Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee and local government will come to order. Good morning to everyone. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. We welcome the public in person, and we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building.

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. This is our first hearing for Assembly bills. We will have four additional hearings on June 5, June 11, June 26, and July 3. I'm not coming on July 4. You might be coming.

This is July 3. We expect all of those hearings to go fairly long. They don't have to, but they might, as the Committee expects to be referred over 80 Assembly bills. So get used to seeing this inside of our hearing room. We have 11 bills on today's agenda with five bills on consent.

The following five bills are on consent. Item three, AB 1852, by Assemblymember Pacheco. Item five, AB 1957, by Assemblymember Wilson. Item seven, AB 2213 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. Item nine, AB 2748 by Assemblymember Flora. And item 11, AB 3277, by the Committee on Local Government. Do we have. Yes, we do.

Yeah. No quorum?

No quorum. But you can start as a Subcommitee. Oh, okay. We don't have a quorum yet, so we'll operate as a Subcommitee. So now we're going to hear from our first author, Assembly Member Wallace. Wallace. Okay. Okay. Assemblymember Wallace, good morning, welcome.

Well, good morning. Chair Durazo and Members of the Committee, I have before you AB 491, which will enhance local enforcement mechanisms for unlicensed cannabis activities. Since California voters made recreational cannabis legal in 2016 with Proposition 64, the. The Legislature, as well as state and local jurisdictions, have struggled to drive unlawful operators out of the cannabis market.

Rural communities have been inundated with unlicensed and unregulated cannabis activity that's undermining the health and safety of residents and our regulated cannabis businesses. Counties and cities often use code enforcement when dealing with unlicensed cannabis activities.

However, the existing penalty statutes were primarily designed for ordinary zoning and business violations, and these processes are not always well suited for addressing large scale, illegal commercial cannabis operations.

AB 491 will bolster local enforcement efforts and enable jurisdictions to address this illegal activity more efficiently by, first, providing for streamlined judicial review for minor administrative penalties, those under $25,000 imposed for unpermitted cannabis activities.

Second, allowing efficient collection of final penalty order after Administration and or judicial review is complete in the same manner presently used for pesticide enforcement fines. Third, by clarifying that priority of real property have the same priority as a judgment lien.

I'm happy to accept the thoughtful Committee amendments to limit the new collection mechanism to cannabis housing and fire hazard penalties, and clarifying language to ensure judicial review has been exhausted before enforcement action is taken. With that, I'd like to introduce my witness, Sarah Dukett, Policy Advocate for RCRC, the sponsor of AB 491.

Good morning. Good morning. Chairmember Sarah Duke, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Strong support of AB 491. Like Assemblymember Wallis mentioned, rural communities particularly are dealing with a lot of unregulated cannabis businesses, which is impacting both our legal market and the public health and safety. And we've been really utilizing code enforcement.

We don't want to criminalize this. We want to be able to use our civil remedies to address the situation. But code enforcement really wasn't built for these type of violations. The process is not really well suited for these large scale operations. So AB 491 aims to do a few things.

First, require for minor administrative penalties imposed for unpermitted cannabis activities, that the administrative appeals process within the local ordinance is the exclusive means of judicial review. This would streamline the process as compared to civil litigation. Given that this is not a standard code violation, it's lucrative.

It's clear if someone is licensed or even in the process of being licensed, and there's some pretty big public health concerns, both for the community Members impacted, but also the product that is going to Californians and the rest of the country that may be harmful, and particularly in urban areas.

We also see typically a high caseload at your courts, which can further delay the process and allow them to really bump out the time periods, finish growing, trimming manufacturing, and move that product before we can actually address the issue.

Second, the bill mirrors what we currently use for pesticide enforcement fines and allows the jurisdiction to file an order for a money judgment filed with the Superior Court Clerk for unpaid fines rather than bring a civil case.

We appreciate the Committee's thoughtful amendments to limit this new authority to just cannabis, state housing law, and fire hazards, and that this authority, except in the case of cannabis, can be used after all appeal avenues have been exhausted.

And third, the bill clarifies that during the collections process that once a copy of the notice of lien is recorded in the county recorder's office, the lien has the same force, effect and priority as a judgment lien, which we believe is consistent with existing case law.

This bill before you is a narrowly tailored approach to streamline and provide much needed tools to address unlicensed cannabis. And for these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Lead witnesses support. Okay, come on.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. We are a proud cosponsor of the measure. And while Ms. Dukett referenced rural communities, we do have portions of our county that this would provide some much needed tools to address code enforcement challenges that we're facing at the local level. We appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you

Madam Chair Members. Julian Avoris, on behalf of the California Cities, in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to stop right here. Just a moment, Mister Assemblymember, so we can take home.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Okay. Are there any others here to support AB 491? Okay, any, anyone here opposed to AB 491? Okay, seeing none. Members, anybody wishing to comment or questions? No, seeing none.

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Seyarto, closing remarks.

Thank you. Again, respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. The motion is do pass as amended to judiciary.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We'll leave it open. Okay.

I'll move consent. She wants to move consent.

Oh, the consent calendar. Okay. Motion to approve the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open. All right. Next is AB 761. Assembly Member Friedman. Good morning. Assembly Member.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and Members. Under current law, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, EIFDs, may only collect tax increment for up to 45 years from the date of the first bond issuance.

However, because of the relatively slow appreciation and property values, in many cases, it may take 10 to 15 years before revenues are sufficient to borrow against or begin paying down debt.

AB 761 extends the period of the available tax increment from 45 years to 75 years to align the term with that of a federal transportation infrastructure finance and innovation, which is a TIFIA loan, which is administered by the US Department of Transportation.

At its core, what this bill does is it aligns our state programs with the federal program so that our cities and municipalities can get the federal loan doing this would allow the EIFD, a joint powers authority, being a transit agency or individual Member jurisdictions, to take advantage of the flexible terms of a federal TIFIA loan, which may fund up to 49% of a project's costs and use future tax increment to repay the loan.

LA Metro and Los Angeles area municipalities are exploring the utilization of these loans for a number of local passenger rail projects.

LA Metro is in the middle of one of the largest regional transit expansion programs in the nation, and although most projects are fueled by a combination of local, countywide sales tax and state or federal grants, rising projects costs are limiting the pace of that expansion, meaning more support from local cities and counties will be needed to keep the projects and climate goals on schedule.

AB 761 is narrowly tailored to apply to districts formed after January 1, 2025 for the purpose of financing and constructing passenger rail projects through a federal tifia loan. It also ensures that 45 years after the issuance of the loan, all tax increment will be used for the repayment of that loan.

It gives local jurisdictions a tool to Fund much needed transit projects that will support local and state transportation greenhouse gas reduction goals with me today to speak and support is John Erickson, the Mayor of the great City of West Hollywood, and Justin Orenstein, Transportation and Legislative affairs deputy for LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.

And with that, I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Who will go first?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Justin Orenstein and I'm the Transportation Deputy for LA County Supervisor and LA Metro Board Director Lindsay Horvath. The supervisor was called away on county business, but asked me to extend her tremendous appreciation to Assemblymember Friedman for authoring AB 761.

To you, Madam Chair, for seeing the importance of this bill and for your continued work to help realize the transit and greenhouse gas reduction goals of the LA region and to each of the Members of this Committee for their consideration.

LA Metro, the County of Los Angeles, in cities like LA and West Hollywood, have been engaged in efforts to expand rail service for years. Unfortunately, these jurisdictions are facing challenges not unlike those of agencies around the state.

Since 2016, we've seen an 83% increase in the price of steel, a 50% increase in the price of concrete, a 37% increase in the price of machinery and equipment. This, coupled with a lull in sales tax growth, the FTA's new contingency requirements, and a tight construction labor market are all significantly increasing project costs.

Metro is doing what it can to identify efficiencies and alter project scopes. Where possible, but macroeconomic pressures remain. We took a close look at ways local jurisdictions could help finance regional transportation projects, and one of those tools is enhanced infrastructure financing districts.

And while EIFDs can generate significant revenues, the majority of those revenues come after the first 15 years. This is problematic for large transit projects, which can't acquire financing until sufficient revenues exist. However, federal TIFIA loans can be structured in ways that traditional financing cannot.

This includes no payments until five years after project completion, interest only payments, and longer financing terms. While this Bill might seem to make a minor technical change, it provides for significant potential outcomes.

By making this change to extend the period of eifds from 45 to 75 years for passenger rail projects, we could see lower annual payments, increased financing capacity, and EIFDs as more viable tools for jurisdictions pursuing critical transit investments. Thank you for your consideration and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mister Erickson.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Senate Local Government Committee for the opportunity to testify in front of you on behalf of the City of West Hollywood. My name is John Erickson and I am the Mayor of that great city. West Hollywood has pursued rail service for at least 20 years.

This effort, which has been championed by former and current council members, is a high priority for the City of West Hollywood.

In 2023, as our work with Metro and LA County chair supervisor Lindsey Horvath intensified, we all agreed that the creation of an EIFD would be needed to extend the K line in the northern direction to service West Hollywood and adjacent areas of central Los Angeles, including Mid City, Miracle Mile and Hollywood, as well as many job centers and destinations along the way.

We are extremely grateful to Assembly Member Laura Friedman, who from the beginning understood the need to have an effective financing tool to make a real priority a reality. As Justin Orenstein just explained, the ability for our cities to count on an extended EIFD means the ability to engage in a project of this scale.

Many of you are familiar with the City of West Hollywood, a city that is celebrating its 40th birthday later this year.

One year older than me, the city has come of age in bringing metro rail to the sea is one of our highest priorities and the next actual vital step in our city's history, AB 761 will deepen the positive impacts transit oriented developments are having in Los Angeles as metro and communities like West Hollywood continue to develop inclusionary affordable housing projects, creating much needed units of housing for all income levels.

We've already taken steps to ensure rail and weho expands on this tradition with first and last mile planning to identify bike and pedestrian improvements needed to expand the reach of future stations and to identify ways that we're also developing TOD overlays to concentrate on increased housing capacity and particularly affordable housing around existing and future transit stops.

AB 761 is about bringing equality to an unequal landscape. It's about improving the quality of lives of working Angelenos who today must go farther and farther from their jobs to be able to find affordable housing that is not always decent or safe. Therefore, in closing, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who wishes to. Oh, no.

Speak in support.

Speak in support. Right. But these are the me toos. Please come up.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lange here today on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in support.

Good morning, John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support of Miss Friedman's Bill.

Thank you.

Chair Members. Nick Rome, on behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the City of West Hollywood, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone here in opposition to AB 761? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it here to. Any questions? Senator? Senators. Okay, comments?

While I recognize the need for us to work on this infrastructure, one of the things that was mentioned by one of your witnesses is the increasing cost of everything. And, you know, one of my concerns is that we are increasing the cost of everything.

And a lot of that is self generated from some of the policies that we make here. And so then when we go out to finance the increased cost, it just kind of feeds itself. And all these increased costs are being felt now by our taxpayers in a grand way. They're not tolerating it well.

And at some point, we have to look at our policies and figure out how we can decrease the cost of some of these projects so that we can actually use some of the money that we already generate to pay that.

So, you know, that being said, I'm very familiar with the area over there in West Hollywood and the traffic and the need for rail and things like that. And I would like them to get these type of projects in.

But I'm very, also very wary about our own penchant from the state level to just keep driving costs up. And then we try to figure out how we're going to pay for it all.

And so those are my concerns about this approach to getting, you know, just financing more and more and more, and then we don't, you know, wind up, a lot of times we don't even wind up with the project that we thought we were going to finance.

So, you know, I'm probably going to lay off today, but, you know, we'll try to keep an open mind if we can start working on the other things. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember, did you want to respond?

I don't disagree. Cost containment is very important, and certainly when it comes to infrastructure, finding ways to stretch that dollar, it's something that all the agencies and the state needs to take seriously.

I would, you know, because you are on the fence, I would remind that this is allowing them to take advantage of a federal loan by changing the dates. It's a tool. They don't have to take the loan if they don't want to, but it gives our cities more flexibility. So I would ask for an aye vote on that basis.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, I do have a technical.

So I know, obviously, I'm assuming the Federal Government allows the 30 year extension. We have the opportunity for 45 years now, and this is going to allow another 30 years, correct? Yeah, that's correct. The IIJA provided for this. Right.

Do your projects, do they have to, do you have to go the full 30 years, or is it, or is it, can you look at the cost analysis of the job, of the money that you need and say, go an extra 15 or extra 10 to complete the project without having to put that burden on the ratepayers?

Yeah, it would be the latter, obviously. Project construction timelines or project construction timelines. But in terms of the term of the loan, that would be subject to negotiation with the FTA.

Okay, I just have one question. What happens to the district if, God forbid, the loan is not negotiated and agreed upon?

You mean if they can't disagree with the Federal Government about the loan and they don't take the loan, they would have to find their financing elsewhere.

Okay.

So the district would continue to exist. You'd just find a different source, you mean? Well, this is project based. So there. So West Hollywood is asking for this because they feel that they need this financing. So I would ask West Hollywood, do you have other sources of funding at this point?

We are looking at all sources of financial funding for this project. We've significantly invested in looking at our own bond rating, which is extremely high and very well received by our bond and our creditors. But we are also one of our cities on the west side of Los Angeles right now.

That is the only city with an actual budget surplus. So we have good looks when it comes to our actual creditors and bond rates to have a really high bond rating. And we've had that for, I think, nearly almost our entire city's inception.

Good. Anything else you want to add to that?

I have a lengthy response that I don't necessarily need to belabor the Committee, but I'm happy to read it if you like.

Okay, I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Oh, yes. I appreciate the questions and the concerns, and this is just giving another tool, West Hollywood and other cities, should they choose to use it. So I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Bill is moved, votes.

The motion is to pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Three to zero.

Thank you very much. We'll leave it open. Thank you all--thank you for coming to Sacramento. Bye. Okay, moving on to AB 1855. Assembly Member Arambula. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Students should be able to participate in their student body associations without threat, to safety, privacy, or accessibility.

Assembly Bill 1855 will modernize the Brown Act for community college student body associations. During the Covid-19 public health emergency, audio and video teleconferencing was successfully used to increase participation and to protect the health and safety of our civil servants and the public at large.

However, current provisions of the Brown Act require members of a legislative body to participate in meetings of the legislative body by teleconferencing for no more than 20 percent of the regular meetings. This is a barrier for students who are disabled, who have limited access to transportation, or who are otherwise unable to participate in the meetings in person.

AB 1855 protects public access and allows for an eligible legislative body of a student organization to use alternate teleconferencing provisions if approved by the Board of Trustees and approved by the eligible body. It is time for us to update the act to reflect modern times and new challenges faced by our students.

Testifying in support is Deborah Knowles, Student Leadership Advisor for Sacramento City College, and Cole Militano, Region One Regional Affairs Director for the Student Senate of California Community Colleges.

Who would like to--who would like to begin?

She wants me to go first. I'm going to go first. Chair Durazo and Honorable Members of the Senate Local Government Committee, I stand before you today as the President of the Associated Students at Butte Community College and the Legislative Affairs Director for Region One of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.

I'm here to advocate for the passage of AB 1855, a pivotal piece of legislation introduced by Assembly Member Arambula, aimed at modernizing the Ralph M. Brown Act for the benefit of community college student body associations across California, especially in the rural expanses of District One, which I represent. Our district, with its vast rural landscapes, present unique challenges in accessibility and participation in student government activities. Transportation limitations, incarceration, and the pressing demands of student life often prevent valuable voices from being heard.

AB 1855 seeks to address these barriers head-on by allowing for increased use of teleconferencing in student government meetings, ensuring that every student, irrespective of their physical location or personal circumstances, can engage and contribute. The essence of AB 1855 lies in the recognition of evolving needs of our student populations.

The Covid-19 Pandemic has unequivocally demonstrated the efficacy and necessity of teleconferencing in maintaining continuity of governance and participation, has allowed us to reach out and include those who, due to disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, or transportation issues, would otherwise be excluded from the democratic processes of student governance.

This bill empowers student bodies by allowing them to adopt teleconferencing provisions within the approval of their Board of Trustees, thereby ensuring that all meetings are accessible, inclusive, and reflective of our diverse student body. It guarantees public access to meetings and accommodates real-time public comments, ensuring that our governance processes remain transparent and accountable.

As representatives of the future leaders of this state, we must acknowledge and adapt to the changing landscapes of our communities and the technological advancements at our disposal. The passage of AB 1855 will not only signify our commitment to inclusivity and accessibility, but also pave the way for more diverse and representative participation in student government.

I urge you to consider the profound impact that AB 1855 will have on enhancing the democratic engagement of community college students across California. Let us together embrace this opportunity to modernize our approach to student governance, making it more accessible, transparent, and inclusive. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1855. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for listening to us today. My name is Deborah Knowles, and I serve as the Student Leadership Advisor for Sacramento City College. I also happen to serve as the President of the California Community Colleges Classified Senate, so I have an outreach to all 116 colleges and feedback from all of them.

I'm going to share personal stories from Sac City. However, they are not unique. They are statewide to be considered. So Sacramento City College has approximately 17,000 students right now. At the end of Fall 2023, our most recent data, approximately 51 percent of those students were 100 percent online, not hybrid, and not on campus.

Online students don't come on campus for a variety of reasons, but it is a way for them to continue their education. As I said, this is similar throughout the state. The numbers vary, even at our own college, up and down, but we have a significant number of online students.

The current Brown Act means that online students are excluded from participation in student leadership. They must attend in person or participate remotely with the remote address posted publicly. This means the public could come to their home to join meetings and use their Internet access. That's the law.

We currently have rules at the colleges that prevent us from giving out students' information to the public, so there's a bit of a conflict there and a safety risk, and as an advisor, I advise my students to not do this. So we try to comply with the law in other ways.

During the pandemic waivers, the student leadership engagement--or the student leadership was engaged and vibrant. It was inclusive. It crossed social, economic, and cultural areas. This includes students from our outreach centers in West Sacramento and Davis, and any of our online students, and any of our people who are juggling many aspects of their life and career education.

Student leadership is a part of student engagement which helps ensure student success. Sacramento City College is a landlocked place with very limited parking, so traveling over the causeway, finding a parking place to join for a one-hour meeting, and then getting back to your satellite campus for a class made participation untenable until they realized during the pandemic, we had other options. I already said that.

Now the pandemic, as a result, these waivers have been lifted, and I have a couple of examples that I want to share. Two positive ones from Sacramento City College students: one student's grandmother became terminally ill and she needed to go to Fiji to care for her grandmother in her final days.

She wanted to stay in school and stay in student leadership, but because it was during the pandemic, she was able to do so. She was joining us at odd hours on her time, actively participating and doing what she needed to do for her family, otherwise, she would not have been able to do so. Another student--

If you could please wrap up?

Okay.

Thank you.

I will wrap up. Excluding so many online students from participating in their leadership takes away their voice. It's time to modernize the Brown Act and include the technologies that can include more people. It's time to build our future leaders and let's do so with as many people as possible.

Thank you very much. We have any others in support of AB 1855?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, also in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Goldman, on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, proud to sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. On behalf of Calbright College, we are in full support of this bill. Teleconferencing is an essential tool for our students to not only do their coursework, but to actively and meaningfully participate in our student government: the Associated Students of Calbright College. As a statewide community college, a number of our students, unsurprisingly, reside in locations that would prevent them from participating remotely. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, is there anyone in opposition to AB 1855? Okay, seeing none. Senators, anybody with comment or question? Yes, sir.

Good to see you again. So this, your bill is focused on student leadership in college, and because they're subjected under the Brown Act, just like every other government body and taxpayer funded bodies, and there's a reason for that, so we're going to separate them and say 'they don't have to,' while the other bodies all have to. Correct?

We thought there were some particulars towards students that were different than other eligible bodies. Students came to us and spoke about, for example, if they were dually enrolled and were in high school at the same time. They're actually minors. Posting their address had issues. If they were suffering from domestic violence, posting their address exposed themselves.

If they had issues with immigration status, they again are exposing themselves and their families to risk, and because the students approached us and wanted us to work on this issue, I felt obliged as a representative to make sure that I was elevating their voice so we could be as inclusive as possible.

Understood. Student government is the launching and springboard into regular government, and regular government is all of those things. If you're participating in a government agency, when I was on a City Council. I was going to school, I was going to work. I had new kids. I had all of those things that I had to take into consideration, and I was at every meeting because that's what you do is you plan, you overcome obstacles.

If you're going to be a representative people, you need to sit with people because it's a lot different being on screen than--we saw this during the pandemic--and not answering to the people that are out there, as usually the people out in the audience play a role.

And that interaction is what helps develop people into solid public officials. And so, you know, I'm afraid of cutting off that learning process for the youngest of people who want to start engaging into basically, you know, being an elected official. And if they don't learn there, where do they learn? Or is the next thing as state government officials, we all go to online and we never show up and we just don't even have offices here? We just stay at home all day.

That's not--for me, that is a little bit of a--I think we're kind of getting away from what we're supposed to be doing, which is sitting in front of the people we represent and listening to their concerns and watching their expressions and seeing their body language. And you can't do that on a thing. So although I recognize there are all kinds of obstacles that can create or they can be present for people that want to be involved, that's part of life is overcoming those obstacles, and if you want to do it bad enough, you'll do it. It's hard for me to support this bill because of that.

Through the Chair, if I can, I would just remind us that over 50 percent, a quorum has to be present and a public agenda will be posted just as other standards are. This is simply for us to try and increase participation and to have those making decisions to be more reflective of the communities that we serve.

I would just highlight we still aren't at parity here in the Legislature and we have to make sure that we're moving barriers so that women can participate here in our State Capitol, that along through our student body associations, I think we also have to make sure that we're opening doors and making sure that all communities have seats so that they can make those decisions where we're spending taxpayer dollars.

And so I'm excited to bring this legislation forward as I think it moves us a step in that direction while making sure that we have the protections that the Brown Act was intended to have, which is that you're there in front of community making decisions in the public eye. And so we've tried to thread that needle and am appreciative of the bill that we have before us.

Thank you. Senator Dahle.

So I have a couple of--first, I have a question. You mentioned in your--about participation in safety and people that may not be documented or people that--or don't want to give up their address because they're minors. That seems to me that it would be a better idea to go to the meeting because you don't have to--when you show up, you don't have to share any of that. You show up. I served for a long time in local government, 16 years, and I think the Brown Act is a good tool.

I think it keeps the backroom deals from happening and it keeps things out in the open. Also, though, went through the time where we were, you know, using Zooms and things for meetings, even here in the Capitol, and quite frankly, didn't like that either. But I want to--I have a--so first, can you address that first question about--you know, safety is if you show up to the meeting, you don't have to share any of that, where you're from, where you live, any of that. You can just show up to the meeting.

First, if I can, accessibility is the point we're really trying to work on. Now, safety for some of those who don't want to give their address--I'm hearing you--but we're limiting their ability to participate if we're requiring them to come in person. I would think about those who will overlay issues with transportation or with ability on top of those other social issues that I talked about. All of those lead us towards wanting this change while trying to maintain that you keep that quorum present.

We thought that was a very important part for us to make sure that the majority of people who are making those decisions are there. I would just also elevate, this has to go through the Board of Trustees and the eligible body. Those who are making the decisions locally have to choose to want to do this.

We're simply giving them that option and believe that those who are closest to those decisions will want to be as inclusive as possible, but currently, they don't have this option that's available to them, as the public health emergency has unwinded.

My second question would be then we had AB 2449 was a Rubio bill in 2022, which is just actually came into law January 1st, which gives us some of those abilities to be able to--or if you have somebody with a disability or you have something that allowed them to remotely. So can you kind of talk about the difference between this bill and that bill?

Sure. I'll first point out, I don't think these bills are in conflict. The Rubio bill was regarding that 20 percent mandate that they show up in person. That's what her pilot has. What we tried to do was align the dates of these bills. That bill will expire in 26, which is the same date that our bill will expire.

We wanted to make sure that we felt student body associations were separate and distinct and had their own issues that needed to be addressed, which is why we've continued to push this bill so much. But those timelines now align, which will allow us to learn from both of these bills and determine what steps we take after that.

Thank you. I just want to make a few comments. And so I find it very frustrating as a Senator that we limit the debate in our own committees. Very much so. And I think it's wrong, quite frankly. I've said that many times that we cut people off and you get two minutes to do this and two minutes to do that, and these are laws that are statewide laws, and they're very important.

And I think that if, you know, and we limit participation right here in our own building, and I think it's unfortunate for people that drive or fly to get to the Capitol to weigh in and they can say, hey, I have support or disagree, and that's all they get. I think it's good to be in person.

I believe that being in person, you can see the body language, you can interact with people a lot better, and so I'm not going to be able to support your bill today. I get where you're trying to go, but I think the Rubio bill is a good template for us to check out first. So for those reasons, I won't be able to support your bill today, and I appreciate you answering my questions.

Thank you, Senator. Anyone else? Senator Wiener? No? Okay. I think we're ready to--oh. We need a motion. Right, but we got the motion already? Can we get a move? Okay. Yes. Assembly Member, I just want to comment. I very much agree with my colleagues in terms--and I'm sure you do, too--is where do we draw the line, how do we protect the kind of interaction. I think there's a lot of ways that we have interaction, though. It's not up to us to be limited by the hearing.

I'm sure we all have meetings directly with advocates and opposition representatives, so our staff, we directly hear in our district offices. There's a lot of ways in which we, we do that. It's not all in public, which I think is the point that we're trying to make.

So I think, knowing you, I know you believe in the same thing, so we're trying to figure out how do we balance it in such a way that respects our process, our civic engagement process and the right of the public to speak, but things are changing as far as accessibility.

That's very different today from what it was just a few years ago. I know we've very selectively taken on this issue. We have the Portantino bill, which had to do with neighborhood city councils and allows that, but again, with guardrails. So I think that's what you are presenting with us, for us today, and I support you. I know how difficult this is, but I think you're doing the right thing. So would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present. I'm appreciative of the students who want to work with me to present this bill that's before you today, but accessibility works both ways. The public's ability to have access is one facet of it, but the ability to participate in those student body associations also is accessibility.

And for too many people, they haven't had that opportunity to participate, whether or not that's because of their age and they're minors or they're survivors of domestic violence or involved in justice right now, that at some point they don't have that ability, whether or not it's their living conditions, being rural, or their inability to afford the transportation options that are before for them. Their ability to access the student body associations, which are the springboard into government, is why I wanted to introduce this bill and why I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a motion. We have a motion, and take the vote.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]. Two to two.

Thank you.

We'll leave it open. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. Oh, that was a consent? Oh, here we go. I didn't put that down. Okay. Assembly Member Bonta? Oh, there you are. What are you doing over there? Be up front, center and up front. Next we will hear AB 2157: Assembly Member Bonta. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. First, I would like to extend the Committee's amendments and appreciate you, Madam Chair, to help strengthen this Bill. AB 2157 is an important Bill for my district. This Bill will help the City of Alameda Healthcare district secure financing for required seismic safety construction work at Alameda Hospital.

By 2030, hospitals across the state are required to meet seismic safety standards. It will cost Alameda Hospital over $50 million to meet these standards, and these updates are likely to result disruption to hospital services for several years.

Alameda Hospital is the only hospital on the island of Alameda that has served over 75,000 residents of Alameda and adjoining communities for over 100 years. Any temporary closure would be devastating to the residents of the island.

AB 2157 will provide the hospital with the financing it needs, allowing it to come into compliance while limiting disruption to hospital services and workers. Testifying in support today is Matt Moretti with the Alameda Healthcare District.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Excuse me, Madam Chair. And Senators Matt Moretti with MJM advocacy on behalf of Alameda Healthcare district. As the author mentioned, Alameda has served the area for over 100 years, and it's the only hospital, acute care hospital on the island, the only one with an emergency room. The hospitals met their 2020 standards.

When it comes to seismic retrofitting, this is a plan to meet the 2030 standards in a hospital like Alameda. Can't afford to do it on their own without some type of financing like this. This approach is not new. It's been done twice in the last 15 years.

Bills that have been authored here in the Legislature passed and signed it in law. And the last thing I'll add is, this is a non fiscal bill. All costs will be done with the financing in the hospital. So we urge your support for AB 2157.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2157 please come up.

Good morning. Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, seeing no one else. Anybody here in opposition to AB 2157? Seeing none. I'll come back to Dais. Yes. Senator Dahle.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know how difficult it is to keep hospitals going. I will move the bill at the appropriate time and in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, I also will be supportive. Thank you for doing all this work. Make sure we help our healthcare system and the state. Assembly Member.

Thank you. Madam Chair, our Members, I respectfully request an aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Leave it open. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next we have AB 2618. Assemblymember Chen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your time and Members for allowing me to present AB 2618. 1st off, I want to thank the Committee for working with my staff and we will be accepting all the Committee amendments until January 1, 2026.

Government Code Section 5361.8 allows, but does not mandate a local agency deposits up to 50% of their overall surplus funds with a depository institution that uses reciprocal deposits as a means of collateralization.

Using reciprocal deposits allows the depository institution to accept a deposit from a local agency exceeding the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or National Credit Union Association standard issuance limit of $2,150 while maintaining full insurance coverage over the entirety of the local agency's deposit.

Unless extended on January 1, 2026 the maximum 50% of local agency funds that may be placed using reciprocal deposits will be reduced to 30%. Depository institutions that use reciprocal deposits as a means of collateralizing against local agency deposits are community banks and credit unions operating within the geographic region of the local agency.

This measure maintains flexibility for local agencies and banks as they work together in managing local agency funds and in serving their communities.

AB 2618 will extend January 1, 2026 Sunset date to January 1, 2031 thereby extending current law and the permissive ability for local agencies to deposit up to 50% of their overall surplus funds with a depository institution that use reciprocal deposits as a means of collateralization.

This bill will also require the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission to submit a report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on the deposit of surplus funds pursuant to the section by local agencies. Here to testify for me will be Jason Lane, Director of Government Relations for the California Bankers Association.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Jason Lane with CBA appreciate the opportunity to testify in the Committee today and appreciate the author introducing this bill. This is a measure that we would call a good governance measure.

It preserves the existing authority of local agencies to use reciprocal deposits to invest in their communities by investing in and placing their deposits in a community bank or credit union.

The theory then is that the community bank or credit union will take those deposits and go out and make loans into the community, and also ensuring that every cent of that deposit is FDIC insured by the government.

And it allows, for example, a local agency, let's say hypothetically, that has a million dollars that would like to invest it in their community bank or credit union. It allows that community bank to use reciprocal deposit networks to participate out those deposits in chunks of 250,000 to make sure those deposits are FDIC insured.

It also ensures a local agency has readily, can readily access those funds in the event of a liquidity crisis and is a cheaper form of investment for a local agency, particularly given the high interest rate yields on deposits these days versus going out to the market and investing in the stock market and investment vehicles that are not as readily as accessible in the event of a liquidity crisis and frankly, more expensive.

So we are tonight vote on this measure and preserving the existing authority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any others in support of AB 2618?

Yeah. Good morning. Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Credit Union League, in proud support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Seeing none. Anybody else? Anybody in opposition, seeing none. Members, any questions? Thank you. Any comments? Questions? Seeing none. Will all be supportive? Please go ahead and close.

Madam Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Motion is to pass this amendment to the Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Next we move on to AB 2904. Yes, AB 2904. Assemblymember Quirk Silva. Welcome, Assemblymember.

Good morning. Good morning, Senators. First, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and want to thank the Committee consultant for working with our office. AB 2904 extends the timeframe within which cities must inform homeowners and property owners prior to implementing zoning code updates.

The most common type of zoning in California restricts certain areas to homes and some small businesses, impacting property values and housing supply. Current law only provides a 10 day notice for zoning changes, which is not enough time for property owners to understand the implications.

At a time when California faces a housing shortage, zoning regulations can create more restrictions. Homeowners need more time to grasp how zoning changes may affect them.

AB 2904 addresses this by extending the notice period to 20 days, only 10 days more, allowing property owners a better opportunity to review and respond to proposed zoning amendments, enhancing transparency in the process. We've worked with those who had concerns in Assembly, and there is no opposition.

On file with me today in support of AB 2904 and answer any questions is Jose Cornejo with the Cornejo Strategies and Senior Director of Government Relations with NAOP Southern California.

Mister Cornejo, welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. The Bill is a very. Let me take a step back. The reason for this Bill is that many times, property owners, especially, I represent commercial property owners, get a notice through the mail that their zoning changes, that their zoning code has been changed.

The way it works is if you don't own the property in the city, you don't get notified through the local newspapers. The small papers, especially, that now have really very little circulation. For example, the LA Times won't carry these notices anymore. There's no paper.

So there's usually the paper that, for lack of better term, pardon the throwaways, the ones that get thrown out. Everything is the only place you get them.

And so it creates a real problem of being notified on time that you're being down zoned or that you're being taken some of the value and down zone value your property gets taken.

You also take a look at this from the other side of the coin is, and I'll use my mother as an example, a monolingual, Spanish speaking, 80 year old woman gets this letter, she's going to wait for her child, one of us, to come home to read this letter and tell her what it means to her home.

And so 10 days, if you consider the mailings, 10 days. And it takes two to three days to deliver in a corporate office, it takes two to three days internally to route to the right person. You're now set up with two to three days to respond to this thing in a personal home.

And I visit my mom maybe once or twice every month. If I have to wait to get that to her, she's never going to get the opportunity to do it. And so we're just saying double the time, extend the time. We started out with this bill having a lot more language about updating technology and doing these things.

And as we worked through the Committee process and the Assembly, we got reduced to, say, 20 days is the max that we'll do. And so that's where we are today. It's a very simple notification.

It doesn't increase costs because they're already required to do it, and it doesn't increase any other thing other than saying we're going to give property owners 10 extra days to make sure that they get notices on time.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2904? Okay, see none. Anyone here in opposition? AB 2904 seeing none. Any questions or comments, Senator Seyarto?

Good bill, makes sense, I'll move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Dahle,

I just have a question. So did you? I didn't. I thought this bill was on consent, actually, so. But anyway, is this the notification still through the paper or is there a different method of notification? Because that's something that I've seen throughout the state.

Because we don't have the normal, we used to use papers. We don't have that ability. Now what is the ability to actually notify? Is it something sent to their home?

If properties, if less than 1000 properties are impacted, then a letter gets sent. If it's more than 1000, they only have to publish it in a local paper.

Okay, thank you.

Just to be clear, because I was a little confused about this, this is about if your parcel, the zoning is changing, right?

Correct.

Not if your parcel is, it's not about notifying because other parcels are being rezoned.

If your parcel is being changed.

Right. So if your parcel is not being rezoned, but they're upzoning the parcel down the street that's not covered by this notice.

Not covered.

Okay. And is this like the impetus behind this? I know there have been some issues around, like housing element changes and people's properties being part of a housing element rezoning. And maybe they didn't know about it. Was that the impetus behind this?

The impetus behind this is we have members of commercial real estate property owners that as we're doing planning code updates or zoning plan updates or even community plans, as we call them in LA, they were not being notified that this is, that there was a zoning change until the process.

You know, one of the things that we've heard as well, you heard it when the process started two and a half years ago. There's a community plan in LA that started 12 years ago. That was when the notice was given. So how do you keep up that kind of process? Through and through.

Right. But this is not creating a new notice. It's just giving them an extra 10 days.

Correct?

Right. Yeah. I mean, I understand the concerns in the analysis, and I think those concerns are real. But given that this is a change from 10 to 20 days, I'm willing to support the bill.

I think there could be a situation where this goes would have gone too far and empowered people to obstruct all sorts of legally required rezonings or try to obstruct. But I think this is a light touch, and so I'm willing to support it.

Thank you.

Sorry, no more questions. Would you like to close? Yes. Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great. And so it's do pass, as amended, to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

So we're going to go back to anyone who didn't vote.

Yes, so we only need Senator Wiener.

We're going back to file number one. File one is AB 491 Wallace.

Motion is to pass as amended to the Committee and judiciary. Current vote is four to zero with chair voting aye. Senators Glazer, Skinner, Wiener. Wiener, aye. Five to zero.

Okay, close that. Keep it open? Who's missing?

Senator Glazer and Skinner.

Sorry. Okay, leave that open then. We're going to file number two. File item two. AB 761 Friedman.

Motion is to pass to the Senate Floor. Current vote is three to zero, with chair voting ayes. Senators Glazer, Skinner, Wahab, Wiener. Wiener, aye. Four to zero.

We'll keep that open and then consent.

Motion is adopted. Consent calendar. Current vote is four to zero. Senators Glazer, Skinner, Wiener. Wiener, aye. Five to zero.

Leave that open. Okay, we're going to recess. Hopefully not very long for other Members to arrive. Yep, you're all done. You're free to go. We're going back to three bills starting with AB 491.

Motion is to pass this amendment to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is five to zero, with chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Six to zero.

We'll hold that open for now. All right. Oh, okay, go back to that one. Yes. Okay, we have two more Senators here. AB 491.

Motion is to pass this amendment to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is 620, with the chair voting aye, Senator Skinner. Skinner, aye. Seven to zero.

AB Okay, next is AB761.

File item number two.

Yeah, AB 761. File item number two.

Motion is to pass to the Senate Floor. Current vote is four to zero, with the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Seven to zero.

We close the measure.

Close that?

Yeah. Okay. We'll close the vote on that, and then we'll go to consent. You want to do consent calendar?

Motion is adopt a consent calendar. Current vote is five to zero, with the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Seven to zero.

Which other ones do we have to do? Do we have to do all of them? Okay. Item number four, AB 1855.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on education. Current vote is two to two, with the chair voting aye. Senators Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Five to two.

Next we go item six, AB 2157.

Motion is to pass a submitted to the Senate Floor. Current vote is four to zero, with the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Seven to zero.

Vote is closed. Go to item eight, AB 2618.

Current motion is to pass a submitted to the Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions. Current vote is four to zero, with the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wahab? Wahab, a ye. Seven is zero.

Oh, that's right. Okay. Item 10, AB 2904, is our last bill.

Motion is to pass this amended to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is four to zero, with the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wahab? Wahab, no. Six to one.

Okay. Close on all of them, on all the book bills. Thank you to all the individuals who participate in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate local government committee or visit our website.

Your comments and your suggestions are very important, and we want to include your testimony and the official hearing records. Thank you. Appreciate your participation.