Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

The Senate Committee on Governance and Finance will come to order. So good morning to you. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment.

Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 352-5905. We're holding our committee hearings here in the Old Street Building and I expect that Members are going to show up once they have presented their bills over in the Assembly. But we are in room 1200 and as I said, we're going to be starting as a Subcommittee until we get a quorum.

We have 17 bills on today's agenda. The following bills will not be heard today. File number three AB eight three seven. By assemblymember. Alvarez. File number 16 AB 1469 by Assembly Member cholera. File number 17 AB 1734. By Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. That leaves us with also file number twelve AB 1176 by Assembly Members Abur.

That leaves us with 13 items with five proposed for consent. The consent agenda agenda items today are file item number six AB 1334 by Assembly Member Pellerin. File item number eight AB ten two.

By assemblymember, Irwin. File item number nine AB 1500 by assemblymember. Irwin File item number eleven AB 1025 by assemblymember dixon and file item 15 AB 1361 by Assembly Member Hoover. So, Assembly Member Miller. We have an Assembly Member present. I am so excited, Assembly Member Pellerin.

That will start with file item number AB 969. And we do appreciate your timeliness. Absolutely.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and senators. I would like to start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office on these clarifying amendments.

And I happily accept them. In January of this year, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors terminated their voting system contract and left their county without a state certified federally qualified Voting system. The county plans to conduct their elections via manual tally, which takes time, a large number of people to handcount, and is not an accurate way to count ballots.

Shasta estimates it will cost upwards of $4 million to handcount ballots for their 112,000 registered voters. Furthermore, it is unclear whether Shasta County can fulfill its legal obligations regarding reporting under the elections code if they do not utilize an electronic voting system. Hastily terminated voting system contracts result in high costs and uncertainties concerning how elections officials will run their upcoming elections and adversely impact voters.

Since each voting system has unique features, election staff and volunteers in Shastros County will have to be retrained and new voter information materials will need to be produced. And now we are less than five months away from a presidential primary election. A voting system includes the electronic voting hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators.

These voting systems and their contracts are expensive and not easily instated or changed. For example, in my district, the county of Santa Clara has an annual lease payment of $1.7 million to support their voting system. What AB nine six nine does is simple.

It prevents a jurisdiction from terminating an existing voting system contract without having a replacement contract ready to go. This Bill does not prevent a jurisdiction from deciding to terminate a voting system contract. It simply says that they must have a replacement system at the time that they do terminate their existing contract.

AB Nine Six Nine also prohibits an elections official from performing a manual count in any contest in which there are more than 1000 eligible registered voters 154 days in advance of the election. AB Nine Six Nine aims to reflect the reality of running an election in the 21st century and the infeasibility of hand counting tens of thousands of ballots with multiple ballot contests. With me to testify.

In support is James Coos the co chair of the CACEO Legislative Committee and the Registrar of Voters for Fresno County. Welcome.

Good morning, chairwoman caballero and Senators. I am James Coos, fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters. And I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials Legislative Committee.

CA CEO supports AB nine six nine. This Bill provides clarity to county elections officials regarding the topic of manual ballot tabulation. The Bill further directs the Secretary of State to generate rules and regulations for all manual tabulation processes in the future, making these very important verification processes uniform across the state and more understandable to the voting public.

CSCO greatly appreciates Assembly Member Pellerin's desire to ensure that voters in each county will always have a certified voting system in place to ensure open, accessible and accurate elections. Thank you. Thank

you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support? Yes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ted Mulhauser, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Anne Weber, PhD. Here in support of Assembly Bill nine, six, nine. Thank the author for continued work in this area and for the Committee and assistance in clarifying and improving this Bill. Thank you. Thank

you very much.

Good morning, chair and Members. D'Artagnan Burr with AFSME, California in support. Of AB nine, six, nine. Thank

you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of this Bill? Seeing no one, is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? My

name is Patricia Beebe. I am an American citizen and a registered no party preference California voter and an Alameda County constituent of Senator Glazer who is not present. I urge your no vote on AB 969.

It prohibits local jurisdictions from choosing their preferred certified voting system, thereby being controlled by centralized state mandate. It is a false dilemma to have only opaque proprietary software or black box voting systems versus a manual vote counting system. Dominion bars election officials from full oversight.

You have all received, and we trust you have all reviewed, all the federal advisory security analysis in California Superior Court testimony, evidentiary references submitted to your offices these are CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Advisory Part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The Halderman Report a Security Analysis of Georgia's Dominion Voting System submitted to U. S.

District Court, the United States Election Assistance Commission, Tennessee Dominion Coding Anomaly Investigation, all which are documented government, agency and court evidence of Dominion Voting System Failure. Most importantly, California voters now have a legally verified record of Dominion voting system failure which resulted in a falsely certified election leading to a court ordered decertification. The Oakland Unified School District, area District Four.

2022 election case. Hutchinson versus Resnick. Superior Court of the State of California, county of Alameda. Dominion's failure. Deemed the wrong candidate as the winner. The court ordered review of paper ballots confirmed erroneous settings caused incorrect tabulation.

The Deputy ROV court declaration confirmed the necessity to have Dominion verify this discrepancy and cure the software settings. Two hava complaints were also filed regarding paper ballots not matching the official cast vote records. Dominion Voting System CEO John Palos recently said his company is likely going out of business.

This failure will leave 39 Dominion utilizing California counties in a precarious position. Senators, the real urgency here is that AB 969 must end now. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has every reason to question the reliability of Dominion voting systems and any voting system which has proven deficient in numerous jurisdictions, including Alameda County. Join those of us who care about transparency and process, truth in elections results, and citizen trust. Thank you. Thank

you very much. Is there anyone else?

My name is Colin Britton with the Election Integrity Project California. We strongly oppose AB 969. Several months ago, Shasta County's Board of Supervisors made the decision to eliminate the county's reliance on arguably faulty and hackable electronic systems, return to paper ballots and hand counts.

Before doing so, they heard extensive sales pitch by all California approved electronic systems companies. They also heard presentations by experts in the field of handcount management, obtaining a step by step manual of how it can be and is being done elsewhere. AB 969 was introduced, complete with the urgency status to quickly stop other counties attempts to break away from these systems that are suspect and potentially produce manipulated election results.

Consider that canada, england, germany, italy, france, among other nations, and even some US. Counties previously used the same electronic systems now in use in California and across much of the US. And objective analysis found that those systems to be dangerous due to their many open doors for manipulation.

Consider that those countries and jurisdictions have banned the use of those electronic systems and now hold one day paper ballot in person only elections that deliver transparent, economical and accurate hound counted results within 24 to 36 hours. Consider that this is what the people of Shasta County want. If passed, AB Nine Six Nine will forever remove the rights of counties, including Shasta, to select an election plan based on their needs.

It will forever remove the rights of California counties to determine for themselves how to best deliver fair, honest and transparent elections with rapid and accurate results. Those of us who believe that we, the people, are the government and don't give our consent to this kind of government overreach will continue to make our voices heard. We are endowed by our Creator with the right of self governance.

We understand and embrace that right. We urge a no vote on AB nine six nine. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to add on as a me too? Hi.

My name is Jeanette Feltz. I'm with Election Integrity Project California, and. I also oppose this Bill. Thank

you very much. Good

morning, Madam Chair and Members, Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California I'm late, but registering support for the Bill. Thank you. Thank

you so much. Is there anyone else? Okay, we're going to move on to the teleconference line and moderator. If you could please queue up.

Any individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition, now is the time. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to please press 10 at this time. Again, it's 10 can first go to line 64. 64. Your line is open.

Thank you. Yes. My name is Daniel Shopping. I'm in Orange County, California. In our county, we do not use the dominion. We use heart machines which also are unreliable and have not been certified and never actually have.

I'm sorry, but right now what we're doing is the me too. You can either say you're in opposition or in support of the Bill. And we're going to do this quickly because we have believe 47 people on the line and we want to make sure that we hear from everybody.

Understood? Okay, thank you. Yes, I am in opposition to AB 969. Thank

you. Great. Thank you so much. Line 53

Yes. My name is Linda Muster.

I'm calling from Lincoln, California, plaster county. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much. Line 88.

Hi my name is Raymond Cavania. I'm from Shasta County and I support the Bill.

Thank you. Line 32.

Hi my name is Mark Zulum. I'm with the organization called the Election Integrity Team of Alameda County, California, and I have worked as an Alameda County election worker since 2019 for the ROV, also as an observer challenger. I'm

sorry, but I just need for you to tell us whether you're in opposition or support. I

pardon line 65.

My name is Amy Young. I strongly oppose AB nine six nine.

Thank you.

Line 55.

Yeah, my name is Pearl Bolter and I oppose AB nine six nine.

Thank you.

Line 82. 82. Please go ahead.

My name is Jeffrey. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Line 80.

Hello, my name is Laura Hobbs and I strongly oppose AB nine six nine. Thank you.

Thank you. In

line 95. 95. Please go ahead. We'll go to line 93

Rochelle Connor, Solano County resident in opposition. Thank you very much. Pardon

me. Line 38

Jackie Campbell, San Bernardino County. Strongly opposed.

Line 30, please go ahead.

Frank Correro, Alemeda County opposed. Strongly.

Line 77.

Linda Rich, Placer County. I strongly oppose AB nine six nine. By the people, for the people.

Thank you. Line 91

Amy Cho, Placer County Conservative Action Group. I oppose AB nine six nine.

Line 29.

Yes. Hi sharina latch with Placer County American citizens for Title 52 government shall not impose I strongly oppose this Bill. And you need to vote no.

Thank you. Thank you

Line 36.

My name is Gwen Myers. I'm with Placer County Conservative Action Group. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 28.

Lee Mantebury, Placer County with Election Integrity Project, California, strongly opposed.

Thank you. Line. 49.

Gene Damon, Humboldt County. I strongly oppose AB nine six nine.

Thank you. Line 69. 69. We'll go to line 66

person Russell. Patriot Forest, California, Orange County. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 98.

My name is Steve Cho with Placer County Conservative Action Group. Strongly opposed AB 969 thank you.

Line 61.

Glenda Green, Fresno County. I strongly oppose AB 699. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 52.

Yes. Susan Stivers, conservative patriots of Orange County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 94.

Can you hear me? We can hear you. You're in the room. Hi. I strongly oppose this Bill. My name is Eunice Malley. I'm from Solano County. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 16

Victoria Angelini, Sutter County. And I strongly oppose AB nine six nine

Line 31

sam Banks, Sacramento County, and I strongly oppose AB nine six nine.

Line 40

Jessica French. I'm a registered voter in Shasta County and I support AB nine six nine.

Line 18

Cheryl Frank, Orange County, California. I strongly oppose this overreach of AB nine six nine.

Line 37.

Cindy Rocha with the Election Integrity team of Alameda County, California. And I strongly oppose

Line 42.

David Craig, San Bernadino County. I strongly oppose this overreach in AB nine six nine. Thank you.

Line 45.

Raleigh Gallagher, Solano County. I oppose 969. France did it. We can do it also.

Line 11

Mark Mallory of Contra Costa County. I oppose AB nine six nine.

Line 26. Yes.

Bruce Russell, Chasta County. I absolutely oppose this terrible Bill.

Line 46

Ed Houston, San Benito County. Strongly opposed nine six nine.

Line 50.

Stephanie shoot San Mateo County. I strongly oppose AB nine six nine.

Line 47 47, and go to line 51. Yes,

this is Jeff Lowe, Shasta County. I especially oppose this Bill in its urgency statute. It does just the opposite.

Just your name or opposed, please. I apologize. Line 54. You're open 54.

25. You're open and we can go to line 57.

Hi. My name is Tammy Richardson. I'm with Fresno County. Legal votes matter. I strongly oppose AB 969.

Line 59.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

I strongly want AB 959. I'm in support. I'm from Shasta County.

Thank you.

Line twelve. Line twelve.

Yes, my name is Liz Waggy and I am definitely in opposition to AB 969.

Thank you.

Line 62.

Marianne Haas, Alameda County. Walder with disability. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 34.

Yes, my name is Mindy Petronok. I strongly oppose 969 and I'm a candidate for State Assembly and it should be-

Next, please.

67.

Hello, my name is Rhonda Provost from Patriot Forest, California. Sonoma county. I oppose AB 969.

Thank you. Line 68.

Hi. This is Dean Fulmer. I'm from Lafayette and Contra Costa and I oppose this Bill.

Line 73.

Hazel Cronin, Orange County. Opposed 969.

Thank you.

Line 79.

Keith Q, Elementary County. I oppose AB 969.

Line 81.

Yes, this is Stephanie Swayla from Sacramento County. I absolutely oppose your overreach and trying to control everything.

Line 83.

My name is Tyna Begley from Yuba County part of the Yuba/Sutter Freedom Coalition and I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Line 84.

Hi. My name is Corey Chelson. I'm from Shasta County, a registered voter, and I oppose my constitutional right. Thank you.

Line 85.

This is Noah Bartel on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Line 87.

Dee Bumfleet from San Benito County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 89.

Hello? Yes, this is Nathan Blaze from Shasta County. I don't want disinformation based elections, so I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Line 90.

This is Gail Saltz. I oppose this Bill.

Line 96. Line 96.

Next we go to line 97.

This is Renee Nelson from Sacramento County. I strongly oppose.

Line 104.

Mary Russell, Shasta County. I absolutely oppose this Bill.

Line 107.

Tina Hasong, Suther County with new California State. And I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Line 110.

My name is Jeffrey. I'm opposing this Bill because it's very bad.

Line 95.

I opposed 969. The elections are-

Line 78.

Yes, this is Gerald Petchinuck where Alameda County ROB used the wrong settings on rank choice voting and admitted he made a mistake.

Sorry, but your name and your support or opposition, please.

Pardon me. Line 116.

Deborah Brinder, Posser County. I strongly oppose 969.

And give me just a moment here.

Line 95.

Elizabeth Stark from San Mateo County. I oppose 969.

Line 128.

My name is James Meadows. I'm calling from Lincoln, California. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Line 95.

My name is Elizabeth Starch from San Mateo, California. I oppose 969. Elections are weak.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

And one more here. We got line. Give me just a moment. They don't have a number yet, and we've got one more. We'll go to 131.

Yes, this is Linda Quinlan, San Luis Obispo County. Strongly oppose AB 969.

None further in queue.

Thank you very much, Moderator. Appreciate it. I think it was apropos that it was Mission Impossible that was playing right now and apropos that we just lost our quorum.

So we'll just wait a minute and we'll be able to get it back. We're bringing it back to the committee for comments, questions and concerns. Senator Dahle.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first, this obviously came from my district, the genesis behind this Bill. And I want to say that I don't agree with everything that the Board of Supervisors actions took place in the county I represent.

But at the same time, I came out of local government, 16 years I served on a Board of Supervisors where we had the ability to be able to do what we wanted to do, how we wanted to do it, and make sure that our constituents were served. I served on that time as when we saw the election, national election, which was very heated, debated about hanging chads at the time. And so I went through that process, and we did, at that point, change our voting system, even in Alasson County, at a significant cost.

I will say I did talk to the county Clerk who runs the elections in Shasta County a couple of days ago, and they do have a new system that certified that they purchased in place. And they're learning that system. And so things have settled down in the county since the author of this Bill came forth.

So for me, it boils down to local control and the ability for locals to choose their destiny on what systems they choose. And we've had systems in place for a long time. I'm very close friend with Dr. Weber, who was the Secretary of State.

We served in the Assembly together. I've been in touch with her on what the rules are as far as what counties can and can't do under already state law. And her office has been assisting the Clerk in Shasta County.

So I will not be supporting the Bill today. I believe that they might have jumped the gun and not had something in place, but they do have something in place, and I want to have that ability for local control and locals to be able to not have the overarching state come in and tell them how to do their elections. And as somebody who ran for this office because I was really frustrated with the state mandates that are forced down onto counties, that'll be the reasons I will be opposing the Bill today.

Okay, I'm going to interrupt this right now. It looks like we have a quorum, so let's take roll.

We have a quorum. Other comments? Yes, Senator.

Senators. Caballero? Caballero present. Seyarto? Seyarto present. Blakespeare? Dahle? Dahle present. Durazo? Glazer? Glazer present. Skinner? Skinner present. Wiener? Do you have a quorum?

One last comment. I want to wish Senator Glazer a happy anniversary, and that was his wife calling and it was not my phone and he needed to take that call. So happy anniversary.

No wonder he had it on Mission Impossible. Senator Glazer, happy anniversary. For other comments, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. My comments are kind of along the same lines as my colleague from Beaver so where he's from is easy to remember now. Beaver. So anyway, the separation of our state, federal and local governments and county and cities are part of local government structure. They all have a role, and it's important for us to preserve those roles.

And one of the things since I've been up here in the last three years is I've noticed that the line is getting more and more blurred as to who does what. And in a case like this, they have a Board of Supervisors and in many cases the Board of Supervisors is considered a much loftier role than what we're doing. And they answer to constituents in their county and that's how they're held accountable.

And if they want to switch to something that costs $4 million, that's something for their constituents take into effect or take into consideration when they're doing their elections. And I think this is the state kind of moving out of its lane and infringing on what is a county role. I can't support this Bill because of that.

This is going to be a recurring theme for me because I'm seeing it a lot. And the issue with that is the more you blur those lines, the more people become distrustful of government and state government for not understanding what their role is. For those reasons, I'm going to be opposing this Bill.

And this has nothing to do with elections. That's why they have an elections committee. Thank God. This has to do with the roles of state, local and federal government, and this is infringing on the local government.

Senator Glazer.

Thank you. Chair, I just had a question and then a comment. Does your Bill provide for a state takeover of the election system in any county in California?

Absolutely not.

Okay. It's important that that be on the record. I am the elections chair and this did go through the elections. And on issues of local control, I think you'll find few in the Senate that compete with me on fuelty to local control.

But the issue here is not local control. The issue is the integrity of the election process in California because we rely upon it and it's important to the credibility that people have in the work that we do. And so as I understand this Bill, it's establishing standards for how a county has to conduct themselves in a way that ensures the integrity of the process, the integrity of the election, which I know that some of the opponents claim is their virtue in raising concerns about this Bill, but it is something that we share.

And when this Bill was heard in the elections committee, it certainly was the clarion call for why this is a good Bill. Because of the importance of ensuring the integrity of the election wherever it happens in our state. And as I read this Bill and the author can correct me, it's setting standards for how if you're going to change, and it doesn't prohibit a county from changing, but it says if you do that, we just want to make sure that the choices that you make protect the integrity of that election process for all of our interests for the interests of our democracy.

And that's why I think this is a healthy Bill, a good Bill, a needed Bill, given some of the activities that are happening in our state, choices that they can make. But we're going to insist that we have integrity wherever it happens in the election process in California. And with that, I'm happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you. I have a question. I support this Bill, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I also know that, for example, in my county, there was a serious error in a rank choice county. And my county, as far as I know, does use the vendors that the approved vendors. So I am curious as to I know that not every county has ranked choice or every city has or whatever has ranked choice and whether the systems are designed to count rank choice or not. So I just curious as to how we're accommodating for those kind of different counts.

So, yes, I do have 27 and a half years serving as a chief elections official, having worked through many different voting systems. And the reality is, yes, mistakes occur. There's no election that's perfect.

And they're usually caused by humans. And that's why we're saying doing a hand count, human count of ballots is just not an efficient, accurate way for people to count ballots. And utilizing these systems, these voting systems are federally qualified state certified, have to comply with all the rigorous voting system standards.

And they've got rigorous pretesting and post testing. And then during the audit, the canvas, we do hand count to verify the machine count. So I really appreciate this healthy debate today.

I encourage everybody who has concerns to actually go and visit your elections office and observe their procedures so you have a better understanding of what great extent elections officials go to ensure the integrity of the voting system and the accuracy.

It was a human error that occurred is most likely what happened in that case. And these voting systems have been certified to do ranked choice voting. They weren't at one point in time. Now they have evolved. Technology changes every day.

Yeah, mostly. And of course, I haven't looked into it enough. But it was mostly to understand that if you are using such a machine system, then why would they then turn to hand counting? But it's okay. We can leave it.

Right, I think hand counting a rank choice system would be very difficult to do.

Well, I just want to have a few more comments. Number one, I know that this Bill came about because of what happened in Shasta County. And yes, it does seem odd that the board that got elected by the machines that they got rid of is awkward.

Senator Dahle.

But the gist of it is there are already in the system machines that are certified by the state and there are different varieties of those machines and different ways they do it. And so the other option is, is the board can have a hand count. That was what they elected to do because they did not take a choice of the machine count since then, I should say.

And that's very expensive. And there is room for human air, but there's also room for mechanical air when it comes to machines as well. So that's why I think that and the cost was estimated at millions of dollars.

But I want to be clear that since then they actually picked a certified machine that's been certified by the state at a lesser cost than what they originally had and are moving forward with the ability to be able to scan the ballots through a machine and then also verify by hand counting as well. So there really is no need for this Bill. The counties have the ability to do that.

And if the people of their county choose to elect them and they want to make decisions such as hand county, which is in my opinion, not a good one, but that's their choice, then the people of that county will either elect them or not elect them to make those decisions. And that, I think, is the point that I want to bring across is that we have had a system in place where and there are many different systems in our state, but the systems are mechanically accounted, are certified, and they must be certified. So they already have to be certified with the state.

So I just want to make that very clear. This is about local control. This is about the ability for counties to make good decisions or bad, and sometimes they make bad ones that we don't agree with.

But we shouldn't hammer them. They have already certified systems in the state. That's the point that we need to make sure that we understand.

So I think everybody's had an opportunity to speak. Let me just say that I also served in local government for 15 years. And so for me, local control is really important.

But I want to agree with Senator Glazer. This is not about local control. Senator, when I look at the requirements of the Bill and will allow you to conclude and you can confirm or clarify if I make a mistake.

This is not going to tell counties that they have to do anything. Basically what it does is it sets up the processes and the structure so that they can make decisions. Right, they can make decisions.

What it does, the one thing it does is prohibit the elections officials from performing a manual vote count where there's more than 1000 eligible registered voters. And so they have to have a system to be able to count those within the certification process. Now if they want to go back and check the electronic count with the manual count, that's totally within their purview.

But they've got to have an electric count so that it's clear by the statutory deadlines that there have been winners and losers, meaning in an election sense. So to me this is really important because we don't do this in a vacuum. All of the state elected officials all switch at the same time, the federal officials in the same capacity.

So I think the integrity of the election process is really extremely important. And with that I would allow you to conclude and if you could address please, the amendments. I'm not sure I heard whether you're going to be taking the amendment.

I did. I'll happily take those.

Good. Thank you. Very good. So you may conclude.

Thank you. So let me be perfectly clear. This Bill does not prevent a Board of Supervisors from selecting any of the state certified federally qualified voting systems.

It simply says that if you're going to get rid of one, you need to also have a replacement ready to go so it's seamless, so voters are protected, democracies protected. And we need to have these consistent uniformity voting systems throughout the state of California to ensure, number one, that they're accessible. We must have a voting system that allows a person with a disability to vote independently and privately, that they are accurate, that they are secure, and that they are transparent.

So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. We do have a motion. Senator Glazer made the motion.

Motion is do pass this amendment to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators. Caballero? Caballero aye. Seyarto? Seyarto no. Blakespeare? Dahle? Dahle no. Durazo? Glazer? Glazer aye. Skinner? Skinner aye. Wiener? Three to two.

We'll put that on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to file item number one, which is AB 457. Assemblymember Patterson. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and senators. I'm here today to present AB 457. I am pleased to take the committee amendments as well.

What AB 457 does is provide a very limited exemption to the Surplus Land Act for a piece of property that the City of Rockland intends to lease out to somebody. This piece of property will always stay within the city's purview because they intend to build an overpass at this particular location. But to raise the tens of millions of dollars is going to take quite some time to get that done.

I will say that Rockland has been very pro housing. My time on the City Council, they never denied a single project. And you'll notice also that some of the housing groups that typically benefit from the Surplus Land Act laws are not in opposition to this particular measure because they know that I'm a serious actor on this and not trying to get around California's housing rules or anything like that.

So with that, obviously happy to answer any questions. I let the city Manager in Rockland stay home and keep the city working today.

Very good. Is there anybody that would like to speak in support of this Bill? If so, please come forward. State your name for the record. Seeing none, is there anybody in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. We had an opposed unless amended position, but our concerns have been resolved through the committee amendments and we've withdrawn our opposition. Want to thank the author for working with us and Mr. Peterson as well. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in opposition or that wants to withdraw opposition? Seeing then we're going to move on to the teleconference line moderator. If you could queue up individuals that want to speak either in support or in opposition of AB 457.

Certainly, thank you. And if so, please press 1-0 on your touch tone keypad. Again, it's 1-0 at this time. Giving it a moment here, we do have a couple give me just a moment. We can first go to line 29. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, this is Sharina Latch and I'm just calling to let you all know that people were on the line last Bill and the operator did not call the lines for them. This is against our constitutional rights to participate in our hearings.

Well, you're in the hearing right now. Do you have a comment in opposition or in support of AB 457? That's my position, that you need to let people speak.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Next we can go to line 117.

Yes, hello, can you hear me? Hi. Yeah, my name is Sandy. I'm from Placer County and I oppose AB 969. And I know we're not on that one, but I did not get an opportunity, so thank you for hearing. I oppose AB nine six nine.

Okay, thank you so much.

Next we'll go to line 123.

Yes, I also did not get to say anything about AB nine six nine and I oppose.

Thank you.

And give me just a moment here. We can go to line 132.

Yes, got it. Thank you.

Line 132. You're open. Hello?

Hello. I did not get a chance to speak against AB 969. My name is April Bean, I'm from Sacramento County. And I oppose AB 969 thank you.

Next, we have line 119.

Yes, I also did not get a chance to oppose 969. I'm Catherine McBride, California Parents Union and I Strongly Oppose 969. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have line 141.

Hello, my name is Kathryn Suraci and also I did not get to come in on AB 969. I greatly oppose that and want that recorded.

Thank you very much.

And currently none further in queue.

Very good. So we'll bring it back to the committee and for those individuals that are on the teleconference line, if you would like to submit your name and your opposition to any or support for any Bill, you can do that if we've already passed it on.

So I do appreciate you staying on the line and letting us know we're on AB 457. Any comments, concerns or emotion on this? Senator Dahle moves the Bill. I don't see any more conversation, so I'll allow you to conclude.

Great. Well, AB 457 has no opposition and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.

Senators. Caballero aye. Seyarto aye. Blakespear. Dahle aye. Durazo. Glazer aye. Skinner aye. Wiener. Five to zero.

That is out. But we'll put it on call for the absent members.

Thank you very much, Senators.

Dr. Baines, that's file item number four, AB 892, the floor is yours.

Awesome, thank you. Thank you, chair Members. AB eight nine two is a district Bill which clarifies that Kern County Hospital Authority and its associated entities are subject to the MMBA, the Brown Act, and the CPRA. Kern county was authorized to create the Kern County Hospital Authority by enabling legislation passed in 2014 and 2015.

This change was critical to ensure the long term financial health of Kern's only public hospital, which has served the county since its inception in 1867. While this new governance structure has created many new opportunities, it also has created some new challenges. Ensuring the long term health of Kern Medical is of particular importance to me as a hospital is where I completed my clinical rotations during medical school as well as my residency.

I became a doctor because of this hospital. I know how important Kern Medical is to the most underserved residents in Kern County. The hospital has a medical caseload north of 70% and is also our region's only level two trauma center, with the closest trauma center being in Fresno, which is several hours away.

Losing Kern Medical would mean losing lives, and as the closure of Madeira Community Hospital has shown us, the San Joaquin Valley cannot afford to lose a single hospital, clinic or doctor. The Valley is already one of the largest health professional shortage areas in the nation, and our residents need more healthcare infrastructure, not less. Upon introducing AB eight nine two at the beginning of the year, I asked SCIU and Kern Medical to work through my office to engage in a comprehensive and consensus building dialogue about the future of the hospital.

These conversations are happening weekly and I am confident that we are close to reaching a final agreement which will ensure a stable workforce, put the hospital in a strong financial footing, and provide appropriate accountability and transparency measures. I want to thank SEIU and Kern Medical for agreeing to participate in this process, and I look forward to sharing the final product of those conversations as they are ongoing. The Bill analysis notes a practical consideration which must be addressed in this final agreement.

The use of the word funded as currently in print could be interpreted to be overly restricted and have a chilling effect on grants, supporting nonprofits and other charitable efforts. That is absolutely not our intention, and I'm committing to the chair and the Members of this committee that the issue will be resolved in the final agreement. I hope to share with you all very soon.

With this commitment in place, I respectfully ask that you allow AB Eight Nine Two to move forward today. Kern Medical remains neutral on AB Eight Nine Two and continues to engage in the good faith negotiations convened by my office. With me today in support of the Bill is Beth on behalf of SEIU California, and Lorenda Dillard Smith, an ICU lead clinical nurse at Kern Medical.

Great.

Madam Chair and Members, good morning.

I'm going to ask people not to move the mics. They're really hot, so the more you play with the mics, the sooner they break.

Appreciate that flag. I often touch them because of my height.

And I appreciate that, but they're really hot, so we let them stay and then we see if we can hear you.

Okay, good to know. Thank you.

Floor is yours.

Never heard that before. So thank you so much. Again, Madam Chair, Members, Beth Malinowski of SEIU California, proud sponsors of AB Eight Nine Two, grateful to Dr. Baines, and dedicated staff who've jumped right into work with bringing forward the important conversation referenced by the Assembly Member between SEIU and Kern County Hospital Authority.

SEIU represents roughly 1600 workers at the Kern County Hospital Authority, and this healthcare workforce is committed to quality care, and they know greater transparency and accountability at the authority is key to delivering on that promise of care. Respectfully ask for your aye vote today to only move the policy forward. But the broader conversation referenced by Member A privilege to now hand it over to Loranda Smith, an Sea Local Five to One Member leader and shop Stewart to share her experience and the experience for peers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the board. My name is Lorenda Dillard Smith. I'm an ICU nurse there at Kern Medical and I also serve as a shop steward there at Kern Medical in Bakersfield.

To be here today wasn't very easy for me. But this Bill is so important to my coworkers and more importantly, to the patients that we provide service for. I'm here to support AB eight nine two because the lack of transparency at Kern Medical has already threatened lives and quality of care for our patients that we serve.

Our public hospital serves the indigent, the uninsured, and the underinsured communities of Bakersfield and the county of Kern. Our staff is trained and regionally considered the top care facility for those in trauma cases, those struggling with mental health, illness, substance abuse, and top General acute care patients. My coworkers and myself often voice our concerns about working conditions and patient safety.

But too often, management responds with their hands are tied or they're still looking into it. And there are times when we don't even get an opportunity to speak with those in management to confer and talk about the concerns that surround patient safety or working conditions. And it appears at times that our input isn't even wanted, nor are ideas to help improve the care there.

The newer ICU nurses often tell me that they feel conflicted when they have questions or need support from a senior nurse such as myself. They want to learn and give the best care possible to our patients. But they also know that veteran nurses aren't always available to provide that guidance.

Because our Department is so short staffed, this trickles to the other nursing units throughout the hospital, some units worse than others. Our patient care techs report that they often have only two workers to cover 26 or more patients in their units. And many of these patients require total patient care.

Sometimes the equipment that's needed to do our jobs is transferred elsewhere in our system without notice. We've had reports from surgical technologists who don't find the equipment that they need, and they find that it's been transferred away or not configured to our needs until their patient is already in the operating room. This is so important because the work we do goes way beyond Bakersfield.

Kern Medical is the only level two trauma center between Los Angeles and Fresno. Many of the families who come into my ICU, I see their loved ones and I see how scared they are and how concerned they are for their families and how stressed they are. I'm so proud of the work that our team does with these patients and their families.

The thing I admire the most is the people I work with have a get it done, and we can do this attitude, especially when we're trying to give critical care to our patients under unpredictable and often frustrating working conditions. We need AB eight nine two because Kerr Medical is so important to so many communities, my coworkers and I love to provide the care for these patients and families who need Kern Medical. I urge you to vote yes on AB eight nine two, so that we can make Kern Medical the best it can be for Bakersfield and the county of Kern. I thank you for hearing me today.

Thank you so much for your testimony and for driving to be here. Is there anyone else that would like to add on as a me too? Anybody in support of the Bill saying none. I'd like to ask if there's anybody that would like to speak in opposition of the Bill that's here in room 1200. seeing none. We'll go to the teleconference line and check in and see if the moderator if there's anybody that wants to testify in support or in opposition of AB 892. AB 892.

Certainly. Thank you. And if so, please press 1-0 at this time. Again, 1-0. And give me just a moment here's. One in queue here. Just waiting on that here again, it's 1-0 at this time. And we'll go to line 140.

Yes, hello. Good morning, everyone Can you hear me? Okay, thank you so much. Yes. My name is Florida Sheldon. I'm with Orange County. I just didn't have a chance to come on. AB 969.

I'm sorry, but we're done with nine six nine. If you would like to send in through an email or written response, you're free to do that. We're moving on to the agenda. This is 892.

Pardon me. Again it is 1-0.

And none further in queue.

Thank you very much. Bring the matter back to the committee for comment. Senator Dahle.

So somebody who understands the Brown Act very well, the authority is public and the LLC is private. So this Bill didn't go to judiciary in the Assembly, and it's not going to judiciary here. I believe it's going to labor. So I'm fearful that this will set a precedent because we typically don't force LLCs or private corporations to comply with the Brown Act, which is for the open meetings. So can you talk about that a little bit?

So the hospital authority actually was created by the county of Supervisors. So that is there and we're just being subject to the Brown Act. Again, this is a district Bill. So this is specifically for the Kern County Hospital Authority that was created.

But this will require the LLC to hold open meeting acts or just the authority. The authority should be under that as we speak.

There have been concerns that there has been lack of transparency on the hospital authority as well.

Madam Chair, I'm happy to add in if it's helpful.

Yes, if you could explain.

All right, so thank you for the question and certainly want to build on it and want to acknowledge as well the thoughtful work by the committee consultant who did actually specifically kind of bring up this very question in his analysis. So, as noted by Summer Baines, the authority is a public entity. Additionally, the Brown Act does actually contain situations like this in terms of LLCs that fit under and have been established by a public entity.

So there is in some ways in some ways even we believe, I should say that the LLC in some ways should be covered already by the Brown Act, given how it was established. This is an area where there is active conversation between both SCIU and the authority in terms of the LLC standing, whether or not it is a public entity or private entity. It's one of the reasons why the Bill is drafted the way it is to reference kind of entities that are kind of under or controlled by the authority.

Because right now there appears to be some gray space in terms of whether or not the Brown Act and the legislation that established the authority makes clear situations like this. The LLC did not exist at the time the authority was established.

And so just one follow up question. Is there a JPA that falls underneath so they're working or no, it's just the authority.

In terms of right now, the structures in place. So we have this LLC that was established by the authority, which is one of the main areas of conversation right now between the local SEIU, local five to one, and the folks at the Kern County Authority.

Just to give some history on what's been happening. So when I was a medical student at the time There was a concern that the hospital was shut down. And then at that time, that's when the LLC was formed and that's when the hospital authority was formed with the county supervisors.

Is the Members of the LLC do they sit on the authority board as well or no.

There is overlap in terms of leadership both at the LLC and at the authority. And so this is some of the reasons why we have some of the gray space and concerns. As the Member noted.

Right. Well, I really appreciate your testimony. I'm going to lay off. And I know this Bill will probably get out today, but I want to dig in a little deeper. I'm concerned, the authority definitely should be under the Brown Act, and that makes sense, but I just need to kind of figure that gray area out a little bit. So I really appreciate your testimony. I know that you're doing everything to keep your hospitals afloat, and we want to see that as well. So I will just lay off today and then hopefully be able to support it if it gets to the floor.

Just to clarify one more time, there is the LLC and then there is the hospital authority. But the overlap in the gray areas of the concern and making sure that they enact the brown act and follow the brown act is what we're trying to place in front of you today.

Well, and I think the discussions have to do with if you can't establish an LLC as a government entity, as a way to get around the obligations. But we'll let them finish their discussions and then we'll get a report back on. And that's why in the language it says funded by because the LLC is funded by the authority. The clarity on that language is really, I mean. Let's see if we've got other questions and then we'll allow you to conclude. Just wanted to clarify how the funding goes. Senator Seyarto, did you have a question?

Yeah, thank you. I'm just a little concerned about us. We're not the judicial branch of government. And this has all the makings of something that should be adjudicated in court. Because when you're separating the LLC, there's reasons for LLCs to be formed, and there are tax reasons. There's all kinds of reasons. Was the authority developed solely for the purpose of running a hospital, or were they developed solely for the purpose of having the government somehow Fund something that they don't want to run? So they created an LLC.

That's a good question. That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of.

Yeah. And that's something that gets adjudicated in court, not in front of me, because that's not me. So I'm really struggling with this. I think that answer needs to be had before we can move forward with legislation that creates something that might not be legal.

So I just want to readdress. This is a district Bill. This is specifically this.

I understand. Yeah, I've had lots of district bills, and they get shot down because people don't understand my particular. But this particular one, I'm struggling with the legal part of it because I know what LLCs are formed for, and it seems like we're trying to get the best of the two worlds, and yet we want to take advantage of something that one offers when it doesn't, and that is negotiations with your employees. That's what this is.

It sounds like we have some employee disputes with management, and that's a labor management issue. And now I don't know whether they're trying to put the thumb on the scale or what, but I'm just not comfortable weighing in on something that has this kind of complexity to it.

Sure. I just want to let you know that this is something that's being negotiated between SEIU and Kern Medical. Both are at the table, and Kern Medical remains neutral. Actually, we've had some great talks.

This has gotten two people at the table that have been at odds for a very long time. I'm actually very proud of the work that we have done during these meetings to get this handled, and I think it's going in the right direction. It's absolutely with both parties consent, and for me, it's an honor to be a resident that was at this hospital that witnessed what was happening and now has an opportunity to do something about it to save a rural hospital.

And I'm glad that they're going down that path, but it doesn't remove the complexity from what we're trying to do here from my mind. It's hard for me to support it when I feel like it should be in somebody else's arena right now, and I'm not going to interfere with it or be part of interfering with a process that needs to happen before we can weigh in. Thank you.

Other comments or questions or concerns? Senator Blakespear? Okay, so let me just say that I appreciate the hard work that you've done on this Bill. The fact that you were a resident at the hospital means that you understand the challenges that are inherent in our rural hospital system.

This, to me, is a very simple strategic Bill that looks at extending Brown Act requirements to an authority that should have had them from the beginning. And so I support what you're attempting to do and all the other legal issues. If you can get it worked out without having to go to court.

And I'm an attorney, so I made money going to court. Okay. But if you can keep it out of a court system and you can come up with an agreement, then you get a better outcome, because people don't dig in their heels.

Number one, they don't spend a lot of money for something that is not necessary. And ultimately, I think transparency is really important. If there's one thing I've learned in trying to save rural hospitals all over the state, Madera in particular, is that the hospital has to function well in order for all of the resources to come in and to have sufficient resources to meet all the needs in the community.

And we have a large medical, Medicare population, and so that means that they have to be operating very effectively and efficiently. And you'll get a chance to do that with the Brownix. I appreciate you committing to come back and have a conversation about the wording and LLCs cannot be created by government entities as a way to avoid having to live up to the transparency requirements and the reporting requirements.

I'm not saying they did that. I'm just saying that it is important to have a conversation internally with all the players to make sure that it's done right. So I will be supporting it today and look forward to hearing more about how you conclude this. So I'll allow you to close.

Sure. In closing, I just wanted to again, reiterate, this has been a long time coming for Kern Medical. There's complexities. I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. It's a very simple Bill. It's making sure that there is transparency where transparency is needed. As a resident, I've seen this hospital suffer from a lot, Lorenda and I have saved very many patients in the ICU. We've had a lot of patients that have left us in the ICU. We've been through a lot. This hospital is very important to me. This is not a very complex Bill.

It's a very simple Bill. And it's been an honor for me as a doctor to be able to hold both the Kern Medical and SEIU at the table and have them remain active in ongoing conversations. This has been monumental and for not just the community, but for overall, it's going to help save a hospital. It's not as complex as we're making it. It's a very simple Bill, and it was exactly what you were saying, Senator Caballero. It's making sure that there's this gray area that was created.

Let's make sure and both parties agree to that. We've got the current Medical and SEIU that both agree that there's something that needs to be done. That's why we're at the table talking to each other. Otherwise we wouldn't have that ongoing conversation. So it's a very simple Bill. It's not as complex. And I appreciate and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do I have a motion on this? So moved. Motion is do pass to Senate labor, public employment and retirement. Please call the roll.

Senators Caballero? Aye.

With the amendments. Right. She has will return in regards to the language, but there's a commitment. There is an agreement. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo. Glazer. Skinner aye. Wiener. Three to zero.

Has three votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Maienschein, welcome. We're moving on to file item number seven, AB 972. Low blood sugar.

I was like, oh, I'm here with the wrong Bill. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. I want to begin by accepting the amendments as proposed in the analysis.

In the analysis, AB 972 streamlines local government assistance resources so every community has the same opportunity to compete for state funding. California has a robust network of local government grant programs for climate resiliency, natural resources, and environmental quality projects. These grants help municipalities meet the climate goals set by the state, yet nearly all of these programs have unique and widely varied procedures for application and scoring.

Smaller, underresourced cities and counties are at a disadvantage when applying for grants, as they typically lack the technical expertise, resources, and experience. In 2020, the Legislature streamlined housing assistance programs to make it easier for local governments to apply and maximize the benefits of assistance dollars.

AB 972 aims to replicate this process with California's environmental programs. The bill requires the Office of Planning and Research to convene a working group with the eventual goal of creating a streamlined process that allows local governments to apply for multiple grant programs using only one application. This will help stretch limited funding as far as possible and bolster efforts to address climate resiliency goals.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and with me to testify in support is Ben Triffo with the League of California Cities.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ben Triffo with League of California Cities, proud to sponsor AB 972. As Assembly Member mentioned, 972 is a bill that looks to streamline state grant opportunities and local government assistance resources by convening a statewide cross agency working group. Small and medium-sized municipalities often lack the resources, staff, capacity, and technical expertise to apply for and secure competitive state grant funding.

This bill targets grant programs within the Natural Resources Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify policy overlaps, stretch limited funding as far as possible, and address shared state and local climate resiliency goals. AB 972 is modeled off, after, and builds off the success of AB 434 from 2020, which aligns six rental housing programs, the Department of Housing and Community Development, into a single application and scoring system. AB 972 is the next step to ensure that every community has an equitable opportunity to compete for statewide grant funding. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Great. Do we have any other witnesses, primary witnesses? If not, do we have anybody else in the room who would like to get up and add their #MeToo to the support of the bill? If not, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition in the room? There being none, anybody who just wants to come up and say they oppose the bill? There being none, we'll go to the AT&T operator. AT&T Operator, can you get people on the line who would like to express their support or opposition for this bill? That's AB 972.

Yes, sir. To call in, please press one and then zero. One and then zero. And we'll first go to line number 100.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. David Jones on behalf of San Marcos in support.

Next. Do we have anybody else?

We'll go to line number--yes, sir. Line number 117.

Thank you.

Yes, good morning, everyone. This is Sandy from Placer County. And yeah, this is government overreach. It should not happen--

I'm sorry, what bill are you speaking on, ma'am?

The one that you're on. You're on AB 972, are you not?

Yes, okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure because we had some confusion about another bill that was at overreach, so thank you.

Well that was AB 969.

Thank you.

So, I'm following.

I just want to make sure.

Well, I know that. I think we covered that already. So I am calling about AB 972 and I oppose this.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Is that it? We have any other speakers?

Yes, sir. We have one and we just have to get the line number. It'll be a moment. And line number 150, your line is open.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am, go ahead.

I oppose this. So I'm calling from Lincoln, California.

Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker.

And no one else in queue, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais. Are there any questions by any of my Colleagues? We have a motion to move the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. Go ahead and call roll. And this is 'do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations.'

Senators Caballero? Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, aye. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Glazer? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener? Three to zero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

We'll hold that open for more people to add on later. Alright. Yes, Mr. Lowenthal, you've been very patient, so we're going to have you come on up and present your bill. Just let me get to it.

I put my glasses on. All right. This will be AB 1218.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. AB 1218 provides needed clarity to ensure that the replacement housing and relocation provisions of SB 330 are implementable and can achieve their intended impact. It additionally expands those provisions to apply to any development that is demolishing existing housing to ensure that we are not backsliding and addressing the state's housing supply crisis.

The Bill clarifies a number of the provisions of existing law that require the replacement of housing units and, in some cases, relocation assistance and a right to return for displaced Low income households as a condition of developing sites where existing housing is demolished. These provisions have been flagged by both local governments and HCD as difficult to interpret and have led to confusion. For developers, this has meant that displaced Low income households are not benefiting from the important protections that they have under the law.

In addition, the Bill extends the replacement housing obligation under SB 330 to all projects. Rather than just housing projects. Developers should have a plan to replace existing housing units regardless of the type of project they are building.

Consistent with the rules that already apply under Housing Element Law, the provision expanding SB 330s replacement obligation to nonresidential projects that are demolishing existing housing has raised recent opposition. In fact, it's just in the last week, I'm committed to trying to find a solution to the concerns the opposition has raised. But I'm not willing to do anything that would narrow the existing scope of SB 330.

With me today. I have Anya Lawler of the public interest law project.

Thank you. The primary witness in support Ms. Lawler, you have two minutes, if you could.

Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Anya Lawler again here today on behalf of both the Public Interest Law Project and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. SB 330 has proven tremendously beneficial.

And kudos to Senator Skinner for all the hard work she did in delivering that important law. Unfortunately, though, as the Assembly Member notes, the relocation assistance and replacement housing requirements have met with some challenges. Right now, Low income tenants are simply not getting relocation assistance under the law because neither local governments nor HCD know how to clearly interpret the law.

So this will clarify that to make sure that folks can start getting the benefits that they were intended to receive under the law. But also, I just want to address the source of the opposition. The replacement housing provisions in 330 leave a gap because they only apply to housing development.

This means that commercial and industrial development can demolish existing housing with no consequences, which is a departure from the requirements that apply under Housing Element Law. Let me give a couple of examples that illustrate the need for this change. Late last year, San Bernardino County adopted a specific plan to rezone an existing residential area to industrial use to enable the development of warehouses.

Implementation of the plan will result in the demolition of 163 existing occupied housing units under 330. The county is required to create zoned capacity elsewhere for those lost units, but there's no requirements the units themselves be replaced. Similarly, the Inland Valley Development Authority, a joint powers authority of the cities of Highland and San Bernardino, is in the process of adopting a specific plan right now that would rezone a large area spanning portions of both cities for predominantly warehouse development.

The plan would require the demolition of nearly 1000 units of existing occupied housing, which is, coincidentally, almost as many housing units that were built in those two cities combined in the decades spanning 2010 to 2020. Over 2400 people would be displaced. So these examples are not outliers.

This is a growing trend in certain parts of the States, and the rezones are often developer initiated. This makes little sense when the state has a massive and well documented housing shortage. We agree that there may be some instances where imposing a replacement obligation on developer might not make sense.

For example, in an area where there's a long standing industrial or nonresidential zoning and a small number of nonconforming residential units. But that's really different than a project that's taking out entire occupied neighborhoods. Part of the goal of a replacement obligation is to force consideration of whether a site is actually appropriate place to build a given project.

As previously noted, any project proposing to locate on a site identified for housing development in a local urban's housing element is subject to replacement obligation. This includes commercial industrial projects that may be ineligible use even on a housing element site. This law has been in place since 2018, and what we've seen are several instances where nonresidential developers simply chose not to move a project forward because they didn't want to have to comply with the replacement obligation, which preserved the existing housing on those sites and also preserved those sites for housing development, which would easily replace any housing that got demolished.

Can you wrap up, ma'am?

Sure. I just want to clarify too, that the Bill is not asking non residential developer developers to build housing. And it doesn't anticipate that replacement housing would be built on the site of the non residential project. That would happen through cooperation with an actual residential developer.

So we're happy to make that more clear in the Bill as we continue to work to address concerns. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other primary witnesses in support of the Bill? Okay, at this time? Okay, you have two minutes, sir. For real, two minutes.

Apologies. Actually not a primary witness. Just wanted to register my support on behalf of Disability Rights California. My name is Gregory Cramer and we support the Bill.

Thank you. My next call was going to be for the MeToos. Everybody who supports the Bill can come up. Give us your name, your organization, and your support for the Bill.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support.

Thank you. All right, at this time, if there are no other persons wishing to come to the Mic, then we will move on to opposition. So this is the time where we have primary opposition witnesses. Would you like to speak as a primary opposition witness? Then you have two minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association. Thank you very much. Appreciate the author's willingness to hear some of our concerns. We have been opposed to this throughout, but we have a pretty technical concern that we're trying to get fixed.

And I think we've had good conversations with the sponsor on this and I think her last statement on this shows where we're trying to get on this. Our issue is that when you're taking this law, SB 330, which was negotiated on residential only and then applying it to commercial, there are some hiccups when you do that that need to be dealt with. And housing, we all know, is the number one priority of the state right now.

But also being able to build buildings that provide jobs, logistics centers, deliver all the things we need, make things, is also very important. The example that we have for this is when you take a site that's in a former redevelopment area that has non conforming uses under SQL in them, those houses have already been designated by that local government as housing that's not conforming and is going away. So those are really the things that we need to deal with.

The examples on the large zones, we think that those are already captured under AB 330. And that's not what we're talking about here. We're looking at projects that have onsite housing.

How do you deal with that right now? I think in the analysis, did a great job on page four, number two, that outlines our exact concern right now. How do you take an industrial developer that's not doing a housing project in an area that's not zoned for housing and require them to actually build and replace housing? The sponsor on this has just said, we'll go work with a residential developer somewhere. But as you all know, building housing right now in California is very difficult.

For us to be able to do a project under this Bill. In that circumstance, we have to be able to find a housing developer that is actually building housing concurrently with our project at that moment. We've offered some amendments on this. We know our amendments aren't perfect. We've met with the sponsor yesterday on them. We're willing to tweak them a little bit.

But really what we're trying to do is solve for that problem of how do you take an industrial developer on industrial land with nonconforming uses and be able to assure that that project can move forward. It's really a technical concern. We're not arguing on the baseline of the law. And we appreciate you working with us, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Are there any other persons wishing to speak as a primary witness? I can take one more. If not, is there anybody in the room? Would they like to come up and add their voice to the opposition? Just their name and who they represent. I see people moving around, but I don't see people coming up here.

Okay, so that takes us to the phone lines. At this time, anybody who wishes to speak in favor or in opposition of AB 1218 can do so. And if you can just state your name and the organization you represent and whether you oppose or support the Bill, that would be very helpful. Thank you. So AT&T operator do we have anybody who wishes to weigh in?

To queue up, please press one, followed by zero, one and then zero.

And we have no one in queue. Mr. Chair.

Okay, so I will bring it back to the Dais. Is there anybody on the Dais who wishes to speak or ask questions?

Assembly Member given that this Bill does amend my Bill, and my Bill was exclusive to housing projects and housing lots designated for housing purposes, could you address the concern of the opposition in relationship to putting this on? And we heard from Ms. Lawler, so she did give her reasons, but I'm wondering if you could give us I mean, she's indicated some openness to trying to address this, but I would like to hear your...

Yeah, I would yield to Ms. Lawler on the technical components of the response. But in terms of the practical way of getting to solution Senator totally committed to working with the opposition. Do not consider the opposition's concerns to be unreasonable whatsoever. They're just late to the game. We only heard these opposition comments very recently, so backs against the wall in terms of time. But we are completely and totally committed to working with them.

Though it's unfortunate they are late to the game. But however, I think they have some merit, given that the Bill that's being amended does not deal with commercial properties, so.

Indeed. And I think also though...

I should say the statute that is being amended.

Correct. And I would ask if that was deliberate while you were addressing it in a crisis format, when you were...

The purpose of SB 330 was an amendment to the Housing Accountability Act, which also deals with does not deal with commercial properties.

Correct. So I think the worst case scenario here is if the existing law, that there's a loophole, basically in the existing law whereby developers can go around this requirement to the detriment of the goals, the initial goals of SB 330. And that are the tenets of why this Bill has come forward. And I think that the examples that Ms.

Lawler gave in terms of the projects taking place in some of those jurisdictions are quite alarming. And contrary to what we believe what the original intent was of SB 330, which is making sure that we don't decrease the amount of housing stock that we have in the face of development. So the intention here is good.

The intention here is simply to make sure that we have a net increase in housing stock despite development of any type. And once again, to reiterate, we hear loud and clear the concerns that the opposition is making are committed to working with them in the days ahead. Okay.

Any other colleagues wish to weigh in? Are you good? Okay. I have a couple of questions, and these are kind of the practical, real world questions of some of the practices in the past. Not all commercial development is going in an area at the request of the developers.

Some of these are some of our environmental justice concerns, especially when you have property around airports. During the the 80s and 90s and 2000s there was the flight path of Lax going over the city of Inglewood and they removed entire neighborhoods using redevelopment to do it, and then replaced that with commercial and industrial buildings because they didn't want the effects of the airport, the noise and the pollution raining down on the people that lived under those. How would this affect their ability now with there is no redevelopment, it all lands on the developer themselves.

How would this affect their ability to get rid of those existing neighborhoods or replace those existing neighborhoods? Because you're trying to talk people to come in and develop those, and if you add on that burden, they're not going to. And those neighborhoods just stay there. And the people stay living underneath the flight path of an airport or in the vicinity of an airport like Long Beach or San Bernardino where they have that airport out there, which is not. I don't know what the status of the airport right now is...

That's a nuanced question and deals directly with what are the actual impacts that are taking place, the individual impacts that take place in each one of those locales. So I can't speak wholistically as to that. But I can say that there is heightened sensitivity in the district that I represent.

Not around the airport and development around the airport per se, but actually around the Goods movement corridor and the environmental impacts in those areas. And commercial versus residential and the communities that are around there, including Long Beach, and their goals of developing housing stock in dense communities and how that affects those communities. It's definitely part of the consideration, Senator, and all of those things are weighed out under the guidelines of existing law.

I don't know how this would contemplate this would change that.

Well, would this lay the burden of finding that replacement housing on the industrial developer or the commercial developer as opposed to what used to be the Redevelopment agency kind of handled that.

It does.

Okay. And that could be detrimental to them actually deciding whether they want to.

And I think that's what some of the concerns that the opposition is voicing right now that we're addressing right now, Senator. Okay. We're in a Catch 22, right? I mean, we all need to recognize that here, right? I mean, we have a housing crisis. We have a situation where we could be averting the ways we're trying to remedy those housing crises while we're doing commercial development.

And that doesn't work. And so we have to find a way to get through this that is sensitive to the things that you brought up, that Senator Skinner just brought up and the opposition brought forward. And we're committed to working on those.

All right, thank you. With that, if there are no other questions or comments, then you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. So this is. Okay, do you have a motion for AB 1218? Okay, we have a motion by Senator Blakespear, and with that it says do pass to housing.

Senators Caballero. Seyarto not voting. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo. Glazer aye. Skinner. Weiner. Two to zero.

So we're going to hold that open and leave it on call until other Members come in and vote. All right, it looks like we have Ms. Irwin is in the building. Okay, Assembly Member Irwin, looks like you have two bills.

I think one of them on consent. Or maybe I have three bills.

Oh that's right, you do. I see you have two on consent. All right, thank you.

Alright, so this is AB 1637 of Assembly Member Irwin. You may proceed when you are ready.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair and Senators. I'm pleased to present AB 1637 which will require cities and counties to migrate their public facing Internet websites and email addresses to .gov or ca.gov domain. I'm accepting the Committee's amendments that have been distributed to all of you to extend the implementation timeline by additional two years, giving a total of five years to migrate to the .gov domain.

As all of you know, the public's trust in government is foundational for a healthy democracy. With rising levels of misinformation and fraud perpetrated online and more and more sophisticated threat actors intending to confuse and mislead, we can no longer be haphazard about how local governments are presented online. A review of city and county websites finds that while about a quarter to a third of cities and counties already use .gov, many still use .com, .org, .net, or .us.

All these other domains can be easily purchased by anybody and spoof legitimate local governments by registering a domain with a slight typo or adding terms like 'city of.' So I just want to explain really clearly: a .gov URL is obtained through a government agency which verifies that you are actually a government agency.

All these other .orgs and .coms can be purchased online in a number of minutes for very little money and they can be used with slight variations to fool constituents. We saw an example of this during the COVID-19 Pandemic when the Biden Administration announced Americans could order free COVID tests online. Overnight, security researchers saw over 600 domains registered attempting to spoof this new government service which was covidtestgov.com.

California's local government should take every effort to safeguard the public's trust in our institutions, especially when federal grants direct local governments to plan for this domain transfer and federal and state authorities offer .gov domains free of charge. Earlier this year, the Federal Office of Management and Budget published a mandate for all federal agencies to use .gov or .mil for the military service. State governments have also made the move voluntarily in a near unanimous way.

I do want to briefly address a few of the criticisms leveled by the opposition. First, many form letters from cities complain that a capability gap assessment of local governments need to be included in the bill. This ignores the fact that Cal OES has already conducted this assessment this spring with responses from over 100 local governments.

The results are being tabulated now and will inform the cybersecurity plan to be completed this September. Second, many letters note that the transition to a new domain will generate opportunities for fraudsters to take advantage when cities and counties are shifting domains. This concern, however, demonstrates the need for the bill as those opportunities exist today with no defense.

At least with AB 1637, constituents will have a .gov website that they can all trust. There has also been criticism about cost, especially for smaller or rural cities and counties. However, many local governments, large and small, urban and rural, have already switched to .gov.

If the state's largest county, LA, and the state's smallest county, Alpine, can both go to .gov, it doesn't seem insurmountable for those that are in between. I've spoken to the county of Ventura with a population of over 800,000 and one of my smallest cities with a population just over 20,000, and both are already planning to migrate to .gov. In closing, the .gov has been voluntary options for cities and counties for two decades.

So when you add the five years that this bill is asking for, giving the cities and counties, and you add the 20 years that it has already been voluntary, these cities and counties have 25 years to migrate over to .gov. I believe it is important for all Californians, regardless of where they live, or to have the same level of confidence and trust in their online interactions with their government. Migrating to .gov or ca.gov will secure that trust. Thank you.

Alright, I'm going to ask you if you brought a primary witness.

I'm here alone.

Because, well, I was going to say, you explained it so well, I can't imagine that you needed a primary witness for this one.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to weigh in with their support on the bill? If not, is there anybody in opposition of the bill who would like to speak as a primary witness? You get two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council. Airports are not your typical city or county department. Many are .com legacy organizations that have spent decades branding around a .com domain and their search is integrated with airlines and with some of the outside travel sites such as Expedia and Tripadvisor and KAYAK and those, and so the process of changing to a .gov would really change the branding that many of these have invested in.

Moreover, at this point, with the amendments that came out of the Assembly, we have airports that are treated differently now in the bill solely based on their governance structure. So our city and county airports are still captured by the bill such as LAX, SFO, and Oakland, yet our special district airports like San Diego, Burbank, and Ontario are now out of the bill and so we're opposed unless amended and we would like to see airports removed from the bill and certainly treated consistently within the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak as a primary witness? That's the two minutes. Are you speaking as a primary witness?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Damon Conklin, League of California Cities. Wanted to introduce one of our members, Sae Hong with the City of Roseville, Chief Informational Officer who I'll remain--provide my remaining time with. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning everyone. My name is Hong Sae, and I'm the Chief Information Officer with the City of Roseville. In my part time jobs, I serve as the past MISAC President which stand for Municipal Information System Association of California which represent about 350 local government CIO from San Diego all the way up to San Francisco area, including Roseville, as well as Sacramento.

And also part of my work that I do is I also serve as the workgroup lead for the Cal OES cybersecurity grant that came down from Homeland Security and FEMA Group. We also work very closely with the CISA Homeland Security Group with the MS- ISAC as well too. So there are three components.

We really appreciate Assemblywoman's efforts out here to trying to secure all the cybersecurity practice for all local government, but the three components here that we all need to be aware of is that this is absolutely an unfunded mandate. Roseville alone for changing the website to .gov, all the programming changes, all the single sign on, all the encryptions cost almost approximately 650,000 dollars.

We're very fortunate because we have that budgeted in our projects for this year moving forward in the next three years to complete the program. The second components out here is about the schedules. Originally on the bills today before we step in here was a two year efforts out here. We would like to make it a effort to make it as optional in moving forward.

Keep in mind, .us domain name was quote and unquote 'for government sector' 50 years ago as a top level domains. Third and foremost: security on the website: website is the front end access for all local jurisdiction and all local governments and community. There are components in there for CRM, customer relationship management, 311 encryption for PII informations if we're not securing it completely but instead just moving to a .gov domain.

If we look at the latest move, IT vulnerability, even including California. .gov domains are being transferred and hacked with vulnerabilities out there. So .gov is not the only way to secure domain platforms that we have. In continuation, we would like to continue to work with Assemblywomen's in partnership to improve the whole entire California local and government cybersecurity posture and maturity and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. So at this time we'll take the #MeToos. Anybody come up and add in their opposition. Just your name, your organization you're representing that you oppose the bill.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in respectful opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Greg Cook representing Northern California Power Agency in opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jay Snicket on behalf of the San Francisco International Airport. Also in opposition for the reasons already stated.

Patrick Welch, California Municipal Utilities Association. Also respectful opposition.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of Solano and Kern County Board of Supervisors in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? If not, we're going to go to the phone lines. So the AT&T Operator, if you can dial up and get some people on the line who would like to add either their opposition or support for this bill. And folks, just remember, it's just your name, the organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose the bill. Thank you.

And certainly, thank you. And at this time, please press one zero. If so, again, please press one zero. We can go to line 100. Please go ahead.

David Jones, the cities of Marin County, in opposition.

Give us just a moment. We got a couple more queuing up here. Next we go to line 92.

Good morning. This is Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition. Thank you.

And next we've got line 43.

Hello. Cassandra Smith on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California and the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Redwood City, and Santa Rosa in respectful opposition. Thank you.

And currently none further in queue.

Very good. Thank you. That brings it back to the dais. Any of my Colleagues up on the dais would like to weigh in? Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I think this is a great idea and I commend you for thinking of it and you did a great job of explaining the need for it. It really shocked me that only five percent of cities use it, according to the analysis, because I come from the city of Encinitas and ours was encinitas.ca.gov.

And I know that I frequently do look at that when I'm trying to establish in my mind if something's legit or not and there are times where you don't know, and so I think having order in this system and migrating all government over to this really makes sense.

I wanted to just give you the opportunity--so I will be supporting this today. I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to the airport issue. What do you think is the best thing to do in the airport space?

And I'll just say, just that, to me, it seems like even if we can't work out the airport issue to everyone's satisfaction in this bill, it would be okay with me that we do that on a second bill, but that we try to move all government agencies, including airports, ideally all airports over to it as well, but I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on that.

Certainly, and I appreciate you bringing it up. Our calculations are that it's about a third of the cities and counties that have already migrated to .gov. I don't know where that five percent number came from.

We had included initially special districts because let's face it, we are all vulnerable to clicking on a website that is impersonating a legitimate government website and there is really no argument to excluding airports. The Appropriations Committee basically told us they wanted a smaller scope and to just include cities and counties.

So some airports that are in that government structure are included in this bill, but when you listen to airports, they don't really explain how exempting them doesn't pose a risk to our constituents, just that they want a pass also, and when they talk about specifically marketing, they can always point from a .org to a .gov URL. So that's basically taken care of also, and I want to emphasize one more time when they were asking for voluntary compliance, this has been voluntary for 20 years and we are giving an additional five years so I do want to emphasize that again.

When we were talking about, 'oh yes, some .gov websites have been hacked,' we're not saying this is--first of all, the first priority is to protect our constituents. So you have the City of Thousand Oaks, you have a fraudster will send out an email that says 'City of Thousand Oaks slightly misspelled.org' and they will put a link to something that looks like your water bill for instance.

And so constituents are the ones that are really going to be losing money because the cities use a .org not a .gov, but when the CIO was talking about we need to make sure that all cities are safe, having a .gov URL is only one part of the solution. It's like locking your front door.

The .gov website or URL is safer because it has multi-factor authentication and it does preload the websites to make sure that you have verified websites, but it's only one part of the solution. We know that everybody is vulnerable and there are many things that need to be done, but this is one of the very basic elementary steps to start to make government websites safer, but right now the biggest thing is protecting all our constituents against fraud. They need to know that when they go to a .gov website that it cannot be impersonated.

I think that was the information I understood, but regardless, I think it's a really important point about the fact that they could still own both of them. It's just that the official one would be the .gov.

Thank you. Just one more comment. So I am sensitive to the airport issues because also I served on the San Diego County Airport Authority. As the mayor of the City of Encinitas, I was appointed by the coastal mayors to be on that board, so I do see it very much as a governmental entity in all ways that it was run and so when I just looked it up to confirm that it is at www.san which is the airport code, san.org, and I think you made a great point that they could still own that.

They could still own san.org and use it in their marketing, but then it would actually point to a .gov that would be what would appear on here. So if anyone typed into Google 'san.org,' they would be routed to the .gov which would be the legitimate government site. So it doesn't mean they would have to give that up necessarily, and I understand San Diego is in the category that would not have to make this change based on the amendments in the Assembly.

And we would hope even the airports that have been excluded, that they would look at going as quickly as possible also to .gov. And when we talk about these small cities, again, the smallest cities, Sierra, just for Senator Glazer, Sierra has already migrated over to .gov, but it is the smallest cities with the least resources that are the most vulnerable to costly hacks, and so we really need to do everything we can to strengthen our cybersecurity stance here in the state.

And that's all the way from the state level, and I've run ten bills already to strengthen that but the vulnerability for these hacks, the vulnerability for fraud for our constituents is really at the local level. So I appreciate you understanding that. Thank you.

Thank you, and we've had some conversations prior to the hearing and I think, you know the dilemma that I'm wrestling with, which is that your goals are laudable and the work that you're doing to try to protect the integrity of our information systems is exactly what everyone should be doing, so you can't argue at all with the goals that you've outlined. And the dilemma for me--and if it was my city when I was a mayor or Council Member, I would make a case to my staff about why this is important and valuable.

Okay, but the dilemma is that your goals are aligned with any city's goals. So when you give the Thousand Oaks example, that's exactly what Thousand Oaks should be thinking, that someone could defraud our site and play games with the URL and all the rest and that's the reason that you're aligned with them on why they should make the change, but they're making the choice to not do it and I think they're all adults in the room making these choices, even if I would disagree with that choice.

It's not like they're preying on the vulnerable. Our cities are smart at every level. I've always been impressed with the leadership both elected and appointed and so it's like we're saying now, government should step in in that space and tell them what to do and I know the timeline is generous that you've provided in the bill, but that we should force it on them when our goals are allegedly aligned, and that's what creates the dilemma for me as to why we should step in with that kind of a mandate.

And if I might just respond there?

Would you like to handle that in your close?

Oh, sure. Okay.

That'd be great.

Okay, well then, I didn't realize I was handling it in my close right at this moment. What I have found in my work with state agencies is that everybody is very reluctant to take on a new mandate and we have required through numerous bills to have every state department run security assessments and reports on what their cybersecurity stance is and where the vulnerabilities are.

We are also now, after a number of years, we are requiring all these constitutional offices also to strengthen their cybersecurity stance, but there was never a state agency that came up here and said, 'oh, do this to us,' but we did it because it makes our constituents safer and so when you say these cities, they're all adults there, yes, of course.

I'm very much a local government supporter, but they are not going to come and ask for a mandate. What this is really doing, though, is protecting their constituents. They might not be prioritizing cybersecurity, but their constituents are the ones that when they go to a fraudulent .com website, they're the ones that are going to potentially be losing money or have somebody hack their information.

They might be giving up their private information. So at times, the state does step in to ask cities that might be a little reluctant to prioritize this. There's times that it's just important for the state to step in to protect their constituents. So I would answer it that way and I know it's always a difficult subject. Nobody likes to spend money on prevention.

Nobody likes to spend the time to think through how we do prevention. We all like to do ribbon cuttings for new buildings but I think it is critically important that we all at the state, at the federal level, and at the local level, invest money to make sure that we protect those cities and our constituents. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. There is a motion. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' Please call the roll.

Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Glazer? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener? Three to one.

We'll put that on call for the absent Members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on. Is Assembly Member Lowenthal here? Oh, you already did it. Okay. Oh. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. The floor is yours.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to present AB 1297, public restrooms. This bill requires cities, charter cities, counties, and defined special districts, parks, and libraries to report to the Department of Public Health and an inventory of the local government's accessible public restrooms that are available to the general population.

The Department of Public Health will utilize this data to compile a comprehensive report for the Legislature detailing the availability of public restrooms by county with a deadline of March 1, 2025. The Legislature shall then utilize the information from the report when evaluating the public's access to reliable public restrooms. Members, as you know, we just have come out of a pandemic, and through that pandemic, many of our public facilities, including community centers, parks, closed their restrooms.

Sadly, many of those have not reopened. And the question asks, none of us like to talk about it, but where do you go? There have been more and more articles written from New York to Los Angeles to San Diego about when we have thousands of people who are homeless. Where do they go? All we have to do is take a walk around the capitol in the morning, which I do usually about 6:30, and it's evident. But it's not only about people experiencing homelessness. It's also about seniors. It's about toddlers.

It's about workers who drive for our economy. Where do they stop when there are no public restrooms? One of the articles that was referenced is that many people in cities have to, in essence, pull over to a coffee shop and buy a coffee in order to go. So this bill will be a report. It will be reported back to the Legislature, but it does not mandate that a city or county would have to build bathrooms. It's just an assessment of what is opened and in essence, sometimes we have public facilities, but we know they're locked. Anyhow, because so many of us can mistakenly take our access to bathrooms for granted, it's easy to forget that California only banned the use of pay toilets in 1974. We've actually looked at that concept because, in other countries, we know that that is something that people do pay for. We certainly are not including that here, but it is something to think about in the future.

While public entities maintain lists of public transit stations, libraries and parks, and polling places, the collection of data on public restrooms has been overlooked. By gathering this vital information from local governments, our state can develop evidence-based policies regarding public restrooms supported by empirical data and information. With me today to provide subject expert testimony in support of this bill is Mr. Ron Hochbaum, an issue area expert and assistant clinical professor of law at the University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

The floor is yours.

Thank you. Esteemed members of the Governance and Finance Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide expert testimony to you today. My name is Ron Hochbaum. I'm an assistant clinical professor of law at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, where I direct the Homeless Advocacy Clinic and teach poverty law.

In 2020, I published an article entitled Bathrooms as a Homeless Rights Issue in which I conclude that the ability to use a bathroom is central to our conception of human dignity and is precisely why bathroom access has been part of every civil rights movement of the last century. In the article, I draw a distinction between the availability and accessibility of public bathrooms. Because an available bathroom, i.e. one that is physically present, is of limited utility if it is not accessible. One barrier to public bathroom access is that their locations are frequently unknown even to the cities and counties that operate them. Local governments maintain centralized lists and maps of parks, schools, public transit lines, polling places, and libraries, but bathrooms are noticeably absent.

AB 1297 would rectify that and be an important first step towards promoting bathroom accessibility for people who do not work in offices such as delivery drivers and gig economy workers. People who must access bathrooms with increased frequency, including seniors, pregnant women, families with children and people with particular medical conditions and communities that both historically and presently are denied bathroom access, such as communities of color, women, people living with disabilities, transgender people, and people experiencing homelessness. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that given the wave of transphobic legislation sweeping the nation at the moment, AB 1297 is an opportunity for our state to reaffirm its commitment to being a welcoming, healthy, and safe space for our trans brothers, sisters, and siblings. AB 1297 has the potential to stimulate the economy, promote public health, protect workers, and correct legacies of discrimination. At its core, it is good governance, and I strongly encourage you to support its passage. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to testify in support? Testify in support in room 1200? Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition here in room 1200? Seeing none, we'll move to the teleconference. Please come forward if you'd like to. Maybe in between.

Not in opposition, but yeah. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Eduardo Lopez, policy fellow with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, here in support of AB 1297. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else?

Afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities. Not oppose the bill, just want to express some concerns. We have worked out with the author's office on the most recent iteration of amendments, which we appreciate. Our issue is, while we are in alignment with the author's goals here, we just feel that as this is a statewide issue, the states should be providing an inventory as well. Those bathrooms, restrooms should be included in those inventories and made accessible. So that's our only issue. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much. Anyone else for or against or concerned? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and see if there's anybody queued up that would like to testify in support or in opposition.

Thank you very much. Again, ladies and gentlemen, please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero. Give us just a moment here. I can go first to line 77. One second here. They went private here. Just one moment. You can go to line 166.

Hello, this is Noah Bartelt with ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Couple more here. Give me just a moment. Go to line 167.

Yes, this is Carla Heune, and I oppose 1297.

Go to line 77.

Yes, this is Linda Rich. I oppose this bill. I think it's redundant. The speaker mentioned that.

And we do have one in queue. Give me just a moment here.

Yeah, this is Linda with Placer County. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

And none further in queue.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the committee for comments. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I really like this bill a lot. I think it's so important, and I'm so glad that you've brought it forward. I'm an enthusiastic yes on this. I want to just comment that I appreciate your lead witness saying that having a bathroom is central to human dignity. I think everything he said, I completely agree with, and it's something we really need to focus on more.

And I just want to give the example of in my experience in local government, I cut the ribbon as the chair of the transportation agency in 2021 on 11 miles of new transit, 13 stops without one bathroom. And this project was over, it was $1.1 billion of public money that we put into building for multiple decades, planning, building, cutting the ribbon on new transit stops with no bathrooms.

And when this became evident to me and others and we started to ask about this, the answer from the transit agency was, well, it's just too expensive. The fact that that is an acceptable answer for public money to build public facilities to serve the public that don't have bathrooms is just a really top problem. And I think the reality also of the homeless situation, as is talked about in this report and also by the lead witness, is that it's a downward spiral and a race to the bottom because more homeless people need bathrooms.

And so we don't want to build as many bathrooms and then bathrooms and Starbucks are closed, and all of that is going in the wrong direction. So I'm enthusiastic about this bill and then the next generations of bills where we can start to require that public money, when it's building public funds, builds bathrooms, because, as was said, it's central to human dignity, and it's really important that we don't allow that kind of thing to happen again. Thank you.

Senator Skinner.

Appreciate my colleague from Encinitas' great comments. I would have made the same, but I would just make this one as stating the obvious, that by virtue of our either not building public restrooms or closing them, which is the other trend, and eliminating them, we are forcing people to urinate and defecate outside, which is a public health problem. So regardless of the reason that someone may need to use a restroom or what the category of person, by not providing it, we are in essence saying, it's okay, we're going to put our blinders on, and that is not appropriate. So I appreciate your bill, and I will move it. If I didn't realize did you already move it? No, I will move it.

We do have a motion. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. And I agree with my colleagues, important bathrooms are. And this bill does not create bathrooms. It just creates an inventory of what we have. And the concerns of my colleagues can be addressed, and we try to address the issues of what it costs to build public anything. And that's something that we really have to look at because if we want those things and to be proliferating in our society, we have to make them so that the public can actually afford them.

So I had a couple of cities. One of them just needed to put in two bathrooms, $1.8 million per bathroom and a mountain of paperwork and a mountain of all of the great things that come with building something in California with it. And so we have to look at that if we really want to ensure that cities can build facilities that everybody can use. And the ones that get closed, they're getting closed because people go in there and they abuse them. And you can't go to the bathroom in a broken toilet. Those are all issues as to why. It's not just because people are trying to be mean. It's because they become non-functional very quickly and so costly that nobody can keep up with those costs. Anyway, back to your bill. You're just doing the inventory. But one of my concerns is that a lot of times we'll do an inventory and then it goes on to these mandates for more and more and more facilities. They're out there, but a lot of them become non-functional very rapidly. Anyway, I just wanted to shed a little bit of more light on some of the comments that I've heard. Thank you.

Senator Dahle, we're on file item number 14. It's the report on the public restrooms. If you'd like to make a comment, that's fine. If not, we'll allow you to conclude.

Yes, I appreciate the comments by the members, and I agree there's always a concern of more mandates. And I think one of the things eventually is to look at models where you can do these at a very low cost. I know that I've been up to Seattle. They actually have a small platform with portable so they can't get knocked off the platform. It's a single stall with a little hand washing station outside. So there are ways to alleviate some of these issues, and I've heard them, too, that you want public access. But then if there's concerns of literally people moving into a bathroom or dangerous situations, then of course those are all to be considered.

But I think starting the conversation as we are is here. And I do agree with the opposition. We wanted to include the state, but as you know, amendments become our best friends when we're here. So we are willing to take it slow and steady in order to at least open up the conversation as this is my third time. And to be honest, I'll just say, who wants to be the leader of the bathroom conversation? Not me necessarily, but I've seen it so often that I think we have to address it. With that, I ask for your vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

Senators, Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto. Seyarto, no. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle. Dahle, no. Durazo. Glazer. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Three to two.

We'll put that on call.

Thank you, Member, and wait for the absent Members. I believe we have one Bill left that is file item number two, AB 480 by Assembly Member Ting and Senator Skinner will be presenting that Bill. Want to let the Members of the committee know that this is our last Bill.

After this, we'll be lifting the call on all of the files and we'll need Members to be down here so that we can wrap up and finish our hearing today. Senator Skinner on 480.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members, pleased to present or. Well, I'm actually presenting this Bill on behalf of Assembly Member Ting and wanted to express from him that he is appreciative of the work with the committee and is accepting the following committee amends reestablishing the definition of surplus land and striking section 5422 1.5 requiring local agency to include indemnification clause as part of disposition and development development agreement to be eligible for new large site exemption. Requiring documented evidence for a project to be eligible for a legal restriction exemption, striking requirement that local agencies use form prescribed by HCD for notices of disposition and striking requirement that local agency notify HCD about disposition of exempt surplus land.

So those are the amendments and I think I've correctly articulated the ones that were worked out with the committee. So the purpose of the Bill is to address that public land is an important asset for our goal to achieve more affordable housing and very often it is unused public land that can allow us to build affordable housing. So AB 480 clarifies and strengthens the Surplus Land Act to close enforcement loopholes to create a process for local governments to dispose of certain types of exempt surplus land and to define more of the eligible lands that fall under that to create a new exemption for mixed use development projects that are totaling less than ten acres and a variety of other specifics.

But I will allow my witnesses to present and it's Michael Rossen from the Public Interest Law Project and J. T. Herrick Mark from Nonprofit housing. Welcome.

Thank you, Senator Skinner, for presenting for Assembly Member Ting. I'm Michael Rosen. I'm the Director of litigation and advocacy at the Public Interest Law Project, co sponsor of the Bill, along with nonprofit housing association and San Diego housing federation and East Bay housing organizations who also worked very hard on this Bill.

We also mostly, all of us worked on AB 1486. So we've been working on the SLA for a long time. We appreciate the constructive discussion with the Committee we support the amendments to the Bill that are coming out of this committee.

And I want to just focus on one thing that I think is a very important part of this Bill. AB 480 would resolve a long standing uncertainty with the SLA and that's what do you do when a large project is being disposed of, such as military based conversion or multi use development or a master plan community? Those are hundreds, sometimes thousands of acres. And going through the SLA was a confusing process.

How do you do that piece by piece? Well, this Bill has an amendment in it that sets out a system for approving and through the SLA exemption system, approving large projects like that. And it will ensure that at least 25% of the housing developed in that development will be affordable. But it will also allow for a synchronized development system so that both commercial, non residential development and residential housing will be developed in sync, so you don't lose the housing as the development goes forward.

This Bill, I think, will also stop the so called parade of bills that you've been seeing to amend the SLA because it deals with one of the big loopholes that was in the Bill, really loopholes, just something that wasn't adequately addressed. And that's the large project issue. So I urge you to support it and I thank you for the committee amendments. JT.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning, committee Members. My name is JT. Harrismack. I am with the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, a co sponsor of AB 480. We've been closely involved with the Surplus Land Act in the past because of how important of a tool this is to our Members in addressing California's housing crisis. It's an effective way to give affordable housing developers a good chance at building affordable housing on public land, ensuring that that public land continues to serve a public good.

Since January 2021, HCD has tracked surplus land transactions and found that in the over 200 standard SLA dispositions, the local jurisdiction pursued the option of housing 11% of the time, and 89% of the time they pursued other opportunities with that land. It's resulted in over 8000 housing units, and nearly 6000 of those are affordable. So we appreciate your support of the Surplus Land Act through AB 480.

Immensely grateful to the committee for their work on the amendments, and we're very proud to support AB 480. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership and Support. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to testify in support? Stephen Ramos with Public Advocates in support. Thank you. Is there anyone else is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Please come forward.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also here today on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, respectfully with an opposed unless amended position. I want to start by acknowledging that I understand significant amendments will be coming out of this committee as to AB 480.

We'll review those amendments as soon as they're available and want to sincerely thank Assembly member Ting, his staff, Linda Rios, and the Committee staff, and the Chair for working with us to address some of our concerns outlined in our opposed unless amended letter. Special districts are a key part of the State's solution to the affordable housing crisis. We provide essential local services such as water, wastewater, sanitation, power and health care that support affordable housing.

What local governments need with the SLA is clear and established, efficient rules of the road. We have expressed concerns that several elements of AB 480 interfered with that proposed changes to section 54221 B. One, as to the definition of surplus land would have interfered with agency's prerogatives to declare property not necessary for agency's use.

We understand that that will be reversed in a committee amendment. Proposed changes in the proposed addition of section 5422 1.5 D would have required notices to HCD of disposals of all exempt surplus land, creating an inefficient and bureaucratic process. Again, we understand that that will be reversed through striking proposed section 54221.5.

AB 480 proposes to add fair market value as a basis of calculating penalties for violating the SLA, while generally speaking, adding fair market value as a component is not a concern, we just think that increasing penalties without adding a requirement that the violation be a substantial violation is a concern. We also have some specific concerns related to changes to existing exempt surplus land categories and the addition of a new exempt surplus land category, and the penalties that are imported, at least under the imprint version of the Bill, to that proposed exempt surplus land category. But again, recognizing that many of my comments may be superseded by amendments coming out of the committee, I'll just say that I'm happy to review the amendments when they're available.

And again, thank the Committee and Assembly Member Ting for working with us. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam chair and committee Members. My name is Gurbax Sahota.

I'm the President and CEO of the California Association for Local Economic Development. We represent hundreds and hundreds of economic developers that are creating economic opportunity in your communities. We are strongly opposed to the Bill as it is in print, but understand that several of the amendments perhaps will address some of our concerns.

Our biggest issue being that the way the act is currently being implemented impacts hundreds of projects across the state. And I suspect that many of you have examples of those in your communities. The districts that you serve, whether it's the Carnegie Library, new development in your community, mixed Development Airport, just a laundry list of challenges with lack of clarity.

We appreciate the Committee's leadership and the Committee staff's analysis, and we concur with that analysis, but really grateful to Assembly Member Ting for hearing those concerns. We look forward to seeing what the amendments look like in print and continuing to work on this important policy issue. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Chris Lee, on behalf of the urban counties of California, also with an opposed unless amended position. Look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair and Members, Sarah Bridge on behalf of the association of California Healthcare districts here with a respectful opposed unless amended position. We'd align our comments with my colleague from CSDA. Thank you. Thank you. Patrick Welch, California municipal utilities association, also want to align our comments with CSDA and thank the author and his staff and the committee staff as well.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and ask moderator if you could tee up any individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition.

David Jones on behalf of the city of San Marcos in opposition. Thank you. Line 170. Is Linda from Kasser County opposed to the way this is written? Maybe if it's amended a lot more, I would accept it. Thank you very much.

Line 175. Hi. Dante golden here. On behalf of San Diego Housing federation, we support those who finance to build affordable housing and a proud sponsor of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Currently, none further in queue. Thank you very much.

Certainly. Thank you. Please press 1 - 0 at this time. If so, again, it's 1 - 0. We can go to line 35. Good afternoon, madam chair Members. Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the city of Ontario in opposition. Thank you. Line 43. Hello. Cassandra Smith, on behalf of the cities of Corona and Santa Rosa in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Line 100. Again, this line 100 is open.

We're going to bring the matter back to the committee for comments, questions, concerns, Senator Seyarto, and if I could advise the committee Members that we're probably going to start voting on our bills. So if they could wrap up whatever they're doing and get down to committee, that would be great. Senator.

All right, so I'm going to ask a question that's probably for the author, but maybe you've talked to him enough that you know what is the intent of the Bill? Is it to alleviate or address a lot of the concerns that cities have had, or is it an effort to close loopholes that the author may see cities are trying to get around in order to get around the act itself?

I think it is the intent is exactly what the lead witness, Mr. Rossen from public interest law project expressed, which, if you want to come to the Mic, again, indifference to the Senator, if you'd like to come and answer that question, that would be fine. Apologies. I should have said through the chair.

Yes, that's fine. I also note that Linda Rios from Senator Assembly person Ting's office is also here to answer some of these questions. Well, unfortunately, staff can't be they can't do questions. So I do appreciate that. But the responsibility falls on you if you can do it. If not, then I'm sure Senator Skinner can.

As part of what I said earlier, the purpose of the Bill was to deal with issues that had not been adequately dealt with in the Surplus Land Act. It was not to expand it or change it. It already applied to large sites and it just needed to have a system for affecting what happens when you do a master plan community deal with military bases.

It provided Clarification and it tried to do that. So that where Clarification was provided, it was provided consistently with the way the SLA already applies to other dispositions. I don't know if that answer your question.

Well, it helps a little tiny bit because in regards to most of the issues that local agencies and local governments have is they're not huge projects. We've had some of these come to us. There are many. I mean, not many, but there are.

Some larger projects that came because I was on housing and the Assembly and they brought those to us. But a lot of the exemptions you're seeing are like the one requests that we are seeing are the one like the one earlier today. And it's kind of a common sense thing.