1000, in addition to having a buffer zone of 1000 ft for a warehouse or logistics center that is 100,000 square feet or more, it allows for local governments to approve a warehouse closer at 500 ft away from a sensitive receptor if the project adopts mitigation measures related to zero emission vehicles, energy, infrastructure, and operating requirements on equipment and vehicle idling.

The 1000 foot buffer zone is based on recommendations from the California Air Resources Board, CARB, and the California Attorney General's Office. CARB conducted a study on the emissions reduction benefits communities would receive based on distance away from trucks and pollution. The conclusion was that with 1000 ft provided between a warehouse and a sensitive receptor, it would provide for an 80% reduction in diesel particulate matter exposure to sensitive receptors. Warehouses attract heavy duty diesel trucks and the impact of these facilities has been felt by communities across California.

According to the American Lung Association, California has 15 of the 25 most polluted areas in the country when it comes to year round particulate matter pollution. To no surprise, a number of areas are located in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are in the top 10 for particulate pollution and lead the country in ozone pollution.

AB 1000 makes it proposal that, when these large facilities are cited, that we keep them away from sensitive receptors where children are, where families are being raised. I want to be clear that the number used in this bill, the numbers that we use, are not arbitrary.

As noted in the Committee analysis, the Department of Justice best practices and mitigation measures to comply with CEQA recommends, per guidance from the California Air Resources Board, that warehouse facilities should be at least 1000 ft from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor. The Committee analysis also states, and I quote, the South Coast Air Quality Management District analyses indicate that 1000 ft substantially reduces diesel particulate matter concentrations. There's been a lot of misinformation on what the bill does, so let me set the record straight.

This bill does not ban warehouse development, and it does not impact every warehouse project. It only applies to new warehouses that are developed that are over 100,000 square feet when they are being sited next to a sensitive receptor. There are built in exemptions to the heavy duty fleet requirements, the zero emission equipment requirements, that we've taken amendments to make the solar energy and refueling infrastructure requirements easier for projects to implement by allowing contracting with third parties.

This has been an issue that has impacted our community, and it is expanding beyond our community. The Inland Empire, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties have over 4 million square feet, I'm sorry, 4000 warehouses, over a billion square feet of warehouse space. I think that is why AB 1000 has a diverse coalition of supporters. Our doctors have written in support. The American Lung Association has written in support. The Pediatrics Academy has written in support. Environmentalists, organized labor, and many community based organizations.

I've worked hard to engage all the parties, including business and labor opposition on this issue, and I've met with them in my district to discuss the impact. After years of engagement, it is clear to me that we agree on one thing for sure, something has to be done. We can't continue with the status quo. And I think that's also evident here when we have two bills that also reflect the need for something to be done on warehouses.

I recently received amendments from the opposition, and we're currently discussing these. I'm confident that with the conversations we will continue to move closer to make sure that we take care of the needs of all of the opposition. I've never been anti-warehouse, but I've always been pro-community. I understand that our logistics industry is pivotal to our economy. I recognize that and the community recognizes that. But I also recognize that it is our duty to do something to protect our communities.

And if the Air Resources Board, after their studies, has determined that 1000 ft is what is needed for the protection of the health of the community, then we begin there. But we have good workers, good warehouse developers, and they have left that buffer zone. And we have some that have included many of the mitigation measures that we talk about in the bill and that have been proposed as amendments. So we do have good neighbors, and I applaud them.

And when I've done tours in the district of the warehouses, yes, I do show those that are right next to the schools. In fact, one of the schools in Bloomington will now shut down because of all the warehouses that have been approved all around that school. So the school district, to protect the children, has now agreed to sell the school to the developers. We need to do something and it has to do with planning. What this bill does is it sets guardrails.

And with the proposals, or with the amendments that the Committee has proposed, I think it makes it a better bill. And, with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. But here to testify on behalf of this bill are Liz Sena from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and Susan Philips from Pitzer College Robert Redford Conservancy. Welcome.

OK. Hello. OK. Good afternoon. My name's Elizabeth Sena. I do work for the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. However, I also reside in the egregious City of Fontana and in the County of San Bernardino, and I am a sensitive receptor. But to my children I am mommy. To my husband I am wife, and to my parents I am hija, which means daughter.

Today, I sit here in support of AB 1000, and as my family dropped me off last night, I encouraged my five year old daughter to be brave and strong as she fought back tears while saying goodbye to me. Today, I encouraged myself to be brave and strong as I sit here before you testifying on a bill that will impact thousands of lives and hundreds of communities statewide. The State of California and New York are known to have some of the toughest laws in the nation.

So please don't let me down today. As California State Legislators, you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't pass the most stringent bill available to you today. Actually, you would be doing a disservice to residents of communities with abusive local leaders like mine.

I encourage you to leave here today on the right side of history knowing that, at the bare minimum, you actively participated in setting forth laws that would help protect people, families, and children at times when they are unable to do that themselves and, especially, when their local government refuses to. Don't believe the notion that you are removing local power when, in fact, you are creating stronger policies that stand to conserve the quality of life for residents.

A year ago, the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the City of Fontana for building a warehouse right next to a high school, but was ultimately unsuccessful because there were no and currently are no state laws that help hold development responsible statewide and help safeguard communities. That is why Fontana was forced to settle for a reckless ordinance of only 300 buffer feet, which is considered stringent. Meanwhile, the City of Riverside has an 800 foot setback for developments over 100,000.

Please don't believe the intentional false narratives that favor warehouse developments, mislead people to think that this bill is a job killer, or that this bill will negatively impact housing developments. The real job killer is automation, which is where these warehouses are headed. Respectfully, the union construction workers are do as they told. So whether it's 300 ft or 1000 ft, they will still have to build it. I have yet to see or hear any warehouse worker or union come in in support for these developments.

And for the record, we are not saying no, don't build. We are simply asking for the build to be responsible and to take into consideration the people and families that live nearby. I urge you to hold up your constitutional values to protect the people. Our communities of color need it, need the most protecting, because oftentimes we lack proper representation, so we're willing to put anyone of color in those positions when, in the end, they sell out our community to developers for money.

Profits aren't made with money, they're made with people. Corporations don't need protecting, the people of California do. Additionally, I'd like to point out that AB 1738 is irresponsible, and its authors and contributors should be ashamed because it's a narrative that does not represent our reality back home. Approving anything less than 1000 foot buffer is wrong, offensive, and should be considered an endangerment. Don't let the numbers 300 ft run a political circus on your deciding power to protect people. So now, I encourage you to be brave and strong and say yes to protecting the people of California. It will make my return back home to my diesel death zone a bit more tolerable. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Susan Phillips from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College. Right now, in the Inland Empire, we have 35,000 acres of warehouses. That is about 55 sqare miles, mostly clustered within the western portion of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, now with tendrils that are reaching deeper and deeper into both counties, what we call Warehouse Sprawl. As of today, another 12,500 acres are pending or approved. This is a 35% increase in that footprint since 2020, which adds an additional 20 square miles.

Altogether, we're talking about 75 square miles of warehouse, approximately the size of Washington DC, bigger, actually, than Washington DC. Unlike the statements counter to AB 1000, it is still possible, with a stringent requirement of 1000 ft, that many hundreds, if not thousands, of warehouses can be constructed, even within the Inland Empire. And so we included those numbers in our letter. Another claim against AB 1000 that I wanted to address with some new numbers not included in our letter is the idea of it being a job killer.

So warehouse projects bring between 5 and 12 jobs per acre. It's a low ratio depending on how you count it. Unfortunately, that is likely to get lower with automation. On the high end, basically, we have right now about 275,000 jobs in the Inland Empire and an extremely low unemployment rate, meaning everybody's working. If you add the pending additional 12,500 acres to that, you get about 150,000 extra jobs that are pending, between 100 and 150,000, just depending on how you count it.

Even if AB 1000 were to cut that number in half, you'd still be talking about an additional 50 to 100,000 jobs. There is no way that this is a job killer. Happy to provide statistics for you on that, if you need to. The other thing is that keep in mind that the GDP of the region remains at near the bottom despite the high levels of employment. The footprint of warehouses crosses municipal boundaries.

It is experienced collectively, and each of these projects has been approved incrementally by a local agency with little appropriate cumulative impact analysis. So this issue of warehouses far supersedes the decision making authority of any single government agency. In the Inland Empire, for example, there are 600 warehouses that surround 300. Sorry, that are within or nearer than 300 ft of 139 schools. That's a lot of kids confronting a lot of trucks, breathing a lot of fumes.

And there were about 21,000 kids in San Bernardino County who missed 11 or more days of school due to asthma in the past year or two. In the air quality world, we have a saying, dilution is the solution to pollution. And the bigger the buffer, the better. The better the outcome for health, the better the outcome for biodiversity, the better the outcome for heat, for water, for almost everything.

The absence of clear state level guidelines, like the ones in AB 1000, has created, not just the possibility, but the probability and likelihood that local agencies will continue to make land use decisions that harm children and communities. So we ask you to state, to support strong, uniform boundaries around this, to balance the critical foundation of local government control with the duty to our children, to SB 1000 communities, to biodiversity, and to our state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there other witnesses in support of AB 1000?

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Environmental student organization at SAC State in strong support with a suggestion that small construction companies should be exempted initially for at least six months. Government should provide tools like a website where a company has to put in their data of how much material and what process they will be using and what is their daily functioning to know their environmental impact quickly and cost effectively for them. Thank you.

Thank you. Name...

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in strong support of AB 1000. Also speaking on behalf of 350 Sacramento, 350 Humboldt, Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Action California, the Climate Center, Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses, Amigos de los Rios, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and NARAL California in strong support of AB 1000. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Moiz Mir speaking on behalf of ClimatePlan in strong support of the bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Evan Minton, speaking on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California, who wanted me to convey that proximity to warehouses causes reproductive health problems. And then Voices for Progress, which has a priority support position on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California. We are currently reflected as an opposed. With the amendments discussed by the author today, we'll be moving to support.

Thank you.

And good afternoon again. Ana Gonzalez, first and foremost, a mother of a son who suffers from asthma and who cannot go to school regularly like normal kids. Also representing Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Alianza Latina from Rialto Unified. I'm a Rialto resident in full support.

Thank you.

Stacey Ramos from Fontana, California, the warehouse capital of the IE, and I'm strongly supportive of AB 1000. I just got diagnosed with asthma, so this is really personal to me because it affects my health. So thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Marcus Worthington. I'm from El Dorado County and Citizens in Support of El Dorado Hills. I live 50 ft from a proposed 4.8 million square foot warehouse, and we're in favor of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Whitney Worthington from El Dorado County representing Citizens in Support of El Dorado Hills. There are schools and 55 and older communities 100 ft from a 4.8 million square foot facility. We support this bill.

My name is Kayte Cleveland. I'm from El Dorado Hills, representing Citizens in Support of El Dorado Hills. I support this bill. Also, this bill, this 4.8 million square foot Amazon warehouse will be 50 ft from our homes and 50 ft from established schools. Thank you.

Name?

Melanie Morelos with the Greenlining Institute in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicholas Mazzotti on behalf of CALSTART in support of AB 1000. Thank you.

Dan Chong for FLO EV Charging in support.

Buenas tardes. Apoyo AB 1000. Gracias.

Yo soy Clarisa. Vivo en Riverside. Estudió en Colegio de Pitzer. Yo apoyo AB 1000.

Good afternoon. Sky Allen with Inland Empire United in full support of AB 1000. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Noriega. I'm the District Director for the Inland Empire for the League of United Latin American Citizens. And we adamantly support AB 1000, and we reject AB 1748. Thank you.

My name is Melissa May, and I am the Deputy District Director for the League of United Latin American Citizens for the Inland Empire. We adamantly reject 1748. We wholeheartedly support AB 1000.

I would like to remind everyone we're just talking about AB 1000 right now. So this is opposition. Come on up.

Mi nombre es Claudia Cuevas. Vengo de la ciudad de San Bernardino y vengo apoyando AB 1000 para una mejor comunidad para nuestras familias. Gracias.

Mi nombre es Miriam Quinonez y vivo en la ciudad Rialto y vengo apoyando AB 1000.

Mi nombre es Jorge Perez. Soy de Bloomington y estoy apoyando a la proposición AB 1000 porque justa. Gracias.

Regina Banks, Lutheran Office of Public Policy California, strong support.

Chris Robles, Ontario, City of Ontario, resident and founder of Fair Ontario, supporter of AB 1000. And I would just ask you, how many feet would you like a warehouse next to your house away? Thank you.

Eric Jimenez, City of Rancho Cucamonga, business owner, but more importantly, my father of a 10 year old who keeps getting nosebleeds. And I am here supporting AB 1000.

Good afternoon. Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC in strong support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Angel Ramirez from Bloomington. I support AB 1000. I think warehouses are bad for my family's health and mine and the whole community. Bye.

Hello, I'm Will Barrett with the American Lung Association in strong support. Also registering the support of the San Bernardino County Medical Society, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Central California Asthma Collaborative, and PSR Bay Area Chapter. Thank you very much.

Hola, mi nombre es Gema Perez. Vengo de Bakersfield en de condado de Kern y estoy apoyando a la AB 1000 porque no queremos que haya bodegas cerca de nuestras escuelas por la contaminación, por las calles, y por tráfico. Muchas gracias.

Hola, mi nombre es Lucia. Vengo de Bakersfield y apoyo AB 1000. Es todo. Gracias.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Elsa Alvarez. Venimos de Bakersfield, California. Yo vengo para apoyar la AB 1000 aja este que no queremos bodegas cerca de nuestras casas de nuestra escuela de por si hay mucha contaminación y un poco mas. Muchas gracias.

Hello, my name is Joaquin Castillejos. I am here representing CCAEJ Action, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment, here in support of AB 1000. No more warehouses next to our schools and homes. Thank you.

Hola, buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Ana Lilia Mendoza. Vengo de Madera y estoy apoyando a la AB 1000. Gracias.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Susana Carranza y represento el Condado de Kern y vengo apoyar la AB 1000. Gracias.

Hi, my name is Luis Carretero Cuevas. I'm a student and warehouse worker from San Bernardino County, and I'm in full support of AB 1000.

My name is Xavier Brambila. I'm a student from San Bernardino County, and I'm in full support of AB 1000.

Are there any more speakers in support? No? Thank you. Do we have any speakers in opposition? Do come forward, please. Anyone who speak? Sir, do you want to speak up here? Okay. Please have a seat. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is James Thuerwachter. I'm with the California State Council of Laborers. First want to thank the author. I want to thank the Committee for the numerous conversations we've had. It feels like countless this year. But since the inception of these conversations that we've had, which for me started about three years ago when I started with the Laborers, we have maintained and kept our doors open and ears open.

So we understand the sensitivity of the issues that the Majority Leader is trying to address here. We have done not just our due diligence, but we have went above and beyond and have reluctantly but respectfully provided some reasonable alternate language this week. And we are even sponsoring another measure that we feel shares and addresses the same interests and goals as AB 1000, but we believe is a little bit more balanced.

We have yet to receive a response from the Majority Leader on the language that we provided. So without a solid commitment on what we have provided, we must remain opposed today. So thank you for that. Madam and Chair Members, the Laborers are comprised of 70,000 men and women throughout the state. We are black and brown. We are men and women. A lot of us come from the criminal justice system, many from the foster care system. But collectively, what we do is we build California.

We build California's water, energy, and transportation infrastructure, and we take great pride in doing so. And with all due respect, none of our construction jobs are being automated. Not today, not tomorrow. So I'd like to just debunk those comments that were made earlier. We are very sensitive to climate and environmental issues. In fact, we have been visibly increasing our presence in the renewable energy sector and growing our footprint in the green job sector, such as those associated with wildfire mitigation.

But this bill, AB 1000, simply goes too far. It puts the livelihoods of our members and the integrity of the goods movement sector at risk. There is a plethora of existing regulations that exist right now that address the very issue of air quality. And just a few weeks ago, the EPA did grant California legal authority to implement CARB's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. This will require half of all new heavy trucks to be all electric by 2035. This is the most aggressive in the nation.

The settlement agreement with the City of Fontana and the Attorney General Bonta imposed a 300 foot setback. Local elected officials, and then Attorney General Bonta, or, excuse me, the current Attorney General Bonta, both agreed this ordinance should serve as a model for other local governments across the state. This bill calls for a far more egregious setback. We have men and women who live in the IE and are able to lift themselves out of poverty and into the middle class with these local jobs.

The cities and counties within the state are just as diverse as our membership, and it is local government who is best at making these planning decisions. AB 1000 would Institute a blanket policy that would have a detrimental effect on the goods movement industry and would also make it De facto moratorium that would force our workers to commute longer distances to the LA Basin, thereby increasing their tailpipe emissions and VMT. So with that, we respectfully ask for you to vote no today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We remain in respectful opposition. We have seen the proposed amendments, but I want to speak to what those amendments do and why we still remain opposed. So the impetus of the bill is about a 1000 foot setback. The amendments we saw this morning effectively create what we see as an alternative pathway that is actually not possible to utilize.

There's 10 mitigation measures outlined in AB 1000, effectively, which are either prohibitively expensive or, in some cases, actually technologically impossible to achieve. For example, photovoltaic cells on the rooftops of warehouses that power both the building envelope and all of the EV trucks that are required under the mitigation measures is actually technologically not possible. There's also connection requirements that are not at the hands of the developer to actually connect. It's utilities and others who connect on their time frames.

And so to require developers to meet aggressive timelines that they have no control over, it sets up them for failure. And so we're back to a 1000 foot setback. The 1000 foot setback, the impetus of the entire AB 1000, really comes from a 2005 ARB document, a guidance document that has not been updated in almost two decades.

And there's a reason that the agency hasn't not done that. They have pursued, as my colleague from the Laborers have mentioned, the most aggressive rulemaking in the country to address what the heart that we see this issue is, which is tailpipe emissions from the goods movement sector, moving everything that we rely on from Southern California all the way up to the Northern California and the nation. 30% of our exports and imports come out of these ports.

Even if you were to push a setback, you literally move all of the warehouses just farther out of these communities where all of the jobs we just talked about are now pushed out, either out of those communities or even out of the state. You will still be trucking goods from those ports through those communities to those now farther out warehouses and then trucking all of those goods right back through. It doesn't actually address the issue.

That's why ARB, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and local air agencies are going after the heart of it, which is trucks. In 05 to now, we have a 99% reduction in particulate matter from rulemaking that has pushed the diesel engines to include scrubbers. And so these new engines, as my colleague mentioned, are also then now being moved to zero emission. And so collectively that is getting at the heart of it. A 1000 foot setback, in our view, is extremely rudimentary.

And in fact, for example, what that means in terms of scale. The smallest warehouse that this bill targets, 100,000 square feet, it requires a six acre parcel. A 1000 foot buffer around it would mean you need 53 acres of land in order to do that. That's an 801% increase. These are massively large buffers. I think folks think about 1000 ft as just right across the street. This is going to have massive implications across the state.

And because the goods movement come from these ports, it is a statewide implication, even under this new amendment package. And so for all of those reasons, mixed use development that hurts housing, jobs related to the goods movement sector and who build these warehouses, as well as all of the issues in terms of cost of living associated with efficient movement of goods.

And we haven't talked about VMTs but pushing warehouses farther out also is directly contrary to California's climate change policies regarding building and folks living where they work. This will definitely exacerbate VMT issues. And so for all of those reasons, we must remain respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Are there other witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Diego Hernandez. I am a Member of LIUNA Laborers' Union, and on behalf of my brothers and sisters, we oppose AB 1000. Please give us an opportunity to work where we live.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Olivia Navarro and I'm a member, a proud member, a mother of three, of LIUNA Laborers' Local 270. And I come before you today to oppose AB 1000 as it displaces workers and forces us out of our own communities and we'll spend less time, one thing that wasn't talked about, less time with our kids and our families. So please respectfully oppose AB 1000.

Thank you. Thank you. Let's remember, name...

Yes, ma'am. I think I know the drill, Madam Chair. P. Anthony Thomas representing the California Building Industry Association, CBIA, in opposition to AB 1000. Setback is just too much. Thank you. Madam Chair. Thank you, Members, for your time.

Madam Chair and Members, Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association, representing 10,000 companies in our affiliated associations of BOMA California and NAIOP of California. We oppose AB 1000. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jonathan Shardlow on behalf of NAIOP IE and personally an Inland Empire resident in strong opposition of AB 1000.

Madam Chair, Benjamin Lopez, Policy Director for the Inland Empire Economic Partnership and a resident of Fontana, respectfully in opposition to AB 1000.

Thank you.

Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California, in opposition.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the City of Eastvale, also in opposition. However, we will be reviewing the amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Business Council in opposition.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nichole Trujillo Rice on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council, respectfully opposed.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, opposed.

Madam Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair Members, Bo Biller on behalf of the Association of Western Employers, also opposed.

Thank you, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thanks.

Margie Lie on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alex Torres of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Members and Chair. Fabian Urbina on behalf of Western States Petroleum Association in opposition.

Greg Hurner on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute in opposition.

Charles Wright on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in opposition.

Nick Romo with the League of California Cities in opposition. Look forward to seeing the amendments. Thank you.

Matt Roman on behalf of the Union Pacific Railroad in opposition.

Chris Shimoda, California Trucking Association, in opposition.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Natalie Bous at the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Carlos Guterres, on behalf of the California Fresh Food Association and other various agricultural commodities, in opposition.

Are there any questions of the Committee? Assemblymember Boerner?

Yeah. So could the author explain the amendments that you are promising to take? They're not the amendments in print, but what are the amendments that you're promising to take? In summary?

Thank you. The first is to limit it to San Bernardino and Riverside County. This is what my Bill was last time, although I do believe it's a policy that should be throughout California because San Bernardino, Riverside County has seen the greatest influx of warehouses. That was a request that was made, and I think it is proper at this time to include just Riverside and San Bernardino. county. The second was to reduce the distance if there were mitigating factors.

So we've reduced it from 750ft to 500ft so that the buffer zone is only 500ft, so long as there are mitigating factors. Seemed like a reasonable request.

Do all mitigating factors have to be met?

No, there are a number of items. The issue is whether or not we are harming the community. If 1000ft is what the Air Resources Board determined was what was needed to protect the community, what we want to do is if there are mitigating factors that will give us the same benefit because it's protecting the health of the community that we're looking at.

And if those are the mitigating factors, and in fact, they were part of the settlement that was reached with Fontana, they are also part of the guidelines that are with the Attorney General's Office, and that is where we were able to pick those.

Okay, so I'm going to repeat what I said last year, I think, in this Committee about this Bill, and I think I said it earlier today about a different author's Bill, we are solving a problem that should have been solved at the local level. In my communities, you would not see a warehouse sighted near a sensitive site. By sensitive site, I mean specifically certain places where vulnerable populations play. So I'm thinking about schools, preschools, parks, nursing homes. That's what I'm thinking. Right.

People where they're tied to that location. So when I think about that, it is egregious that the local electeds are deciding to do this. We would not do this in our community. We would not endanger our community this way. As I also said, I grew up in Riverside with the worst air quality in the State of California when I was a kid, I've experienced it now. I don't get asthma, but I can't run. Well, that might just be me again.

I can run for other things, but when I look at this, that's what we're solving for. And again, we're trying to find this path to do it. The other thing I want to remind us is we have 1000 foot setback from pot shops, I'm sorry, we call them cannabis dispensaries now. I'm old, so 1000ft from sensitive sites is reasonable, right? Like that's a reasonable thing. However, the process, we can't usurp the local authority.

I don't think it's right for us to be always usurping the local authority without giving them some flexibility to more nuanced, have a nuanced measurement of what the actual emissions are. What is the actual impact on the community, what's the actual mitigation that needs to be done? And I think that the Bill is quite prescriptive, and I think those are things that really, really need to be addressed, should this Bill move forward, because I think we have a problem.

We do not want to be endangering the health of our communities. I think none of us disagree about that. None of us disagree that all of us can agree. We want healthy, clean air for our children and for our vulnerable populations and our constituents. How we get there, how prescriptive we are, where there's a flexibility, and I'm not seeing that flexibility in the Bill, and that has always been a concern.

We've talked at length, I think, over the last three years, we've talked at length about this, and so I have concerns about that. So I just want to express, you know, those are my thoughts.

If you. Want to address them all at one time.

Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you. Thank you to the author. Know your due diligence on this and sticking with it over a number of years and trying to achieve in your area a way to create a more healthy environment. We all know at the end of the day, to be a healthy person, you have to be in a healthy environment.

That's why so many of us on this dais and in the Legislature, I would say all 20 of us agree, 120 of us trying to shorten us, but 120 of us agree that clean air, clean water is extremely important.

When I think about this particular Bill, and this is a conversation we had last time, I had just come off of being a local mayor and a local leader for a total of 12 years in my community, where we approved various projects and looked at what are the mitigating factors for all of our projects, no matter what.

So much so that we kept doing it one after one after one, that we decided we needed to build a framework for us to operate on and developed a good neighbor policy and a couple of other policies as act related to zoning. And that was really helpful for our city, but it was nuanced and it was based on our city. And there are many cities within my district that did the same thing.

And so my concern is similar to my colleague who was just by me a moment ago, is that we are being prescriptive and we're not allowing local leaders to make these decisions. And when local leaders are egregious and not doing what they're supposed to do, there's other avenues to hold them accountable, including by the voters. But I still believe that it has to be done at the local level.

And there has to be a balance between how do we support our communities, provide for our communities, ensure they're healthy, and at the same time have goals at the state that restrict, which is why we have our greenhouse gas emission goals, which is why we have a lot of our environmental climate goals, is to push us to where we're forcing everyone to comply in a way that ensures that every single California has clean air and clean water.

And I think that's the route to take versus being so prescriptive from the state and setting a one size fit all approach for every single project within an area. And you'll find, as we've talked previously on other issues, is that I don't like the one size fits all approach for California, and I don't like the one size fits all approach for our businesses because each one does things differently. Some are good actors, some are bad actors.

And our job really is to mitigate those bad actors and also support our local leaders and give them the tools and resources they need to be able to do their job better. So I won't be able to support your Bill today. I think there's a different approach, a better approach, and for those reasons, I won't be able to go up.

Thank you, Assembly Member Pacheco.

Thank you. And thank you to the author. I know we've had multiple conversations, but I also come from local city councils. And so for me, I've actually opposed several bills that have mandates on us cities. And I know the author is willing to amend it where it's only specific counties, San Bernardino and Riverside. And the residents of District 64 are the ones that voted me in. But at the end of the day, I also represent the State of California.

So I'm also mindful of the impacts in other counties. And I also think we need to provide the tools and resources needed for our local elected officials. But I also do not want to take away their control and their input on what's good and healthy and safe in their communities. They were elected by the residents, and if the residents feel like the local electives are not doing what they're supposed to be doing or they do not agree, then they can vote them out of office.

But I'm always very mindful of local elected officials and representatives, Assembly Members, Senators from those specific counties. So I hope that you work with your local electeds. I commend you on your efforts and I commend you for reaching out to me several times. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support your Bill because of the reasons I stated. But I appreciate you tremendously and I look forward to working with you on other bills. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Summary Member Dixon thank you.

Chair this is really a tough one because we're trying to balance in California growth, jobs and quality of life. I do believe in hearing from our colleagues that the State of California for many years has imposed regulations in the state relating to clean air and they are in place. And the vehicle emission requirements that are in place certainly for the automobile and trucking industry concerns me that we, well, let me back up before I get into my concerns.

I'm very pleased to sit on the local government Committee and to hear my colleagues who've also served on local government. Many of us have, and we still wear our local government hats because we know the challenges at local government. And this is where the people, and this is really why I ran for office, is to represent local government point of view. And even the mandate, whether it's 1000 or 500 or 350, that's a mandate on local government.

Local governments today can decide what the setbacks are for their commercial or residential developments and the state already is getting involved in those decisions. As we already know from a housing standpoint and in commercial industrial areas, I am concerned with the long term consequences of these type of mandates. This is really significant.

And what it does to the shipment of goods and the provision of goods that come into the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports and are shipped out to this area, it's provided thousands and thousands of jobs. And just hearing the number of schools in the area, I mean, those didn't exist many years ago. And so the population clearly has migrated out to the Inland Empire and brought it in to be a thriving economic engine for the state.

I just worry about with us putting up obstacles to business over and beyond what the state has already imposed and is achieving, then we're just driving jobs and driving the logistics business to a state that's Low cost and it's only a few hours away from Riverside and San Bernardino counties. So I understand. I'm new here, but I know you've worked for a long time and you work so hard and your passion and your heart is in this, trying to reconcile these issues.

Nobody wants any business to create a health hazard for our residents or children or anyone. It's just balancing the needs because these families still need jobs, good paying, middle class paying jobs, and ironically, they can practically take a bicycle to work. I mean, this is really what the state has been trying to do, live, work and play within all a nearby area. So I'm just concerned about the long term consequences of driving business out of California. And local government needs to be making these decisions.

And if they fail to make good decisions, the voters have an alternative. So I cannot support this. I'm disappointed about that. We just need to balance better, and that's where I'm coming from. I did say to you yesterday when we were chatting, this would apply to any industrial project that's located nearby a residential area. I'd like to see and good developers and quality businesses that really want to bring quality of life into their communities because they're hiring out of the communities.

They could do some things with landscaping, just to make quality landscaping, not a little Bush, but to put green walls and some trees. And this 350 or 500 face setback. You could do that just to make it a pleasant environment for the families that are living within close proximity. So, long winded speech, but I can't support it. But if there are amendments in the process, I hope that can be worked out. So thank you.

Assembly Member Waldron?

Yeah, I'd like to start off with a couple of. So the Bill only goes forward? It doesn't affect existing warehouses?

That is correct. It only applies to new development of warehouses that are over 100,000 sqft. If there is a smaller warehouse and they expand it beyond, 100,000 would apply to them. But the Bill as written only applies prospectively to the new building.

Okay, so it was mentioned in one of the testimonies that some amendments have come in. Will you be looking at those?

Yes. The amendments, there are three separate areas. One has to do with what sensitive receptors are. They've asked that we take out two of the identified sensitive receptors. I don't have an issue with that. We would accept that. The other, they've offered some mitigating factors and those we have to look at a little closer to see. They have triggers that would be required before the mitigating factors could be considered. And the other has to do with the distance and how we measure the distance.

Okay. So I have serious concerns with the Bill. Obviously, I do agree with the opposition and the clear points that they make of this being a job killer, hurting the trucking industry, obviously, housing, businesses, increasing the cost of goods. It's far too restrictive, as some of our colleagues have said. They're going to be massive impacts on some of the hardest working people in the state, as labor had pointed out. That being said also, I've read over the amendments. I've had good conversations with the author.

So I understand the climate goals you're trying to reach and the vulnerable communities that you're trying to help. It just doesn't seem that the way this Bill is currently, and especially as it's currently in print, is something that is going to be workable to achieve everything that you want to achieve. So I do agree with my colleague from San Diego regarding allowing more control for the local communities while the amendments move the Bill a little.

We need to see more in that regard, especially as having served in local government. But I know the dedication you have to this issue and the commitment to keep working on it, hopefully with industry creating something that might be workable, that maybe is a different approach in some regard or altogether. So I do want to make it clear, though, if this Bill comes to us on the floor, as it currently is, I am not going to be supportive of it.

Are there any other comments? Okay, entertain a motion. I'll move the Bill. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

There was a second by Assemblymember Waldron. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I think one of the issues that has been talked a lot about is the local control. In fact, California passes a number of laws that have to do with setting the guardrails within land use planning for purposes of safety, inclusion, equity, standardization, from zoning to the size and distance of traffic signals. There are lots of things that California can do and should do. Is this Bill perfect? Absolutely not. I just received the proposed amendments two days ago.

I've been working on this for six years. So I absolutely appreciate that. We did receive proposed amendments from the laborers, and that's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. The fact that we are engaging in this conversation. As I mentioned earlier, I did have tours for both Cal Chamber and for the industry so they could see the good neighbors and those who are not good neighbors.

If we have warehouses that are being built right next to schools, to the point where the school has to be sold, California has to step in. We cannot allow our communities to suffer this way. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, Assembly Member Reyes, thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I want to thank you for working well on the Committee amendments and you continuing to work on this Bill. This is one of two bills on this subject that is before our Committee today. The two bills differ significantly in their approach in this issue. No matter what happens in the Committee today, it is imperative that we strike the right balance on this issue by having all stakeholders and both authors work together to bridge the gaps.

I know that you've championed this issue since we first came to the Assembly six years ago, and I appreciated your efforts to try to address the concerns of the opposition before and your willingness to address some of their concerns with the amendments you're accepting today. I sit, and I've kind of scratched my head on this because I feel like if locals were really paying attention, you wouldn't be in the situation you are today around schools and some of those sensitive areas.

I'm frustrated, but we can try to make that change and maybe it won't happen. I'm happy to support the Bill today, and I hope that the conversation continues with all stakeholders and both authors working collaboratively. Regardless of what the Committee's will is today. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee secretary, please call the role.

Aguiar-Curry.

Aye.

Aguiar-Curry aye. Dixon.

No.

Dixon no. Boerner. Pacheco.

Not voting.

Pacheco not voting. Ramos.

Not voting.

Ramos not voting. Rivas. Waldron.

Aye.

Waldron aye. Wilson.

Not voting.

Wilson not voting.

Right now it's two one, we'll wait for the missing Members.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's see who we have next. I think we're going to stretch just a two minute stretch for this Committee and Assembly Member Ting, you'll go next.

Ineligible chatter

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, assembly member Ting for your patience. This is file item number 12, AB 1033. Please begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1033 is a Bill that continues my work on ADUs. Very proud of all the work we've done to make ADUs easier to build for property owners. This is an expansion of that. We've been able to streamline ADUs. This would allow property owners to separately convey. So to separately sell an ADU very similar to a condo.

The way I look at this Bill is similar to if you have a duplex now, you can make sure you split that lot, make sure you actually have two units, and you could separately convey that. We took a number of amendments in Assembly housing that clarified our bill's intent also ensured that the condo subdivisions, consistent with the subdivision mapped act and the Davis Sterling act.

We also required that all liens on the property are satisfied or that all lienholders provide consent to the recordation of the map to the county assessor. And also we wanted to require that ADUs go through safety inspection. We're happy to take your amendments. We really appreciate the amendments that your Committee and yourself have offered that allows local agencies to require new or separate utility connections for ADUs that are sold as condos. To me, this is a property rights Bill.

It allows property owners to have greater control of their property, gives them the flexibility to build wealth, and also opportunity to have homeownership opportunities at a cheaper price. So we respectfully ask for aye vote on AB 1033.

Great and welcome.

Thank you. I'm Mark Newgor with the California State Association of Counties. I want to thank the author for this Bill, as well as the opportunity to testify in support and the Committee for their work on the amendments on AB 1033.

CSACS supports AB 1033 as it will help address the state's housing affordability challenges, which is a component of the state's homelessness crisis. Recognizing the need for a thoughtful approach to address the homelessness crisis, CSAC has developed the at-home plan. At-home is an acronym for the six pillars we use to advocate on the homelessness issues, with H representing housing.

AB 1033 removal of the state prohibition on separately conveying an ADU will help to increase the availability of homes at prices affordable to the state's working families and individuals. This Bill aligns well with CSAC's efforts to increase the housing supply for all Californians, especially affordable housing, to support the state's vulnerable populations, including seniors, those with disabilities, and Low income residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, Alex Torres here, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council.