Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. I would like to remind the public that for this and future hearings, testimony will be in person as we no longer use a moderated telephone service. We also accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. I would like to also go over our ground rules for appropriate behavior and conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years.

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

If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn that the continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol building. I will also document on the record an individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily resist the hearing and if the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance from the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. And please have patience with the pounding. I'm so sorry.

We have 12 items on the agenda this afternoon. Two of these items are proposed for consent. Item number one, AB 354 from Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen. Item 10, AB 1736, from Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. In addition, one item has been pulled from today's agenda. Item five, AB 1090, by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. We will hear all bills in the order shown on our agenda unless otherwise noted. We will take up two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition.

These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should only state their name, their organization, and the position on the Bill. Only. We do not have a quorum yet, so we will operate as a Subcommittee until we're able to establish a quorum. Let's see here. So, the only one I see here is good Assemblymember Mccarthy's item is here. So, we'll do item number four, AB 1052 and welcome.

District, which I know you are familiar with. I'll start over. This is a district Bill, AB 1052. It's related to the area just here in Sacramento county, our regional transit District. This would amend the rules to who can vote on a measure placed before the voters to allow a partial or narrowed area to be covered. Essentially, the area that's going to benefit from those transit improvements. This wouldn't change the vote threshold, it would still be the traditional vote threshold.

We have done this same concept for other areas throughout the state. Respectfully ask for your Ivote. With me today is a representative from RT. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. My name is Greg Fishman. I'm the Senior community Relations Officer for Sacramento Regional Transit Sac RT is the largest regional transit provider in the Capital Region, operating over 82 bus routes, 43 miles of light rail serving 53 stations, a micro transit service, Ada Paratransit services all within about 440 square mile service territory throughout Sacramento County, including the cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova. We're celebrating our 50th anniversary of services here.

We believe strongly that convenient and inexpensive public transit benefits everybody in our community, whether they ride transit or not. However, we also recognize that some transit projects may provide more benefit to a specific portion of the community or one area than others. Consequently, we would like to have the authority to ask only some of our community that we serve to approve a ballot measure to pay for projects in those specific jurisdictions.

AB 1052 would give Sac RT the authority to place a measure on the ballot that would affect only the jurisdictions specified in that measure. For example, it would allow us to place the measure on the ballot for the City of Sacramento alone or the cities of Sacramento and Elk Grove. Some other jurisdictions, including in neighboring Placer County, already have this authority. We're already required to make public a plan for how any new revenue would be spent.

However, currently any such measure must cover our entire service territory, and we'd like to be able to change that. This measure is intended to give SAC RT another tool to use to help us navigate an uncertain financial future and to ensure equity in voting for Sac RT measures by only asking those affected to vote. We may never need to use this tool, but we would like to have it available if needed, and we're asking for an aye vote.

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

Good afternoon. I am Sarah Garrity, representing Sacramento Metropolitan Advocates for railroad and transit. We are here in support of AB 1052.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Frank Turan and I'm representing Sacramento Metro Advocates for rail and transit, and we are here in support of AB 1052.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jeremiah Roar. I represent the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, Saba and the cycling community support this Bill and RT in General.

Thank you.

Max Perry, on behalf of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, also in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Click, Executive Director, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, here in support of 1052.

Thank you. Anyone else?

My name is Ralph Proper. I'm with the Environmental Council of Sacramento, and I wish to express our support as well.

Great. Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? This is AB 1052. Seeing none, is there any questions of the Committee? Okay, since we don't have a quorum, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you for your consideration. I did not note earlier. Thank the Committee. We will accept the Committee suggested amendments. Public transportation is so critical for our communities. For some people, it's a luxury, but for so many people in our community, it's a necessity. They need it to get to school, to work, to see a family member, to go shopping, as well as we know.

If we want to address our environmental goals, whether they're fighting climate change or improving air quality, getting people out of their cars is a critical piece of the puzzle as well. And this helps us expand public transit right here in the capital city. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And when the time is appropriate, thank you for taking the amendments. And at that time, when we have our vote, I will be supporting your this today. Thank you very much, Mr. Mccarty. Thank you very much for your up. Kevin. Excuse me. I didn't see these other questions. I apologize.

No, no, that's all right. I understand this methodology has been used in other jurisdictions. It seems to me that it would be for the businesses in the district that where that additional sales tax is being levied. Isn't that adverse to the businesses? I mean, is it confusing to people who are shopping and. Well, this is the line where the sales tax is higher than over here. I mean, does it have that kind of an impact?

Well, I know that you come from a city down in Orange County where there's a lot of jurisdictions that have different sales tax for the whole jurisdiction. Yeah, but their average consumers don't go shop and get a TV driving to another county.

You don't know that.

The average voters. Research shows they don't. So we're not concerned. I know that this is an option for this county, like we've given to Placer county and San Diego, county, but I don't think that's much of a detriment we're looking at here. Thank you.

And restaurants don't mind.

We haven't heard from any business groups concerned. I know that our local Chamber of Commerce, they like what we're doing here in this proposal.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, we'll go on with file number two, AB 440, Assemblymember Wicks. Yeah, we're just bringing them in and out today. Begin when you're comfortable.

Perfect timing. Hello, Madam Chair, members, staff. Last year, I carried AB 2334, which changed the definition of maximum density, or base density, to in bonus density law, to make clear that the maximum density is calculated based on the greatest density in any of the underlying zoning documents. The zoning ordinance, the land use element of the general plan, or a specific plan.

When amending the definition, we left in a sentence that says that if there is inconsistency between the land use element of the general plan and a specific plan, the greater density of the two prevails. This has created confusion because it is more specific than the prior sentence. This bill corrects that confusion. Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Support or your staff? Oh.

She's here for technical questions, should we have any.

Are there any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Are there any questions to the committee? You sure? Anyone else? Okay. Since we don't have a quorum yet, we will entertain a motion at that time. Would you like to close?

When you have a quorum, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And I'm pleased to support your bill today. And so when we get everyone here, do pass to the floor.

Thank you.

You're welcome. If you find anyone out there, Buffy, show them the door.

You.

So. Thank you, Chairwoman and Members. First, let me begin by just mentioning that I am accepting the Committee amendments. Members, AB 1259 is a district Bill that only applies to the City of Merced. The Bill paves the way for the City of Merced to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, or also known as EFID, to Fund projects which will further the city's affordable housing goals and are in alignment with the state's priorities, such as transit oriented development and respective rail projects.

The EIFD will also Fund necessary infrastructure improvements to support a growing UC Merced campus. Without this Bill, the City of Merced is unable to form an EIFD due to not receiving a finding of completion from the Department of Finance when dissolving its former redevelopment agency. The issues around dissolving Mercedes former RDA have been resolved since then, and so today I have here to testify in support of this bill Frank Quintero, who is a deputy city manager for the City of Merced. Very simple Bill.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. We seek your support on this Bill. And as Assemblymember Soria stated, we are really seeking this to provide affordable housing opportunities, enhance our transit-oriented development opportunities also, and also, we are seeking to move forward with pro housing designation. We need this Bill to move forward, especially in growing our city. So, with that being said, we request an aye vote, please.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Ben Trippo with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Are there any questions of the Committee? If you don't mind, we're going to establish Quorum so that we can work on getting a Bill out. Okay.

Secretary Aguilar Curry. Here. Aguilar Curry? Present. Dixon? Dixon. Present. Berner. Berner. Present Pacheco. Pacheco. Present Ramos. Ramos. Present. Rivas. Waldron. Wilson.

Thank you very much. We have a quorum. Is there any questions? We have a motion by Assembly Member Berner. A second by Assembly Member Pacheco. Did you have any questions? All right. Would you like to close?

I would just ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Assuming Member, for accepting the Committee amendments and the things that you're doing to help support your City of Merced with another tool to meet their housing needs. And I'll be voting aye today. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguilar-Curry? Aye. Aguilar-Curry, aye. Dixon? Dixon, no. Burner? Burner, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos. aye. 4 - 1.

Right now, we have 4 - 1, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Thank you. While we have everyone here, let's do the consent calendar motion. Assembly Member Burner and a second by Assembly Member Ramos.

Aguilar-Curry? Aye. Aguilar-Curry. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. Aye. Burner, aye. Berner. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye Ramos. Ramos. Aye Rivas, Waldron, Wilson.

Okay, consent is out 5 - 0 again. Anyone that is going to be presenting in local government Committee, if you could head our way, we would like some authors. Why don't we take up a couple of the bills that we've had previously? We have AB440 Wicks, and we need a motion.

Second.

We have a motion from Assemblymember Ramos. A second from Assemblymember Pacheco. Motion is do pass to the floor. AB 440 Wicks.

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

Okay, bill is out five, zero. We have one other bill we can identify that's here. AB 1052, McCarty. Need a motion. We have a motion by Pacheco. Excuse me, let's do this. One motion by Pacheco and a second by Boerner.

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

The bill is at five, one, and that's that, right? Okay, well, we see a couple of authors that have appeared, so we will go with file number three, Assemblymember Pellerin, AB 939.

A couple of witnesses. Well, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

You also known as Valley Water, the agency is responsible for regional water supply, groundwater management, flood protection and environmental stewardship of streams for the 2 million people of Santa Clara County. The Bill updates antiquated limits on bond issuance that force Valley water to finance some of the largest water supply and flood protection projects in the state using costly contractual borrowing rather than issuing water system revenue bonds or General obligation bonds.

AB 939 fixes Valley Water's Revenue bond authority, allowing the agency to issue revenue bonds based on the net revenue of their water system, which is favored by bond markets and is in the interest of water ratepayers. The Bill also authorizes valley water to propose General obligation bonds for the countywide ballot. Proposition 13 and its two thirds voter approval threshold would still apply, thereby letting a supermajority of voters decide if water supply and flood protection projects should be paid through General obligation bonds.

These bond reforms will save millions of dollars in unnecessary financing costs just by giving Valley water the same bond authority that other regional agencies, water agencies like the Metropolitan Water District, already have. The Bill also would remove a sunset date on current law allowing up to 15 compensable meetings days per month for the Valley Water Board if the board Members don't work the days, they don't get the per diem. However, the record shows board Members do work 15 days and often many more.

Again, AB 939 only maintains the per diem at its current level. I have two witnesses to offer brief testimony. We have Antonio Alfaro is the government relations manager for Valley Water and Doug Brown is the bond counsel for valley Water.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members of the Committee, Antonio Alfaro representing Valley Water. AB 939 removes a sunset date on the existing provisions that allows 15 compensable days meetings per month. Each of our seven elected board Members represents approximately 275,000 people and make multibillion dollar water supply and flood protection infrastructure decisions. These are big jobs and unlike other boards, our directors are not mayors, county supervisors or City Council Members with compensation from other governmental roles.

By keeping the 15 compensable days per month in current law, more people can afford to serve on our board, including people of color and those from disadvantaged communities. Valley Water is on the front lines of climate change adaptation and is responsible for Silicon Valley's defense against extended drought, groundwater overdraft, intensified urban flooding and sea level rise. AB 939 provides new options to finance these projects and will help Valley water keep our water rates more affordable for low income communities and others. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Doug Brown. I'm public finance attorney with the law firm of straddling Yoka, Carlson Roth, and we are here on behalf of Valley Water. The financing provisions of Santa Clara Valley Water Districts act have not been revised significantly in many decades.

While the District act does currently allow the issuance of revenue bonds, those revenue bonds debt service has to be paid prior to the district paying its own O and M. This provision is not favored by the current market because it actually would require debt service to be paid prior to continuing to operate the system and providing water to the General public. AB 939 would permit Valley water to issue revenue bonds consistent with current bond market practices and the other borrowings of the agency.

The Bill also addresses the agency's desire for General obligation bonds. Many regional water agencies have statutory authority to issue General obligation bonds consistent with Prop 13. Like other regional water agencies, Valley Water should be able to propose General obligation bonds to their voters and with two thirds approval, move forward with those General obligation bonds. Finally, the District act authorizes has a short term debt cap of just $8 million. This is very small for an agency with annual revenues of $500 million.

The Bill would authorize Valley water to issue short term debt in amounts consistent with the other short term debt statutes that are generally applicable to public agencies in California. We respectfully request an I vote on AB 939 and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Anyone else in support? Don't be shy. Okay, well, it looks like there's no one more. Anyone else? And any questions of the Committee? Okay, we have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson and second by Assembly Member Pacheco. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully urge your I vote on this district Bill to reduce financing costs for our local water infrastructure projects. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll be in support of your Bill today. With that, and we do pass to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. Aye. Burner. Aye. Berner. Aye. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Rivis. Waldron. Wilson. Aye.

Wilson Aye. 6-0 bills out. 6-0. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to move to item nine. Mr. Mainchain was here for a while, so if you don't mind. I know you won't take too much time, Mr. Mainchain. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arambula.

With that subtle hint. I will go quick. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, AB 1684 seeks to give local governments more tools to combat the illicit cannabis market. Despite the legalization of cannabis in 2016, we have not seen reduction in illegal and unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. In fact, the illegal market still makes up approximately 70% to 80% of the cannabis industry in California. Unlicensed activity poses significant danger to the public, to the environment, and to the viability of the legal marketplace.

AB 1684 allows for increased administrative enforcement against unlicensed commercial cannabis activities at the local level and creates opportunities for greater cooperation between local jurisdictions and the Office of the AG. With me to testify in support is Deputy Attorney General Ethan Turner.

Welcome.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm Ethan Turner with the Cannabis Control Section at the Attorney General's Office. The AG has long supported a legal, well-regulated commercial cannabis industry because it ensures legal, safe cannabis to California adults, and because it seeks to right the inequities that were caused by the war on drugs. And Attorney General Bonta is pleased to support AB 1684 and its goal to provide local jurisdictions with additional tools to undertake cannabis enforcement. And thanks Assembly Member Maienschein for authoring this important measure.

I am a former city attorney and a former deputy county counsel, and was personally involved in drafting and implementing regulatory enforcement for cannabis, and also for regulating legal commercial cannabis activities. And from that experience, I know that this measure will assist local jurisdictions in implementing greater enforcement against illegal cannabis operations, because currently many local jurisdictions rely heavily on criminal enforcement and on costly and time-consuming civil enforcement.

And this Bill would encourage them to undertake administrative enforcement through code compliance efforts and through nuisance abatement efforts, which are much more cost effective and can be employed at a much greater scale. And we believe that if this Bill passes, local jurisdictions will continue to expand their use of those tools, and it will discourage and deter illegal activity and support the legal market by enhanced enforcement.

And finally, AB 1684 supports local jurisdictions that need state help because the principal statute governing civil enforcement against unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, business and professions, Code Two 600:38, has threshold requirements for local jurisdictions, and there's only 11 of the 58 counties that can undertake these kinds of civil actions on their own behalf, and a small handful of cities that can.

And this Bill would encourage local jurisdictions to refer these kind of cases and potential cases to the AG's office so that this powerful tool can be used around the state. And for these reasons, and on behalf of AG Banta, I respectfully request your aye vote.

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

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Amy Jenkins here on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and Canacraft in very strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Are there any questions of the Committee? Yes, this Assembly Member Dixon.

I don't really have so much of a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. There have been a number of bills being proposed to do the same thing. I think you have the most appropriate proposed solution, and I appreciated the Deputy Attorney General's comments, because I really think this is going to make a difference at the local level. So thank you for this Bill. I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other? All right, we have a motion by Assembly Member Burner, a second by Assembly Member Pacheco. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. And I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Aguilar-Curry. Aye. Aguilar-Curry. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. Aye. Burner. Burner. Aye. Pacheco. Pancheco. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Rivas. Rivas. Aye. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson I. Seven Zeros out 7-0.

I really appreciate this Bill because we need to ensure that the legal cannabis market is not hampered by illegal operators, and I really appreciated your spot on testimony. You've been there, done that, and you saw the benefits of this Bill as well. And that means a lot to those of us that are making decisions up here. The motion is do pass to the floor. Secretary, please call the role.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members.

All right, looks like item number seven, AB 1275, Assemblymember Arambula. Okay, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner, second by Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, and thank you to the committee staff for the recommended amendments, which I accept. AB 1275 provides a narrowly tailored modification to the Brown Act for statewide student run community college organizations to improve student safety, privacy, and accessibility. In an age where teleconferencing has become increasingly common, many aspects of our current laws need updating to adjust the challenges that our students face.

Current law poses a major accessibility concern for students who are disabled or who are unable to participate in the meetings in person. AB 1275 would allow for students to participate in their student run legislative bodies via teleconferencing when they may not be able to otherwise. Additionally, provisions of the Brown Act require individuals who teleconference from home in these meetings to publicly release their private addresses.

We must protect the safety of students who are disabled, parents, undocumented students, survivors of domestic violence, or any other member of an underserved community who are particularly vulnerable to having their home locations publicly disclosed. The Brown Act has been a landmark policy that's ensured open access to government participation. But it is time to update law to reflect modern times and new challenges faced by our vulnerable students. AB 1275 will restore student safety, privacy, and accessibility for the students who participate in student run community college organizations.

Testifying in support of AB 1275 is Zachariah Wooden, vice president of legislative affairs at the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, and Stephanie Goldman, associate director of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.

Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, committee members. Again, my name is Zachariah Wooden, the vice president of legislative affairs with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, the official voice of 1.8 million community college students across the state. With such a large student population, it comes with an implicit understanding that we serve a diverse body of students in our state, especially when we serve the top 100% of students in our state.

As Assemblymember Arambula mentioned, this includes adult learners, student parents, working students, dual enrolled students, undocumented students, first generation students, disabled students, justice involved students, so many different populations seeking to better their lives and the lives of their dependents through the many available paths on campus. It's the reflection of the community in the college that makes our colleges so responsive as community centers, not just for education, but for work and life as well. Which brings me to why we need AB 1275.

Earlier this year, for example, AB 1736 came into law expanding the ability of noncredit and disabled students to serve in their student body associations. It was an affirmation from the Legislature that just as the community college system transformed to serve students in person, hybrid, and virtually so too, should student governments meet this new standard of accessibility.

AB 1275, while respecting the spirit of the Brown Act in openness and transparency to the public, is in that same vein of belief that student run legislative bodies, which fall under the Brown Act, made up of fundamentally underresourced and often already underrepresented students, should continue to champion the cause of accessibility for our community colleges.

The bill, as currently amended, not only would improve the accessibility of Brown Act meetings for student run legislative bodies, but also addresses concerns by requiring a single physical quorum, must be at a location listed on the agenda in order to utilize the teleconferencing provisions of this bill. We are not asking for a wild deviation from the Brown Act with this bill.

Instead, we are asking this committee, in the name of civic engagement and empowerment of the next generation of leaders, in the name of accessibility for our students facing the most barriers to otherwise experiencing the opportunity to lead to support and vote in favor of this bill. Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee, Stephanie Goldman. I'm actually going to be reading testimony on behalf of Heather Brandt, who is the student chancellor of the Associated Students at City College of San Francisco who could not attend today. Prior to the pandemic, as a working student, parent, mother of three, caregiver for my mother who has Alzheimer's, and someone with little outside support, I could not participate in student governance.

While COVID shut down much of the world, it opened up a whole host of opportunities for students like me. The governor's COVID state of emergency provisions of the Brown Act allowed me to participate in meetings without needing to find and pay for care. I went from never being able to engage in the decision making process to becoming the first student parent president of the district's largest campus and subsequently the first student parent to serve as the student chancellor of the district wide associated student executive council in just three years.

Since the state of emergency was lifted, I, like many other community college students, have struggled to participate. Public locations are difficult because it requires finding care for my children and when I participate in meetings from my home, I'm extremely uncomfortable posting my address publicly for various safety reasons. This is the case for a lot of community college students, especially our unhoused students, our students with disabilities, and student parents like me who don't always have the financial meetings to attend meetings.

The Brown Act is about transparency, and as state leaders, transparency is important to us. But current law makes student leadership roles inaccessible, exclusive and inequitable, as they are currently more exclusionary than transparent. College and student organizations are most effective when they are diverse, equitable, inclusive and accessible, thus reflecting the entire student body, not just housed or able bodied students who are child or caretaker free or financially well resourced. I urge you to support AB 275 so that our community college students can have equal access to student leadership roles at both the local level and in statewide representation. Thank you.

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

Would you like to come to the table?

I would appreciate that. Yes, thank you.

Please do so, both of you may.

Thank you. As a professor, I appreciate a podium. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Nicole Vargas. I'm an associate professor of digital journalism at San Diego City College. But today I'm here as the state president for faculty for the Journalism Association of Community Colleges. We are here in opposition of AB 1275.

Founded in 1955, JACC supports community college newsrooms, students, and their faculty. Sitting here now before you is a first for our organization. We actually typically do not weigh in on legislative matters, but this particular bill is of major concern to us. JACC has three primary elements of concern with the bill, even after the amendments were offered. Thank you for the consideration as well.

First, we are committed to educational equity for all of our students in ensuring that they get the best hands on, practical experience they can and that we can provide them in preparation for careers. That includes the students serving in student government, as well as the student journalists who cover them. Second, we value access, transparency, and service to constituents and community over the convenience of those serving.

And this bill, we're worried, will create a potential barrier for students who the organizations are charged with representing and who may not have reliable WiFi access, may rely on in person access, and that does absolutely include economically disadvantaged students or students with disabilities. Unhoused, unsheltered, undocumented student parents, and others. And for them, digital doesn't always equal access. And we want to ensure that flexibility should favor and prioritize the students being served.

And finally, we're here as representatives of a coalition, the Coalition of Journalism Organizations and others focused on protecting the Brown Act. We stand as fierce defenders of access and transparency, all of those that are part of this important law, and respectfully hope that you will see that as well with your vote today. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Susana Serrano. I am the student president of JAC, Journalism Association of Community Colleges, as well as one of a journalism student at San Diego City College. I represent students in the 116 community colleges here in California, and there is a concern that AB 1275 is being done to accommodate Calbright College, which is a college that is fully online and not accredited.

And we all believe this, that we shouldn't be changing the law for one campus when the students of all the campuses I represent believe so strongly in what it does for our communities in terms of access and transparency. And I guess adding to what also my colleague/professor has said, coming from a low-income community, I am fully aware of that there is not enough internet access or even computers at some homes.

And we did a coverage, a very community coverage for a fellowship about two years ago where it showed that over 60% of people in my community, I come from National City, California, in San Diego County, do not have access to this. And while there was people who probably did have access to take their online classes and all of that, there was a lot of students who were attending.

We're trying to go to, for example, fast food restaurants who did have WiFi access, and our libraries were closed, which was much easier for them to use back then, but in 2020, it wasn't open for anyone. So now that we're able to come in person to show up, we don't believe that it's fully necessary to be online when there is a lot of people in my situation and in my communities who do not have that type of access.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other witnesses in support of the bill? Any witnesses in opposition of the bill? Others in opposition of the bill? I think I need to make a comment right now. So just to make it clear, we are not amending this bill, and there is a policy consideration that we put in the analysis, but it's not a committee amendment, and I'm hoping you'll be continuing to work on it. But I have some things to say at my close. Is there any other questions?

I think I'm not understanding. I reread the bill. I reread the committee analysis. I'm not understanding your opposition to this. So can you summarize in clear language what your opposition is?

Number one most important thing is we want to keep the Brown Act as intact as it is. That is something that we as journalists and as journalism educators believe is very important. So that is the most important thing that we bring. And the organizations that we've been working with, California Newspaper, News Publishers Association, excuse me, First Amendment Coalition, some of these other organizations, that's the primary concern. Also, as we make changes to, if we make changes at one level, at the community college level, our concern is, are we giving the students the ability to prepare adequately for once they are outside of the community college? And that's something that we take very seriously. In our newsrooms for instance, we don't change the rules because we're in an educational environment. We want to train students with the most practical experience, and that's a very big part of what we're doing.

What part of the bill do you think undermines any of that?

I think when we say that we have to have, what we want to be able to do is keep in person access for people who want to attend the meetings. So we're thinking about whether it be students who are served by these boards, but also journalists who are covering these organizations. All of that's very important, being able to have access and that transparency is very important.

Could the author respond to those concerns? Because I don't know. I'm looking at my fellow members of the committee and I just don't know if I'm understanding correctly interpretation of this bill.

Accessibility goes both ways. And what we heard from the students was that it was inaccessible, that for young mothers, they struggled to find the childcare to be able to show. And so they were asking for the teleconferencing and listening to the students. They really were stating that the requirements to come in person made it inaccessible for some of them.

Now, what we've done with the amendments that have been talked about was to narrow the bill and to ensure that there was a quorum of a majority of people present at one place, that there would be a posted agenda at that place, just as we do with other Brown Act. It simply allowed for some flexibility for students in the minority of the total who could teleconference in to better allow them to participate, as I think their voices are needed, I think it's important that they are allowed to have a voice and a seat at the table and a vote and the requirement for them to come in person. The flexibilities that we're giving during the pandemic, we're trying to make sure that we take the best out of that moving forward.

I thank you for clarifying that because I think those of you who have been on the committee for a while have heard this before. Right after I got elected to the Assembly, I had to participate in one of my final council meetings. And if you stay at a hotel, they can't post your room number and the agenda to that room number 72 hours beforehand because you don't know what room you have. So I was fortunate that the League of Cities opened up their doors.

They usually have a security lock on their door. They had to have somebody stay downstairs to see if anybody could come in. We had the Brown Act, and there are many good provisions of Brown Act. You don't want collusion behind the scenes. You want transparency. You want all these things. Absolutely. But we have to update these rules for the 21st century. Sorry, I'm in the wrong century. 21st century, and we have to provide that access.

And I had a son that chose to keep Zoom schooling even after the school opened up. And if he wasn't allowed to participate remotely, that's not just something we learned through the pandemic to manage a crisis. It's something we learned that had an advantage. I remember when I was advocating for a stop sign near my kids school, so many parents couldn't come, they couldn't participate in council meetings. They started at six. People had young kids, babies. They were feeding their families. Some families had to work two jobs. Those people couldn't necessarily participate. But once you opened up with reasonable guardrails to protect transparency and accountability, when you open it up, you're actually increasing access.

So I am glad I made the motion of the author's bill, and I would hope the opposition, if there's a reasonable place to work with the opposition, I hope the opposition would see that, as the author said, it goes two ways, and we want to increase accessibility to any form of government that is covered by the Brown Act to the people of California.

Are there any other questions?

I'll just make a comment. It's an important discussion on a broader level because I think on this committee and on the Judiciary Committee where I also sit, there have been other discussions about loosening up the requirements of the Brown Act because of the Zoom meeting and the teleconferencing and the video. I have concerns about that. I mean, we've all experienced public meetings during the COVID crisis that were held on Zoom. And yes, it did facilitate that interaction and to continue to keep the public meetings going forward.

But it's my own opinion, it was not the same as being in person. Obviously, we couldn't be in person. Sometimes the quality of the digital transmission was problematic and technology always improves. I think part of the arguments here about journalism and the press, I just think the access issue and serving in a public capacity requires in person participation. I mean, just like this committee, we're not allowing it to be zoomed. And I think ultimately it becomes a slippery slope.

So it's a student-run organization, and it's wonderful that the young people are involved in their student government. I applaud them and I hope that continues to set a standard for the rest of their life to be involved. But I believe that also part of the argument that not everybody has a computer in lower-income communities until we have established widespread broadband in the state. So I want to preserve and protect the Brown Act.

I know it's not perfect, perhaps, but it does establish transparency and accountability, and responsibility of public officials. In fact, during that period of time when I personally traveled out of town during a public meeting and I've had to post my address in Brooklyn, New York because I was at my daughter's home and I had to be there and open the door and I mean, I did it. I mean, that's just a part of being a public person and you do those things. I will be voting no. I think if any committee, the Legislature wants to amend the Brown Act, I think it really requires some serious thought process of the implications on a go-forward basis. Thank you, Chair.

Any other comments? Yes, Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. And I apologize to those who have to the back. For my part on this, I think that flexibility given with the Brown Act and where we are really as a nation or the whole entire world in terms of how we do business and conduct our meetings is a good thing. And even in my own city, we moved to, of course, digital only during the pandemic. And then event gradually went to a hybrid. And that hybrid happened to work really well. And this is what this looks like to me.

I always take exception on certain bills as it relates to the Brown Act when you're not required to tell where someone is. I do recognize the safety concerns that people have now. And so I've adjusted slightly. I do think it's important to know what city the person who is participating is in. And only because I've seen that abused where people one have not lived in their community, or you can have a student who's doing online, they're in a whole nother state being a part of the community college and taking a class, and you don't know that somebody who's sitting in Texas and never in California and never in the community college district are participating. And so that's not a good thing. And so I'll support this bill, but keep that in mind.

And I say that on everybody's bill related to the Brown act, that it is important that you know where the person who's supposed to be representing you are. You don't have to know their exact address but having some general location is very helpful. And I think that's part of representative government. And I think to your point, to my colleague here, that's part of being a public servant. You're in the public eye and people do, you are held accountable to different people. So the standards are different.

And yes, as a common person who I'm not held accountable by anybody. Nobody has to know where I'm at. But once you say, I'm going to represent you. It really is important to know where you are, within reason, balancing that we do live in a different world, and it's not the days of old, and safety is a concern and some level of privacy for those that are around you.

Because just because I go to my like, as was noted, to your daughter's house, your daughter didn't sign up to have the public address listed. So it might be helpful to know that you're in Brooklyn, but maybe not at 555 Winter Street in Brooklyn. And I know that's a little bit bigger than the community college district, but just keeping that in mind, you do note you don't have to be known, just that they're participating teleconference, and that should be something that you consider in the future that we don't go too far. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner, a second by Assemblymember Ramos. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to appreciate the students who wanted to be able to serve their community, enjoyed the flexibilities during the pandemic, and brought this proposal to my office. It's important for us as representatives to listen to our constituents and community members and to be moved by them. And so I'm appreciative of the opportunity to present this bill today and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Arambula. So let's remind everyone, this is pretty narrowly defined to the community college student organizations, okay? But it's no secret that I have reservations about changing the Brown Act in a way that relaxes the requirements for governing body members to show up in person with their constituents to do the important work they do as representatives of the people.

However, because of the in-person quorum requirement your bill contains, as well as the sunset date, I'm prepared to support it today. And I appreciate your willingness to incorporate the provisions in your bill. But I also want to encourage you to continue refining the language to ensure that your bill continues to include more clearly the additional protections for the public that are outlined in the provisions of AB 2449 and elsewhere in the Brown Act.

I have a hard time with these, and it's really important this face to face, because I think that's our job. And even as a small organization, they have constituents that want to meet them as well. So I think we have a fine line here. I think you really need to work on this some more as you move forward. So today, the motion is do pass to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Dixon. No. Dixon, no. Boerner. Aye. Boerner, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos, aye. Robert Rivas. Aye. Robert Rivas, aye. Waldron. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. You have six, one.

Vote's six, one. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Okay. All right. Now we'll go to item number eight, Assemblymember Garcia, AB 1385.

Madam Chair and colleagues, thank you for the motion and the second, I will be brief. Oftentimes you hear this is a simple bill and that it's a district bill and I'll keep it to that. That's exactly what we have here.

It has to do with transportation, local empowerment of our community, and allowing the voters to make a decision to enhance infrastructure projects. With me today is America's favorite mayor, to Becky G, pop star icon, Mayor Steve Hernandez and an RCTC Executive Director and mayor to testify.

I already got his autograph.

Well, good afternoon, honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. Again, Steve Hernandez.

I am here today as the Chairman of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the Mayor of Coachella, and also Commissioner to Riverside County Transportation Commission. I'm proud to support and testify on behalf of AB 1385 by Assembly Member Garcia. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments is a joint power authority comprised of nine cities in the Coachella Valley, the City of Blythe and four tribal nations, and the County of Riverside.

In partnership with Riverside County Transportation Commission and its Member agency, CVAG also plans and builds regional projects of significance for residents and visitors of the Coachella Valley. Local Measure A funds, which is a half cent sales tax to support transportation projects in Riverside County, helps to Fund critical regional projects. For instance, CVAG is currently building CV Link, a 40 miles plus multimodal pathway for bicyclists, pedestrians, Low speed electric vehicles.

This project will enable healthier lifestyles per economic innovation and make the Coachella Valley a more sustainable and appealing place to live, work and play for many generations of residents and visitors. Other projects include local road grade separations and active transportation projects that are critical for efficient movement of people and goods, public safety, and for meeting the climate goals of the State of California.

In the Coachella Valley, regional transportation projects are identified as part of CVAG's Transportation Priority Project Prioritization Study, which ranks regional projects based on various criterias such as accidents, mobility, vehicle miles traveled reduction and roadway safety conditions to prioritize investments. Despite having a measure a Fund, the cost of projects identified in the TPPS far outweighs available funding for the CoachelLA Valley Loan the TPPS identified 3.1 billion in transportation projects, which is significantly more than available funds from local, state and federal funding sources.

As such, Riverside County regional needs in addition, we need more tools to help meet the growing needs of transportation infrastructure, particularly for our underserved communities. According to the recent census, the valley's nine cities grew by 6.8% to a total of about 370,000 residents in the CoachelLA Valley in the City of CoachelLA alone, where the medium household income is $440,000. But that's partly because we have eight people living in a home.

We have successfully built Pueblo Viejo Villas, a 105 unit affordable housing development with support from the State Info Infrastructure Grant. However, additional resources are needed for the city to meet high quality transit and other multimodal requirements to unlock housing dollars. By providing RCTC the administrative authority to adapt to modified funding, AB 1385 will enable voters to consider RCTC's ability to make robust transportation investments to meet the economic growth of the region.

In effect, this Bill would help facilitate increase multimodal options, reduce emission, and help facilitate transit orientated communities and affordable housing, especially within our Low income communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Anne Mayer, the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, also known as RCTC, and it is my pleasure to be here before you today.

Thank you as well to Assembly Member Garcia for his strong support for transportation solutions in Riverside County and for authoring this Bill. Riverside County is the fourth most populous county in California and the 10th most populous in the United States, and our population is expected to continue to expand, reaching 3 million residents by 2048, up from two and a half million in 2022.

Our region's economic opportunities, open space, quality of life and relatively affordable housing is why Riverside County was tasked with building more than 167,000 housing units by 2029. With this in mind, we have to prepare our transportation infrastructure for this growth. As a Selfhelp county, the residents have twice elected to tax themselves to invest in transportation infrastructure.

As the administrator of Measure A, our half cent sales tax, voter approved, RCTC has kept its promises to our residents for nearly 35 years by using tax revenue efficiently and effectively to support projects, programs and services approved by the voters. Measure A has generated thousands of jobs and provided more than $4.1 billion for all modes of transportation and helped us leverage state and federal fundings to meet the needs of our communities.

AB 1385 changes RCTC's Sales tax authority from giving Riverside County voters the option to increase local sales tax in the future. It is important to note that the passage of the Bill does not change existing Measure A and it still would require a vote of the Riverside County residents to approve a new sales tax measure in the future.

The Commission represented by elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and all 28 cities in Riverside County voted to sponsor this Bill and the transportation industry is also supportive. Thank you very much for your time today. I'm available for any questions you have and I hope you join us in supporting this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support? Welcome.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Mark Watts, representing Transportation California Coalition of the Construction Industry and Allied Labor. We are a strong support and appreciate your aye vote today.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition, the 25 other 24 other agencies that have the half cent sales tax, including Orange County, that voted for this twice, but also for the District Council of Iron Workers.

Men and women who work and live in Riverside County who want the opportunity not only to go to job and go to a job, but also to have safe, reliable infrastructure of all modes. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Keanu Valentine on behalf of United Contractors in support. Thank you.

Madam Chairman, Members, good afternoon. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support of the Bill, are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none.

Are there any questions of the Committee? He's giving you a chance. Okay. Would you like to close. Oh, excuse me. We do have a motion by Assembly Member Wilson, seconded by Assembly Member Ramos. Would you like to close?

Just thank you for the audience and respectfully ask for aye vote.

Great. Thank you for presenting today. And I'll be voting aye for your Bill. The motion is do pass to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Agrielle Curry. Agriel Curry. I. Dixon. Dixon. No. Burner. Burner. Not voting. Pacheco. Pacheco. I? Ramos. Ramos. I Rebus. Rebus. I. Waldron. Wilson. Wilson. I. Bill is at 51. It's out. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You're very welcome. Okay, looks like it's Ms. Wilson's turn. All right, we have file number 11. AB 233. Assemblymember Wilson. And she will follow by her second Bill. After that. Ready for me? Feel free. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and fellow Members of the Committee. This is a Bill that I am very much excited about.

I am pleased to present AB 233, which most of my colleagues heard about even before the language was put into print. This will provide permissive language to give local governments the option to implement an ordinance that would require horse riders to clean up horse manure that is deposited on streets and sidewalks and really that is based on what the community side. Now, currently, there's no law that requires people in the State of California to clean up after their horses.

And it's a problem in cities where there can be a lot of horse traffic among buildings, businesses and public property. For any manure that is left on public or private property, the cost of cleanup falls on the local government or local business owner. Additionally, if manure removal is neglected, there are potential runoff issues that can lead to nutrients entering groundwater or surface water sources.

When a local city is working to implement an ordinance requiring equestrian riders to clean up the manure left behind by horses or public property, such as on a sidewalk or street, they are currently blocked by the state laws that regulate horses within the vehicle code. Now, as a formal leader, local leader, I understand how important it is to have local control because local leaders have the opportunity to implement laws that will benefit their cities.

And AB 233 allows local control at this current state, the only local control that cities have as it relates to horses is to ban them. No one wants to ban a horse. Horses are beautiful. In our particular city, when we wanted to discuss the impact of horse manure on our sidewalks, in particularly on what we would call a safe route to school, we couldn't even talk about it. We couldn't even discuss it because we had nourished jurisdiction.

So really what this Bill does, it allows city to have that discussion. It allows counties to have that discussion. And if they determine through that discussion that it's not necessary, then no changes to the law. If they determine through that discussion that something is necessary because of the public process that we have. We were talking about the Brown act earlier, transparency. Because of the public process that we have, then everyone can weigh on what's best for that local, city or county.

So really what this Bill does is it gives permissive language to allow local agencies to be able to have these discussions if it is an issue in their community and include all stakeholders in that discussion. With that I have no witnesses here with me today, so I'm open to any questions, but I do appreciate an aye vote. Okay, well, just in case, if somebody's lurking out here, there's a lurker.

Thank you, chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley, and on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, we are in support. There you have it. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Yes, please. I am in support of your creative proposed Bill but tell me something. Obviously, I don't know the answer. So, your local city, a local city could not amend their municipal code to prohibit or to require horse owners to pick up after themselves. So, this became an issue in our city.

And what it is is that horses really are original fast transportation. Now we have, like BART, we have fast vehicles, but even all of our vehicles, we measure their speed and their ability by horsepower. So horses were the original transportation. So our original vehicle code was based on horses, and horses are included on that, which is state law. So when we tried to deal with this as a city, we found that the only thing we can do was ban horses.

And no one wanted to do that because we were abutting a county, the island. So we had horses coming through on our trails all the time and nobody wanted to ban. And we thought it was the most beautiful thing in the world. And we love seeing the horses, but we realized we couldn't do anything about the law. I wasn't Assembly Member at the time. I was just vice mayor and talked to my Assembly Member about it.

And Assembly Member didn't want to bring the Bill, of course, like not that big a deal. He only had one person complaining about it. And then literally my first town hall after being elected over a break, someone brought up, you're an Assembly Member now, so you can do your own Bill on this, because people in my community are very familiar with it. It's still an issue in our city. And I was like, you're right. And so that's why we're here today.

And that's why I said I didn't want to put specifically any other language but allowing the discussion to happen. And it just be permissive because at that point when, because of the issue, we went to agendaize it and realized we were prohibited because we had no jurisdiction over horses. Just like you don't have jurisdiction that much over cars. You can't tell a car a lot of things. A lot of these things is handled at the state.

And so the same thing with horses, because horses are our original cars. Thank you for that explanation. Well, good for you. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments? All right, we need a motion. OK, we have a motion. Senator Burner Second by Assembly Member Dixon. Would you like to close? I thank you all for the motion. And second, and respectfully ask for your. I vote. Thank you for presenting the Bill.

My office is delighted that this Bill is going to be behind us now because the phones have been ringing off the hooks. I was voting for your Bill today, and I appreciate bringing forward. I know the issues. We live in the country, too. And so, with that, the motion is do pass to the floor. Secretary, please call the role Aguilar-Curry. Aguilar-Curry. Curry. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. Aye. Berner. Berner. Aye. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Revis Waldron. Wilson. Joyfully aye. That's six zero. Okay.

Bill is out six - zero. And item file number 12. AB 92. Wilson. Just seeing if my. All right. Hello again today. As you can see, my theme is about waste. This is a different kind. We noted. We did note that. I'm pleased to present to you AB 592. Thank you. This would authorize counties to adopt an ordinance to regulate the transport of solid waste by non-franchise solid waste haulers on public roads in unincorporated areas.

Illegal dumping occurs when solid waste is discarded or placed on any property, either public or private, without proper authorization, and it has been a growing problem in California for many years. Violators assume there is little risk because it is economically feasible. Law enforcement has no probable cause to pull over. Non franchise haulers and district attorneys throughout California report having difficulty in prosecuting cases.

Materials that are illegally dumped range from household items such as mattresses, furniture and large appliances to other, more commercial business items such as tires, hazardous waste, rock, concrete, asphalt and dirt. Illegal dumping disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities because that's often where the illegal dumping happens, affecting their public safety, environmental quality and quality of life. Now, as a result, by helping communities curb illegal dumping, this Bill would not only increase equity, but improve quality of life.

With me today is Christian Lucas, the Assistant Director of Contra Costa County's Environmental Health Division. Welcome, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Again, my name is Christian Lucas. As was stated, I am the Assistant Director of Environmental Health and represent the County of Contra Costa's Health Services Department. As a longtime resident and public servant of the county, I've witnessed an increase in illegal dumping throughout the years, contributing to community blight, often disproportionately affecting the county's most disadvantaged communities, such as Baypoint, North Richmond and many others.

Unfortunately, it seems that illegal dumping only leads to more illegal dumping. In 2017, to help combat the aforementioned issue, the county created a program to regulate the collection and transport of solid waste by nonfranchised haulers in the unincorporated area. The county's Health Services Department facilitates the nonfranchised Solid Waste Hauler Program, which requires haulers to obtain a permit, display a decal, and pay regulatory fees to cover the cost of program implementation.

However, under current county ordinance, only solid waste haulers who collect their loads in the unincorporated areas of the county are regulated. Under this program, the ordinance regulates both collection and transport, as opposed to only transport, so that the county can collect regulatory fees to pay for the program and avoid running afoul of a provision in the vehicle code that states a permit fee cannot be charged for the privilege of using public roadways.

Thus, programmatic challenges exist, allowing both permitted and nonpermitted haulers to operate within the unincorporated area because the location of collection is a requirement in the current ordinance and the origin of a solid waste load is not readily ascertainable.

By allowing a county to regulate the mere transport of solid waste by non-franchised solid waste haulers, requiring a permit and payment of fees to operate on roads in the unincorporated area, this Bill has the potential to greatly expand the reach of the existing program in Contra Costa County by diminishing the programmatic challenges that currently exist.

If non franchised solid waste tolerance must obtain and display evidence of a permit simply to transport solid waste on roadways of unincorporated areas of a county, the ambiguity surrounding who is versus who is not doing so lawfully is removed. It also leads to a much simpler and easier to understand message for haulers.

Passage of this Bill would help to shore up the gains already made with the county's own local legislation to combat the ever present reality of illegal dumping by ensuring that solid waste is not contributing to environmental decline in local neighborhoods, the public right of way, and countless other locations throughout our communities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support? Welcome, Priscilla. Kudos here on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none.

Are there any questions from the Committee? I have no questions from. We have a motion by Assemblymember Berner. A second is what I need. A second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Would you like to close? I thank my witness and the support and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you once again, Assembly Member, for bringing the Bill forward. I'm pleased to support it today. The motion is do passed to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aguilar-Curry. Aye. Aguilar-Curry. Aye. Dixon. Dixon.

Aye. Burner. Berner. Aye. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Rivas Revis. Aye. Waldron. Wilson. Aye. Wilson. Aye. 70 bills out. 70. All right, we have one Bill on call. That would be item number, I believe, two AB 440, Excuse me? AB 1259. And that's Soria, the vote currently is 41. Secretary 1259. Do pass as amended to the floor. Reevis, Reevis Aye, Waldron, Wilson. Wilson Aye. 61. Okay. Bills out. 61.

All other bills are out, but if there's anybody like to add on, please let me know. Okay? Want to add on? We'll do them now. Hold on. Okay. Consent Calendar. Reevis, Reevis, Aye, Waldron, Wilson. Wilson. Aye. Consents out. 70 AB 440. Do pass the floor. The vote is 60. Revis, Reevis. Aye, Waldron. Bills out. 70 AB 1052 is do passes. Amend to the floor. The vote is 51. Revis, Reevis. Aye, 61 Bill is out. 61 AB 1275 was do pass to the floor.

The vote is 6 - 1. Waldron stays. 6 - 1 stays. 6 - 1 AB 1385 is a do pass to the floor. The vote is 5 - 1. Waldron stays the same. 6 - 1. Excuse me, that was 5- 1, 5 -1. Pardon me. I don't vote AB223 Wilson. Do pass to the floor. Revis. Revis, aye, Waldron. Paul's out 70. We're done and we'll keep the roll open for a minute. Just sure these are all add ons? Yeah. Okay. We'll finish. We'll do add ons. Consent Calendar. Final vote.

80 AB440. Waldron, Waldron. No final vote 6 - 2. AB939. Waldron. Waldro, aye fills out 80 AB 1052. Waldron. Waldron. No. Bills out. 62 AB 1259. Waldron. Waldron. Aye. Bills out. 71 AB 1275. Waldron. No Waldron. No bills out. 62 AB 1385. Waldron. Waldron. No bills out. 52 AB 1684. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Bills out, 80 AB. 592. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Bills out 80. And that is the station of the local government Committee meeting. Thank you. Meetings adjourned.