Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud and 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 acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol Building. I will also document on the record the individual involved in the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol Building. So today we have six items on the agenda. One of these items is proposed for consent: Item Number One: SB 20 by Senator Rubio.

We will hear all other bills in order shown on our agenda unless otherwise noted. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony.

All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. We don't have a quorum yet nor do I have a presenter. Sergeants, if we could get some presenters here, please. Okay. It appears we have a quorum, so at least we'll take the attendance. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Okay. We do have a quorum as soon as we get a presenter, and welcome to the On-Time Committee. Why don't we go ahead and do the consent calendar. Have a motion? Okay, well, I'd like to give them one of them, I think. It was Pacheco, maybe? Waldron? That would be Assembly Member--the W's. Okay.

Aguiar-Curry? Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Rivas? Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Five/zero.

Right now we have five/zero on the consent calendar. Now we sit. All right. Welcome, Senator Newman. This is File Item Number Three: SB 617, and when you get comfortable, Senator, feel free to go forward.

You've made me feel very comfortable, Madam Chair, so thank you. I hope I didn't keep you folks waiting. I apologize, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 617 which would grant local transportation agencies the authority to use Progressive Design-Build contracting and building major transportation projects, such as roads, rapid transit lines, and rail lines.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the Chair and her staff for their work on this bill and accept the Committee's proposed amendments, lowering the project cap from 15 to 10 for transportation agencies. Progressive Design-Build is a contracting model in which a single entity is hired to complete both the design and construction of the project at the earliest possible stage.

The early collaboration and transparency between the agency and the joint design and construction teams helps to ensure designs are practical, constructible, and economically as the teams work cooperatively to maximize value and innovation within a project's budgetary constraints. Under Progressive Design-Build, agencies are empowered to utilize a qualifications-based selection process, considering a firm's demonstrated expertise and track record in building similar projects at similar scale.

And when it comes to price, agencies are able to negotiate a guaranteed maximum price wherein the contractor becomes liable for cost overruns and scheduled delays, not the taxpayer. As a result, Progressive Design-Build offers agencies strategies to control costs, reduce risk, and expedite delivery schedules. Under current statute, however, agencies are prohibited from utilizing Progressive Design-Build without legislative approval. That approval was granted to the Director of General Services in 2021 and to local water agencies in 2022.

As the Federal Government prepares to disperse the largest federal infrastructure investment in over a generation, it is imperative that the state grant our transportation agencies the flexibility to use contracting methods that make our projects more competitive for federal funding. SB 617 provides agencies another tool in the toolbox to control costs, reduce risk, and get projects built faster. With me to testify today are Keith Dunn on behalf of the Self-Help Counties Coalition and Alchemy Graham on behalf of the California Transit Association. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Great. Welcome. Please begin.

All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Alchemy Graham, Legislative and Regulatory Advocate with the California Transit Association. On behalf of our more than 220 member organizations, I'm here today to voice our support for and proud co-sponsorship of SB 617. Our agencies have utilized design-build procurement methods for years. For example, the Caltrain Electrification project, Foothill Transit, and OCTA's hydrogen fueling stations and Monterey-Salinas Transit's operations and maintenance facility are all examples of recent design-build projects.

With the Progressive Design-Build procurement method, transit agencies would be given more flexibility and control as it allows them to collaboratively work with the design-build team from the very beginning of the project development process and effectively reduce the number of delays down the line. If plans change and the agency would prefer to adjust the contract or explore other options, they're free to do so without jeopardizing the design of the project which effectively saves them time and money.

Under SB 617, our agencies would be able to continue producing successful transportation infrastructure projects with the added benefits of flexibility, cost savings, and risk reductions in schedule delays. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you. Keith Dunn, Executive Director of the Self-Help Counties Coalition, the 25 local sales tax counties that tax themselves to help build and maintain our state's infrastructure as well as our local streets and roads. The author and our co-sponsor have laid out the benefits of Progressive Design-Build. I would underscore the fact that we have a historic opportunity to go after federal funds.

The more competitive that we can be and get plans done early and have shorter time frames, the more opportunity we'll have to collect those resources. I'm here to answer any technical questions and would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there other witnesses in support of the bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Heidi Hannaman on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in support.

Good afternoon. Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and also the City of Belmont in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. I'm a tweener. Steve Baker with Aaron Read & Associates for the Professional Engineers and California government. I want to thank Senator Newman and the sponsors for including an amendment to include the appropriate inspection role to make sure that the state is inspecting its facilities, and with that, we're neutral on the bill.

Thank you very much. All right. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any questions of the Committee? Yes, Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Senator Newman, for bringing this bill forward and don't have any questions. Just wanted to note a comment. I had the opportunity as a local leader over 12 years to vote on six Progressive Design-Build projects and including when we added in the language regarding water on some of the agencies that I sat on, as well as actually be a part of two ad hoc committees regarding that.

I also have a Select Committee on Transportation and Emergency Preparedness and recognizing the influx of, as you noted, infrastructure dollars and how those will be very appealing for transportation projects because if we're doing transportation and emergency preparedness combined and prioritizing our transportation projects related to that, when you're thinking about emergency preparedness, the need to get projects done quickly, and this allows for a greater efficiency in that, including the appeal of a fixed cost and knowing your cost going in which we know with transportation projects, they tend to be a bit more wild in comparison to even when we built a building.

So I think this would be extremely helpful, and so I just wanted to note that I really appreciate you bringing that forward to include transportation projects. That's very appealing to me, and I would like to move the bill.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Are there any other questions from the Committee or comments? Seeing none, we have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson. A second by Assembly Member Pacheco. Okay. Would you like to close?

I'd just like to ask Assembly Member Wilson to come with me. Do you want to do my floor statement? Because she did it better than I ever will, but I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Great. Thank you very much, Senator Newman. I appreciate that you worked with our Committee to get the modest, the very modest revisions. I'll be supporting your bill today. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry? Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Rivas? Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Five/zero.

Thank you, Members.

Five/zero. Thank you very much. All right, Assembly Member Caballero, we're going to go to File Number Four: SB 706. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 706. I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for their thoughtful analysis, and I will be taking the Committee amendments. SB 706 will...Progressive Design-Build or PDB delivery method to build infrastructure projects.

PDB allows local agencies to collaborate with one entity to complete the design, drawings, and construction for a project. This allows them to work together to determine the final cost and schedule for the project. The approach allows for earlier negotiations between the local agencies and the construction teams which helps to ensure projects meet agency need, cost controls, and remain on schedule.

And if you ever had to look at change orders after a project has been built, you know how frustrating it is to get to the end and find out it cost you a whole heck of a lot more than you thought it was going to cost and that some of it could have been avoided. This type of procurement method helps to avoid all of that.

It allows local agencies for any project that will benefit from this procurement tool to maintain key safeguards for the authority, limiting each agency used to ten projects which must exceed five million dollars. These safeguards ensure that local agencies use this authority on projects that are most likely to benefit from this collaborative approach. So with me today to testify in support is J. Brandon Dekker, Former President of Design-Build Institute of America, Western Pacific region, and Najee Zarif, Deputy Director, San Joaquin County Public Works.

Welcome, gentlemen. Begin.

Hi. Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. As the Senator said, my name is Brandon Dekker. I'm a principal with CannonDesign and I'm the immediate past president of the Design-Build Institute of America's Western Pacific region, representing our nearly 2,000 members strong. At CannonDesign, we've embraced design-build over the years, and quite honestly, it's what our clients, counties, cities, and municipalities want. A Progressive Design-Build makes for an even more nimble and cost-effective procurement.

It's not new, but this bill is important because we need to be sure that these municipalities are authorized to utilize this method and we can deliver. As a representative of the DBIA Western Pacific region, we applaud you for your support. SB 706 gives agencies specific authority to use Progressive Design-Build more widely by permissively providing counties, cities, and special districts the authority to do so. Currently, Progressive Design-Build is being used successfully up and down the state by agencies who are currently permitted to do so by law.

Progressive Design-Build delivery allows public agencies to complete public works projects more quickly and at a lower cost, allowing public dollars to provide greater benefits to the general public. This is an exciting moment for the design-build project delivery as it's evolved over the past several years to be one that is considered not an alternative form of delivery anymore, but more widely used than the more traditional design-bid-build delivery.

In the latest FMI report sponsored by the Design-Build Institute of America, it was stated that by the year 2025, 47 percent of all capital projects put in place in the Western region will use design-build project delivery, and nearly 85 percent of all projects will be using some form of design-build or alternative form of delivery.

You took a chance on us 30 years ago, allowing design-build delivery to be more widely used, and that decision has proven to be a great one as it's transformed the way projects are being delivered in the state today. Thank you for your confidence in design-build over the last few decades and we ask you for your aye vote for SB 706 today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. As the Senator indicated, Najee Zarif, Deputy Director for San Joaquin County Department of Public Works and also the Chair of the Transportation Committee for the California Engineers Association of California. On behalf of CEAC and the California State Association of Counties, I'm here in support of Senate Bill 706 and the proposed authority and the flexibility it provides to local agencies.

This bill has been noted; will allow counties, cities, and special districts to use the Progressive Design-Build process to attract more proposers for their projects and significantly reduce the cost of responding to RFPs compared to other contracting methods.

In addition to offering the advantage of a reduced project scheduling costs, it also increases a partnership between the agency and the contractor through the design process which ultimately leads to more predictable project outcomes and fewer risks associated with change orders, particularly, as noted, those associated with unknown site conditions.

The ability to engage the contracting community at the earliest feasible point eliminates many of the risks that both the owner and the contractor face in a typical design-bid-build process, and at the same time, the off-ramps that are built into the process allow for an awarding agency or local agency to change courses as needed to pursue options that are most effective and most cost-efficient for them.

So this early coordination and the safeguards provided by SB 706 and the expansion to projects beyond water projects will help ensure that the projects meet agencies' needs, cost controls, and remain on schedule in align with CEAC's goals of improving good governance through partnerships and collaboration with the private sector. On behalf of CEAC and CSAC, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

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

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County and Orange County in support.

Jeff Neal on behalf of San Diego County as a co-sponsor and Contra Costa County in support.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the City of Belmont in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos in support.

Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in support.

Heidi Hannaman, California Special Districts Association, in support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tiffany Phan on behalf of the National Association of Energy Service Companies or NAESCO. We have a support if amended position on this bill. We believe our request amendments further the author's intent, clarify statute, and would go a long way in helping protect the great work ESCOs do. So just want to thank the author, her staff, the Committee, and staff for the discussions we've had and look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Gajan with SitelogIQ, support as amended in alignment with NAESCO recommendations.

Thank you.

Desiree Haus with Southland. I'm in support if amended along with NAESCO's recommendations.

Good afternoon. Kristin Olson on behalf of NG here. Support if amended as well; aligned with the comments from NAESCO.

Hi. Mike Kozlowski of Johnson Controls. Also support if amended on behalf of Johnson Controls and as a city councilman of the City of Folsom, support generally. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Steve Baker with Aaron Read and Associates for the Professional Engineers in California Government. Once again, we're a tweener on this. We're neutral on this bill. We want to thank Senator Caballero and the Committee for working out amendments. Current law has a variety of authorization for state agencies to do design-build and Progressive Design-Build.

We've worked out a variety of state worker protections and public protections in that state authority. We just want to make sure that the local agencies aren't using their authority to do state work and Senator Caballero's bill achieves that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? I think they're called tweeners. Okay. Any questions to the Committee? Yes, Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. As I was noting on Senator Newman's bill, having had the opportunity to, as a local leader, vote on six Progressive Design-Build projects as well as sit as Ad Hoc Committee on two of them while going through the process from beginning to end and presenting to my board to be able to support going with that particular bidder, I was talking with those that are support on amended and hearing their concerns.

One of the things that I found in those six occasions is that they were always amendments to the contract. So I don't know if it's appropriate for you to answer the question or for them to answer the question in regard to the additional amendment language why they were seeking to include that as in terms of also including having a whole new contract which hadn't been--

Not that I've done every type of project, but on the six projects that I was involved in, it was purely an amendment when you got to the build process which determined not only the final cost, adjusted for the final cost based on the design as well as timing, timelines, and things like that, and issues that may have come up, giving additional off-ramps, but never a whole new contract because typically when you do a whole new contract, that is when you go out to build again, and so I wasn't sure why those amendments were necessary.

So I wanted to hear potentially from them to find out why, and then potentially why you felt like those amends weren't necessary in the bill. Either order--

Actually, if you want to understand how that would happen, it probably would be advisable to have them talk about it, but what happened procedurally is that the bill went through the Senate without any communication from them in regards to amendments until it came over here, and in which case, we didn't have enough time to sit, have a discussion, and get it included in the Committee Analysis.

So I am always, and the Chair can attest to this, I work my bill hard, I work my bills hard, and I'm always willing to consider amendments, and frankly, if it's a practical amendment that makes it work better, I'm more than happy to do it, and I would do it in conjunction with the Chair so that it's not a jailbreak changing something after the fact.

Thank you. And if it's okay to hear from, like I said, it was contrary to what I had experienced, but not that I've experienced everything. So is it okay to hear from those that are support if amended?

Thank you for the question, Assembly Member. Again, Tiffany Phan on behalf of the National Association of Energy Service Companies. So first, to the author's point, yes, we are new to weighing in on the bill. We just started being engaged in California legislation generally three weeks ago, so that does line up with your timeline, so we are new to weighing in on this bill, and this is our first request of the author.

So it's all new and we understand her reasoning to not accept our request at this time because of the fast moving legislative process, and then to Assembly Member Wilson's question, so our amendment request related to a whole new contract is in direct response to an FPPC advice letter one of the cities received after doing design-build work with an energy service company.

They wanted to do a separate contract for a construction piece when they'd already done the design engineering piece, and so the FPPC advice letter had said, because you had already had a relationship previous to the second contract, the second one did not comply with Government Code Section 1090 which is a conflict of interest code.

Okay. So it's particularly related, if I understand it correctly, because of the FPPC guidance of saying that you needed to have second contract in particular to your industry, not that this is applicable to all other industries, but in regard to your industry and conflict of interest? You couldn't do an amendment to the design-contract? You needed two separate contracts for the Progressive Design-Build. Is that accurate?

Almost. So current statute currently already allows amendments to contracts. Our request is to allow for completely separate additional contracts.

Right, I got that. But that's related to the FPPC advice letter?

Yes.

Based on a government code?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Understand. And then just to clarify with the author, so this is something you're still entertaining, but would be entertaining prior to the floor if you felt like it was reasonable and needed to be added not at this time?

Correct. I mean, I think what we need to do is figure out if our code is written in error such that it would trigger a conflict of interest issue from the FPPC. To me, looking at, from the legal perspective, I'm not sure that's the solution, but needless to say, I want to fix it.

I want that Progressive Design-Build to work, and if we've got some disagreements in the code section, we may need to figure out how to clean up the code. I'd take it to judiciary and say, 'what should we do with this,' so that we're not running afoul of the FPPC. None of us want to be there, or contracts dispute, in other words. So I'm more than happy to kind of run it through the traps along with the Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Happy to move the bill.

And thank you for asking that question because I didn't get--

Are there any other questions on the Committee? Okay. If seeing none, we have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson. I have a second by Assembly Member Boerner. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you for the conversation.

Great. Thank you, Senator. One thing I do know about Senator Caballero, she wants it to work right the first time and not the second or third time, so I appreciate you continuing to want to have that conversation and we'll get everybody on the support side going further, hopefully. So I'll be supporting your bill today as amended, and the motion is to 'do pass amended to Appropriations Committee.' Secretary.

Aguiar-Curry? Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Aye. Boerner, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Rivas? Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Seven/one.

Okay. Bill's seven/one. Seven/one? Seven/zero, excuse me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Do you want to go back in time?

I think. Okay, let me see. We're looking for some authors.

All right, we're going to do some housekeeping here. Secretary.

Consent calendars above zero. [Roll Call]. Moving on to SB 617. [Roll Call]. Six zero, and that's it.

Okay, done with housekeeping? All right, let's go on with item number two. SB 593. Senator Wiener, welcome. Feel free to start.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, colleagues, I'm here to present SB 593, which is a San Francisco district bill that will open up funding to replace more than 5,800 units of low and moderate-income housing that were demolished during a horrific time period in San Francisco history and never replaced during what was called Urban Renewal, which was actually urban demolition and displacement of communities of color in San Francisco.

This was a really terrible time from the '50s to the '70s when there was this view that there were quote-unquote blighted neighborhoods that simply needed to be bulldozed, funded by the Federal Government in San Francisco. These neighborhoods were, it was the Fillmore District, parts of the Western Addition with a large Black community as well as Japanese-American community as well as parts of South of Market with a large Filipino community. San Francisco demolished a significant number of homes through a redevelopment agency. San Francisco has a legal obligation to replace those demolished homes.

Many of them were never replaced. Enormous number of local businesses, families were pushed out and unfortunately, redevelopment ended before San Francisco was able to meet its obligation. And although it had rebuilt a certain number, there were 5,800 remaining units. So this Bill will authorize San Francisco, through our redevelopment successor agency to use tax increment funding, but only the City and County of San Francisco's portion of that.

So it won't take money from school districts or BART, Community College, or anyone else. It will allow us to engage in that financing to be able to actually build these homes and to start really healing the harm that was done during the redevelopment era in San Francisco so I respectfully ask for your Aye votes. With me to testify, is Mattie Scott from Freedom West Homes as well as Dr. Veronica Honeycutt with the Citizen Advisory Committee.

She's the chair of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Hunter's Point Shipyard and Thor Koslofsky, who's Executive Director of the San Francisco Office of Community Investment Infrastructure who will be here to answer technical questions along with Jim Morales, who's the legal counsel for OCI. Thank you.

Great. Welcome. Feel free to start.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, My name is Mattie Scott. I am the President of Freedom West Housing Cooperative and I'm also a resident of the Fillmore community and a resident of Freedom West Housing Cooperative, which I'm a very proud Member of and glad to be part of that community.

I've lived there for over 50 years and raised my three children there, and it was my first time to be able to purchase my home, At the hands of government-sponsored urban renewal, they bulldozed our homes in the '70s. They picked up our Victorian houses that they said were dilapidated and moved them to Pacific Heights, to the rich neighborhood. It devastated our community economically. It also destroyed 800 businesses, prominent Black businesses that were flourishing and thriving in our community, that kept us economically sound.

So we lost our homes, we lost our businesses, and I lost my youngest son to gun violence with thousands of other mothers in that community. Freedom West Co-op was built by Bethel AME Church to let low-income families, like mine, have a place of dignity, to live and be homeowners for the first time. For the very first time. But at the risk of losing it, we can rebuild it. It was a place. Freedom West is a place of dignity, to live and to be homeowners.

But we're now at the risk of losing it. Now is the chance that we can right the wrongs of the past with this legislation SB 593, thanks to Senator Scott Wiener. The Black population has been devastated, declining from 13% to under 5% today. I urge you to help us with reparations. I pray that you would honor the Juneteenth celebration, which is now a federal holiday, that stole this property from us in the first place.

I urge you to pass it to rebuild our community, enable the remaining low-income families of color in San Francisco to stay and for others to be able to move back. We need your support. We need your vote, and we need your voices. I speak on behalf of thousands in my community and thousands whose lives have been long gone, whose voices are crying out to right the wrongs of this injustice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Aguiar-Curry and Members of the Assembly Local Government Committee. My name is Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, and I represent various stakeholders, including the Bayview-Hunters Point community, the City and County of San Francisco, and various community organizations. I have worked on affordable housing, workforce development, education, and community empowerment initiatives for over 50 years, and I am here to ask you to please vote yes on SB 593. I would like to thank Senator Wiener for presenting this Bill for approval.

SB 593 is a long-awaited action to correct discrimination and injustice that has decimated African-American lives in San Francisco, and the suffering continues to this day. Now, when I was a young girl in the Fillmore Western Addition area, and by the way, it was a diverse community. I remember the Smiths, the Black couple who owned the dry cleaning establishment on Fillmore Street. The German deli, where my family bought Hoghead cheese.

The Rexall drugstore at Fillmore and Gary, where my family purchased medicine from Ben, a Japanese pharmacist. The Yugoslavian Bakery, where we ate pastries. Helen's Restaurant, where we purchased delicious Chinese food. Newhouse Clothing, which featured plus sizes for women, and Honorados, which featured oxtails, pig feet, frog legs, and rabbit. Food that folks of color could afford. This is what we lost. And in addition, gone were the kinship groups and extended families.

Gone were the biracial and multi-ethnic communities of residents who worked together to make life better for each other. We lost this because the redevelopment agency forced African Americans and working-class people out of the neighborhood and didn't rebuild those homes. Senator Wiener has, through this Bill, helped to ease San Francisco's ongoing housing crisis. Everyone in San Francisco stands to benefit from SB 593, especially low-income workers, African Americans, and at-risk families. Please say yes to SB 593. Let us rebuild our community. Thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Members of this distinguished Committee. My name is Bobby Sisk. I'm with Bethel AME Church in San Francisco. We are celebrating 171 years in the city as the oldest African-American church in San Francisco. 53 years ago, Bethel AME Church sponsored and built Freedom West Homes in a response to the devastation of the community. We solicit your yes vote, and we thank you very much in advance for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Officer Guy from the California African American Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Thank you.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Nicolo DeLuca. I've been asked to read a couple of groups in support: Grow the Richmond Housing Action Coalition, Low-Income Investment Fund, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, Northern Neighbors, San Francisco Progress, Noe Valley, San Francisco Foundation, San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, Southside Forward, Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, and Young Community developers. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, Thor Kaslofsky, the Executive Director of the successor agency, as Senator Wiener introduced me. Myself and Jim are here for technical questions, but I'm also here to lend support on behalf of the Mayor of the sitting County of San Francisco, London Breed, and the Board of Supervisors, who voted unanimously to forward this to the state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none, are there any questions of the Committee? All right, we have a motion by Assemblymember Wilson. A second by Assemblymember Boerner. Would you like to close, Senator?

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the sponsors for coming today. We're not intimidating. We're actually a really nice group that want to make change. So I really appreciate you coming today and telling your story. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your commitment and hard work to remedy some of the legacy land use decisions made in San Francisco. So, as we all know, RDAs were not perfect. They had some bumps in the road.

However, while we can have longer conversation about bringing back some of the benefits of redevelopment, I appreciate your bill's approach to ensure the development of these replacement housing units while protecting the funding to schools and other taxing entities, and I'll be voting and supporting your bill today. The motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bills out six zero.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Padilla, are you here? Oh, there you are. Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Pleasure to be with you and to present SB 713. As many of you know, the California State Density Bonus Law prescribes a set of conditions under which certain incentives can be provided to builder developers to produce more affordable housing under certain circumstances, one of the many tools we've used in the state to advance that.

Also within the Density Bonus Law is a set of prescribed circumstances through which local governments cannot enact ordinances or policies or otherwise development standards that would have the impact of either disincentivizing or in fact precluding or making or frustrating the development of affordable housing.

SB 713 here seeks to clarify that for purposes of what is considered a development standard, that definition will now also explicitly include standards and ordinances, whether they're derived constitutionally or by local police power, that are adopted by plebiscite.

In other words, local voter initiatives will be included under this bill in the definition of development standards that are specifically prohibited from being adopted by a local jurisdiction to frustrate the development of affordable housing or to get around the state density bonus housing law, and with that, I know that I do have a witness with me today, and that is Dante Golden from the San Diego Housing Federation and following my witness's testimony, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Our organization represents the affordable housing trade sector in the San Diego County and more than 75 organizational members across the state. We are the proud sponsor of SB 713. This bill is a common sense statutory update to State Density Bonus Law that clarifies that a local government may not apply any development standard that precludes a project seeking a State Density Bonus, even if the standard is adopted by the local electorate through a local initiative or referendum power.

This legislation is consistent with laws governing state preemption, provides greater certainty to developers considering projects that utilize the state incentive program, and it's why the coalition supporting this bill is made up of affordable housing developers, market rate developers, and pro-housing advocates.

Furthermore, the precarious capital stacks affordable housing developers have to construct to finance a project coupled with the delays, ambiguity, and confusion that exist in current law when there's a conflict between a voter proof initiative and a state agency bonus law can drive up costs for our members and leads to a loss of funding from any one of our funding streams. This is a common sense bill, and we look forward to hopefully having your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support, please come forward.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Life Sciences, here in support of SB 713. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it up here. Any Committee comments? None? I have one question, if I may. Is the restriction on a voter--an electorate voted housing or density bonus restriction, is this prospective or retroactive?

This is perspective. Well, no, in the sense that it clarifies the existing law, it provides a statutory clarification that the guidance that has been issued by the department to local jurisdictions on this question, consistent with existing judicial review of the question, is in fact the intent. So it would be retroactive. It would clarify existing law.

Because some cities have voted those in prior years.

Right, I think that there are other exclusions that would apply in the case of completed projects and other remedies would be available to folks who are aggrieved by that, I would imagine, but in the case of this statute, it simply clarifies what the department is issuing as guidance and what the limited amount of review has said the law means, and it would include restrictions that are adopted by popular vote.

Okay, very good. Any other Committee comments? Second? All right, we have a motion to approve and a second. I'll vote. Oh, or you--I'm used to doing it or I'm like, 'go ahead.'

The motion is 'do pass to the floor.'

Oh, I forgot to do an author's closing statement.

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

Thank you.

The motion is 'do pass to the floor.' Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Not voting. Boerner, not voting. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Rivas? Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Vote is five/zero.

Vote is five/zero and it's do pass?

Yes, it is. The bill is out.

The bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members.

Well, people can add on. All right, do we have an author on Senate Bill 769.

Yes, you may. We could do add ons now. As long as we could.

Alright, we're doing, for those who are here to do an add on. So since we're waiting, Clerk will call the role.

SB 617. Boerner? Yes. Boerner, aye.

That's it for you.

Okay. And she's back. One more. We're waiting for Senator Gonzalez.

Okay, Boerner needs to go on the consent calendar.

Assembly Member Boerner, we're going to do some housekeeping. Maybe you want to vote on something here.

Consent calendar. Boerner. Boerner, aye.

Okay, 7-0. And then I have to be a...

SB 713. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye.

6-0. Okay, we're going to leave the roll open for add ons.

Yeah.

Alright, let's start. We have a vote change, and that is on bill number... What is this here? SB 713.

Yes. Let me change my No vote to a Not Voting. No. I voted yes. Excuse me, my Yes vote to a Not Voting.

Waldron.

No, that's Dixon.

Dixon, from aye to no.

Not voting.

Not voting.

That was SB 713. Okay, we're going to do some housekeeping. Assembly Member Reyes. I mean, Rivas. We'll do. Hey, buddy, it's not your last day in local. We're going to do some housekeeping on a couple of the bills here, and I will be presenting in a minute the last bill if we can't get the author here. Okay, go ahead.

Consent calendar. Rivas? Rivas, aye.

8-0.

SB 593. Rivas? Rivas, aye.

Bills out, 7-1.

SB 617. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Bills out, 8-0.

SB 713. Rivas? Rivas, aye.

Bills out, 6-0.

SB 706. Rivas? Rivas, aye.

Bills out, 8-0. Alright, we have one bill left, and as soon as I get the letter, I'll do it. No.

Okay, we're ready to proceed.

Okay, great.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. First off, I'm presenting for Senator Gonzalez, and she is accepting the Committee amendments of Senate Bill 769, which would require local officials to complete fiscal and financial training requirements. Over the past few years, the California State Auditor has repeatedly recommended that local officials receive training on their fiscal and financial management duties. In California, local officials are entrusted with taxpayer money and have the authority over budgeting, procurement, management investments, and pensions.

Yet there's no requirements that these officials receive training on best practices or how to manage these substantial financial responsibilities. As a former City Council Member myself, me too. I understand how much work is involved with running a local government and believe in the importance of equipping these officials with the skills and training to fulfill their duties.

SB 769 will encourage responsible governing and prevent fiscal mismanagement by applying training requirements for local officials in cities that have been designated as high-risk by the California State Auditor or when a city, county, or special district receives notice from the State Controller that their annual financial transaction report is late or not submitted. This training will be required once every two years and will be made available for local agency employees, similar to the ethics training requirements for local governments

Here today to speak about SB 769 is maybe, if you'd like to speak, Chris Applegate, right, from the California State Auditor's Office. Thank you for, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. May you please proceed?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Chris Applegate. I'm the Chief of Legislative and Government Affairs for the California State Auditor.

We don't have a position on SB 769, but it does represent a partial implementation of one of our recommendations. As background, in 2022, we issued a report related to the City of Compton as part of our Local High-Risk Audit Program that recommended, based on deficiencies that we saw with City Council oversight in that report, as well as several previous audits of other cities, that the Legislature should consider requiring all individuals who serve on the City Council to participate in recurring training related to municipal finance, budgeting and the council's role in overseeing city operations.

We believe requiring this training will help improve the governance of cities throughout the state. The Bill partially implements our recommendation by requiring that training in some circumstances, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Here comes some people.

Alchemy Graham, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, in support and want to thank the author and her staff for taking our amendments.

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition please come forward. Seeing none. Oh, did you want to? No. We'll come up to the dais. Any comments from Committee Members? Yes.

I'll make sure to send my remarks to Senator Gonzalez, but just want to say publicly, I think this is a really great and amazing Bill. Having served in government finance as well as coming with the finance back down to a local government was really key and being effective in this area. And there was definitely a deficiency amongst council Members not only in my city and the county in regard to this area.

And although the League of California Cities, or Cal Cities, as it's known, does provide that training to Members at their annual trainings it is optional, and many people do, but many people do not. And it is part of our fiduciary responsibility and having an understanding of that. And you don't get that unless you are trained in that field. So this is really important. The same thing with ethics, the same things we do with sexual harassment and all of that stuff.

I think this is just as vitally important. And so with that, I'd like to move the Bill.

Do we have a second? I didn't hear it over here. Okay, everybody can move it. Any questions?

I do have one question. I think it's a great idea. I've chaired at the local level, at our City Council, our Finance Committee, for five years, and I totally agree with the comments. I just want to understand, and I don't know if you know this, because I know you're not the author, but what kind of training are we talking about? What kind of objective financial information material or educational material will be provided? How do we know how that's going to be?

So I will comment briefly on just what our recommendation was. We don't have a position on the Bill, and so I would normally defer to the author here. Our recommendation was to provide training on municipal finance, budgeting, and the Council's role in overseeing city operations. Beyond that, I believe that the Bill has language related to who the locals can consult with when providing that training, but that's the limitation of our recommendation.

Unfortunately, I don't have the Bill in front of me. Who can they consult with? Do we know?

Just as an FYI, Assembly Member Dixon is Cal Cities, does a very thorough training as a part of their annual legislation on this particular subject. And so that is a great avenue, and they provide that to new Council Members as well as existing Members. And so there are experts in this field who are great at being able to provide that information, and I'm sure they'll be actively engaged if the Bill makes it into law.

Very good. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, any other comments? Questions? All right, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call] You have six one.

Six one. The Bill is out. Does it go anywhere? Does it go?

The motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations.

To Appropriations. Okay, thank you. Well done. Are we adjourned or? We are adjourned.