Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our Committee hearings 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. First, I have a very special announcement. It is the birthday of our beloved consultant, Jonathan Peterson. Happy birthday, Jonathan.

So let's do give him a big birthday present and get out of here in half an hour. No, I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Where? We had 10 bills on today's agenda, none of which are, none of which are in consent, but we do have a few housekeeping notes.

File number six, AB 2433 by Assemblymember Quick Silva, has been pulled from today's hearing. File number 10, AB 2922 by Assemblymember Garcia, has also been pulled from today's hearing. That leaves us with eight bills for today's hearing. Assemblymember Berner has requested to go first, and I have granted her request. Do we have. Okay, we'll start as a Subcommitee since we do not have a quorum. So, Assembly Member Boerner, please come on up.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you to the Chair and the committee staff for working with my office on this bill. 2715 would simply add threats to cybersecurity to the list of closed-session exemptions in the Brown Act.

Currently, local agencies can already hold a closed session to discuss threats to the security of public buildings, the security of essential public services, or the public's right of access to public services or public facilities. However, current law does not explicitly list threats to cybersecurity as a reason to meet in closed session.

As a result, local agencies are potentially forced to discuss cybersecurity threats and potential solutions in open session. This could leave local agencies open to more cybersecurity attacks. As the committee analysis notes, opposition's concerns about transparency are already addressed in existing law. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at an appropriate time.

And with me, I have Dane Hutchings representing the City of Carlsbad.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members Dane Hutchings representing the City of Carlsbad. I want to thank the author for carrying this bill on behalf of the city. The city attorney is tasked with providing legal counsel and services to the city council, city departments, and city boards, but just as importantly, protecting public information.

The Brown Act was enacted in 1953, and although it has been amended over the years, it does not acknowledge the level to which technology has advanced. More specifically, cybersecurity threats facing public agencies. While the Brown Act does allow for discussion to occur in closed session regarding specific security threats, it is silent on the general topic of cybersecurity.

2715 would allow for closed-session briefings about general cybersecurity threats, thus making the legislative body more informed about the nature of the threats and the extent of the agency's vulnerabilities, with the appropriate guardrails to ensure transparency to the public as established in existing law.

For example, if reducing a vulnerability to cyber-attacks would require a financial investment, such as a procurement or a large software contract, that investment would be determined in open session.

But the closed session would allow the legislative body to learn a little bit more about the vulnerability, why the investment is needed without disclosing the specific vulnerability to cyber criminals.

The Brown Act currently requires closed session agendas to state the stationary or statutory authorization for closed session and in that case of the security threats, to identify with whom the legislative body is meeting with.

2715 is a modest amendment to closed session provisions in the Brown Act that will allow local agencies to protect sensitive information that could put at greater risk of cyber-attacks. I thank you once again for your time and considering of Carlsbad's request and urge your strong support of AB 2715.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more witnesses in support? And good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, pleased to support.

Jean Hurst here today, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in support.

Good morning, Alyssa Silhi. I got a list, so I'm going to read it. On behalf of the City Clerks Association of California, the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the City of Redwood City, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and City of Eastvale, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Eric Lehr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you.

Bella Kern, on behalf of California IT and Education and Small School Districts Association, in support.

Thank you. Any more witnesses in support? Seeing none. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please come up. I'll give you two minutes.

Sure. I'll be brief. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Ginny LaRoe with the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit here in California, and I want to thank the author and the staff and proponents for talking with us about this bill. Our position right now is opposed unless amended. And we only seek some very minor clarifications to the bill.

And because they've already worked to do what we think really gives some narrow and specific language that has the right balance for privacy and public access and accountability, we hope we can continue the conversation to get some minor clarifications that we think are important for the public when they see these agendas and these closed sessions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any more witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll come back here to the Committee. Senator Wahhab and then Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. I just want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I worked in technology as well as being a local member of a city council. And one, and I just want to highlight this because it is important.

Our local jurisdictions are being targeted very specifically by those that are either trying to make a profit off of it or make a show of it.

In the Bay Area, which, you know, I represent the Silicon Valley, a number of smaller cities have been very much targeted, as well as colleges, and whether their entire infrastructure is taken over or shut down or anything.

And the nominal request that these hackers are kind of requesting is anywhere from $50,000 to roughly $1 million or so, it's very hard to trace.

And I will say just even competing for the best of, you know, IT and security and so forth is very difficult on school budgets as well as city councils and so forth, especially smaller cities. Also, some of the larger tech companies don't have a special liaison to these particular cities, right?

They may have it for a large county, like Santa Clara County I represent, but they don't even have special liaisons to a city the size of Oakland, for example, right? This is incredibly problematic. I have talked about cybersecurity significantly and the needs for it.

I will also say that the reason why these conversations need to be taken place in closed session is because of the fact that you don't want to share your vulnerabilities, you know, to the larger public and to people who, you know, would like to see some damage done.

More specifically, we've had this instance in my council in particular. We talked about it on the open dais, and, you know, they had to take away my commentary verbally from the videos. And that is, again, to protect the city as much as possible. That city, as well as a number of other cities, has been hacked.

And so, I think that this is a good preventative measure it allows for substantive conversation about vulnerabilities, about faulty areas, about needs of improvement, and so much more. So, I fully support this. I appreciate the work. I appreciate you bringing this attention. I will move the Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

So, thank you. And thank you for your bill. It's actually a really good bill.

Actually.

It's keeping. Actually. I guess that was wrong for me to say actually. You have a lot of good bills. How's that? You know, the Ralph M. Brown Act is an important act for government transparency and making sure that the public knows what's going on. But as technology moves forward, there are other things that need to be added in and protected by that, and this is one of them.

Just like my colleague said, you don't need everybody to know what your vulnerabilities are so that they can run out and immediately attack your agency. And so, I'll be supporting as well, when we get enough. The only reason I decided to add on and talking is because I don't see another author here. Oh, yes, we do.

We do. Okay, good. So, now I'll be quiet and just say you can. We'll be supporting your Bill when it comes up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great. Okay. Closing.

At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your Iva. And thanks to both of the Members who spoke in favor. It is really important that we are. That council members and school board Members are able to be informed about what the vulnerabilities are in a deep way.

And we've done, we've taken many amendments to ensure that there's the necessary transparency that we want with our public agencies. So thank you.

Thank you. Again, when we get our quorum, we'll take the votes. All right, we're going back to the actual order here. Go back number one. AB 817. Assemblymember Pacheco, welcome. Go ahead, assemblymember.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Today I present Assembly Bill 817. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and today, I will be accepting most of the Committee amendments. AB 817 is a simple Bill that does just one main thing.

And I know we all say it's a simple Bill, but it reduces barriers to entry for civic participation, opening the pipeline to public engagement and future elected office to include more diverse and inclusive variety of Californians.

AB 817 achieves this by allowing non decision making, advisory only bodies at the local level to participate remotely without posting their location for public access, while maintaining public access and transparency in governance through requiring the use of two way audio visual technology for all meetings utilizing this authority.

The goal is to bring parity among the new state standards for state advisory bodies created in SB 544 and local non decision making advisory bodies. With me today to testify in support of AB 817 is Janie Whiteford, President of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and is a Member of the Santa Clara IHSS Advisory Committee.

And also we have Ethan Breck, Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission, and I will pass it over to my witnesses.

Thank you very much. Go ahead and we'll give you two minutes. You have a second witness as well? Yes. Okay, so two minutes each. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Durazzo and Members. The coalition strongly supports AB 817 as it provides equity inclusion that is currently missing in two-way civic engagement process for older adults and people with disabilities to have their voices heard on critical issues that impact their quality of life.

As California's master plan on aging articulates, we need to create communities where people of all ages and abilities are engaged values and afforded equitable opportunities to thrive. AB 817 aligns with this important policy objective as well as supports the Americans with Disabilities Act. Current law puts Members of my community at risk, providing only two options.

Either we must participate in person, or we can participate remotely and allow the public access to our homes, regardless of how compromising and potentially dangerous this could be. This does not meet the desired threshold of the Legislature's desired goals for equal access and equal opportunity in civic leadership.

California is a huge state, and most counties have a large geographic area, and members find it very difficult, if not impossible, to attend meetings. And these meetings do not meet because a quorum needs cannot be met due to the in person meeting requirement.

If you cannot conduct business due to a lack of quorum, the alternative is that we simply do not meet and county decision makers are left without local input.

We have a responsibility to allow more voices to be heard and for an equal opportunity for all to participate in advising our county officials. In Santa Clara County on my IHSS Advisory Committee, one of our members resigned because taking paratransit would take her 6 hours of time. Not feasible.

In rural counties and very large areas such as San Bernardino, county, it can take a half day to get to a meeting site. It is the rare citizen who will do this and is an impossible bar to set for the public to have a voice.

For these reasons and many more anecdotes we could share, we respectfully request that you support AB 817. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, I will be brief. My name is Ethan Rarick. I'm the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency charged with making recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor for reform of state government.

We came to this issue because we met successfully using remote technology during the pandemic. Subsequently, we surveyed other agencies governed by the Bagley-Keene Act about their experiences meeting using remote technology. 95% said they experienced more public attendance. More than 90% said they had saved money due to reduced travel and facility rental costs.

About half said they'd experienced greater participation by members of the body, and none reported less participation. Accordingly, last year we supported SB 544, which made analogous changes to this Bill.

That Bill affected the Bagley-Keene Act, as you know, and we were happy to see that Bill enacted, and we have recommended and support similar use for the Brown act. We believe this Bill will increase diversity and representation on public bodies around the state.

It will make government look more like California at large, and we think that's a good thing. Therefore, respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any more witnesses in support? If you would come up and give your name, organization and where you stand on the Bill.

Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for In Home Supportive Services in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Dan Okenfuss, with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kate Laddish, chair of the Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee and co-founder of the nonpartisan civic engagement group Democracy Winters, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Matthew Siverling on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cindy Perez on behalf of Yolo County in support.

Morning. Geoff Neill, representing San Diego County, Contra Costa County, Imperial County, and Lake County, all in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, along with the County Boards of Supervisors for the Counties of Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. NJ Mvondo with the Yolo County Climate Action Commission in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Moira Topp, here on behalf of both the City of San Diego and Orange County Transportation Authority, in support.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, and Goleta, and also on behalf of Monterey–Salinas Transit. Thank you.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, a proud co-sponsor.

Good morning. Devon Anderson on behalf of San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alyssa still high on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, a proud co-sponsor in support. And also on behalf of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, the City Clerks Association of California, City of Belmont, City of Carlsbad, City of Foster City, City of Mountain View, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Santa Rosa, City of Redwood City, and Town of Hillsborough, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Peninsula Clean Energy in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Andrew Antwih on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of Los Angeles, the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, Caltrain, and the San Mateo County Transit District, all in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Counties of Napa, Mendocino, San Joaquin, Solano, and Sonoma, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ellon Brittingham. I'm here on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cassandra Mar on behalf of the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Downey, in strong support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Michael Pimentel. Here on behalf of the California Transit Association and our more than 100 public agency members in support. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathy Mossburg on behalf of the Area Agencies on Aging in strong support.

Good morning. Mark Isidro on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Nick Romo with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, CALACT, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kasha Hunt with Nossaman on behalf of Monterey County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Dan Chia on behalf of Ava Community Energy, formerly East Bay Community Energy, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Richard White. I chair the Advisory Council to the Napa Solano Area Agency on Aging with over 140,000 older adults. We met yesterday, so we were unable to submit a position letter on time, but we did meet, and we issued a statement in strong support of AB 817. So we encourage you to vote aye on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay, seeing none. Anyone in opposition, please come up, and you will have two minutes if you wish.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Brittney Barsotti with the California News Publishers, regretfully in opposition to this bill, we have worked very hard over the last several years to attempt to modernize the Brown Act and provide additional flexibility.

We worked diligently with this committee on AB 2449 and have encouraged the author and others who are seeking more flexibility to work within that structure. If there are more categories of folks or sets of circumstances that need to be added so they have additional flexibility under just cause, we are more than open to that conversation.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been any movement towards that. We have also offered to allow someone with a disability to count towards the in person quorum, like we did with SB 544, or if there's additional, like excessive travel or things of that or someone's immunocompromised. Right. Those are discussions that have come up over the last years.

And if the author had accepted in person quorum requirement with certain caveats, then we would likely not still be opposed to those bill. Unfortunately, my understanding is that that is not the case, and it is unfortunate. Also, I'll note that essentially all of the Brown Act bills come up for renewal in January 1 of 2026.

So it sounds like we're going to be having this detailed conversation again next year. We are more than willing to work with supporters of this bill to make sure that the goals of diversity and inclusion are reached. So with that, unfortunately, respectfully remain opposed. And I'll be available to answer any questions as well.

Thank you.

Good morning again, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, I'm Ginny LaRoe with the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit in California that's been working for about 30 years on open government and free press issues. We believe that the people's right to...

We believe that the broadest range of engaged and informed communities, the public, is essential to the health of our democracy. So we're opposed to AB 817 because we believe it will decrease government transparency and accountability and stifle civic engagement. A few examples. So these subsidiary bodies, they serve in an advisory capacity under this new definition that would be written into the Brown Act for the first time.

We believe they are no deserving of the same level of public engagement, participation, and scrutiny that any other Brown Act body. That was the purpose of the Brown Act. So, for instance, in Vallejo, years of organizing and activism, including by families of those killed by police, has led to the formation of a police oversight and accountability commission. This is a place where members of impacted families who have faced police violence can show up and ask questions.

Even though this is an advisory body, it is important to the community. Another example, at a recent San Diego Budget Review Committee, a local activist implored people in the room to stand up if they believed that proposed budget cuts to equity programs were wrong. Instantly, the committee saw before them a room full of constituents there in solidarity, some wearing matching shirts, holding signs. A committee member was even moved to join them in the display. Teleconferencing simply wouldn't allow the community to send the same kind of message.

That's why we have joined the news publishers, ACLU, and many others in asking that there always be an in person quorum in a singular physical location where the community can organize. And finally, I just want to share, newspapers around the state have weighed in opposing this and similar bills for several years, and a couple more editorials came out this week that I think really tap into the heart of the issue.

In the Mercury News this week, the editorial board said this is another step down the slippery slope toward local government secrecy. It went on to say state lawmakers should be working to increase civic engagement for the people, increase public access to the policy process, and this would do just the opposite. In the LA Times, similar sentiments. And this is the point.

You could wrap up.

Yes, ma'am. Remote participation should not be the public's only way of attending, nor should remote participation be the norm for officials. We agree with that, and we respectfully request a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any more witness? Anybody else in opposition?

Good morning. Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Along with ACLU California Action, Californians Aware, California Broadcasters Association, California Common Cause, California News Publishers Association, League of Women Voters California, Media Alliance, National Press Photographers Association, NLGJA: Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Oakland Privacy, Radio Television Digital News Association, San Diego Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Society of Professional Journalists Los Angeles, Society of Professional Journalists Northern California, Student Press Law Center, Orange County Press Club, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll come back here to dais. And, yes, Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I'm a big advocate of, obviously, using technology. I think I was one of the, the big people that pushed us to all get laptops and iPads and so forth in the Senate side, and we're not there yet here in the California State Legislature. And then on a local perspective, Covid obviously showed areas of need for improvement, ease of use, and so forth. My concern with a lot of these remote teleconferences, if you will, is the ability to chat privately with members, the ability to be able to share, like, oh, this happened, that happened.

I also think in person is incredibly important when it comes to the feeling in the room. Right. So, for example, on my City Council, we had a lot of issues regarding public safety, regarding, you know, a lot of issues that really affected vulnerable communities. And sometimes the feeling in the room is actually, you know, what can stir a difference of an opinion. With this and the subsidiary bodies in particular, you know, I have concerns about the per diem. Right. I think that that's important to address that. I don't believe if we've had a resolution to that. Would you be able to answer anything?

Sure. So it wouldn't apply to City Council. So it wouldn't apply to councils. It wouldn't apply to planning commissioners because those are elected bodies who make... They're decision making bodies. They're not advisory bodies. So this bill would only apply to those non-decision making advisors...

Community services, human services.

Correct. So in Downey, for instance, we have parks and rec, we have commissioners, we have public works committee members. We have, we also have a Green Task Force Committee. So it would apply to those committees because they're only advisory. And as to compensation, most of these don't get compensated, but some of these do.

And the witnesses that are here to testify, which the main witness, she drove 3 hours just to get here. And so it would help those individuals who are disabled as well. And as to the compensation, most of them do not get compensated, but some of them do. And so what we want to make sure is we also want to make sure that people are civically engaged, but as well, the minor compensation that they do receive, we want to make sure that they continue to receive that compensation.

Okay. And then the opposition's points that they brought up, do you have any rebuttals to them?

So we already allow this for decision making bodies at the state level. And so this bill would be, would only apply to local levels. Of course, it would apply statewide. But there is also a sunset. There is a sunset provision within this bill which would be July. I'm sorry, January 1. Is it January? July 1. 2026. And make sure. But it would be 2026.

And have you taken the committee's amendments?

I've taken seven out of the nine committee amendments. The two that were not taken had to do with the compensation and the in person quorum requirement. And the reason is because that's the whole purpose of this bill.

Okay.

Yeah. But the other amendments, if this bill makes it through, we will be taking the other seven amendments.

Okay.

Yeah. So there were a total of nine amendments that were proposed, and so we've agreed to take seven of those amendments.

Okay. And the other two that you are concerned with not taking, what's the reasoning?

As to the compensation, like I explained, and then the in person quorum requirement, which is the whole purpose of this bill. But again, there is a sunset on this bill.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

So if it doesn't work, then, of course, we don't extend the sunset.

Yeah.

Okay. Any comments? Okay. All right, well, thank you, Assembly Member Pacheco. We've been, for bringing this bill forward. I know it's. I know your purpose, and especially because of all the participation today was, you know, is to, you care about your community and everyone's ability to participate in local government.

As you said, the the bill gives subsidiary bodies that advise local governments the ability to teleconference their meetings without providing the teleconference locations or making them publicly accessible. These subsidiary bodies advise local governments on a broad range of issues, everything from police reform to budgets to elections.

And yes, these bodies may only make recommendations, but they are often made up of community members in the City Council or Board of Supervisors appoint. They are often given power to develop recommendations that inform the future actions that our local governments take. So it is vital that the public can inform the recommendations these bodies make.

I don't believe that you can as effectively do that on a computer screen instead of in person. But despite all the concerns and others that I laid out, I offered a path for your bill that balanced the public access with accommodations for members of these subsidiary bodies.

And as you said, I appreciate that you agreed to certain amendments, like narrowing the kinds of subsidiary bodies that could use the flexibility. The remaining two points are that we suggested that members that receive compensation for their service would not participate on a subsidiary body receiving this additional flexibility.

And second, we suggested requiring that a quorum of the subsidiary body participate in person so that the public can address the body directly. We recognize your goal that certain members, that those who have a disability may have a difficulty participating in person.

So in response to that concern, we offered to allow certain groups to count towards that in person requirement, even though they are participating remotely. And you were, this is, as you said, the part that you were unwilling to accept. I hope that. I was hoping that we could find a way to resolve these final issues, but we're not there yet.

For that reason, I will not be able to support your bill today. And I think, primarily, we have to remember that it's the Brown Act, the heart of the Brown Act, that we have to continue to protect, and that requires face to face participation. So with that, you can have your final closing remarks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senators, again, for this opportunity to present this important pill that would allow people to participate when, you know, if they're disabled or they're unable to attend these important advisory committees. This would allow participation from our members, more residents, and we've taken a number of amendments.

And again, this bill would merely mirror the Senate Bill, which was 544, which allows state bodies to be able to meet remotely. So it's the equivalent to SB 44, applies at the local level. And again, I want to thank you all for this opportunity and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, we're not taking. No, still don't have a quorum. Okay.

Okay, we're moving on to item number two, which is Assembly Member Zbur, AB 1176. Assembly Member Zbur, welcome.

Good morning.

Go ahead.

Madam Chair, Members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present AB 1176, which is sponsored by Climate Plan California and supported by a wide range of groups invested in the environment and a clean energy future. Our state has adopted ambitious climate goals that require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation and building sectors.

To meet these goals, we will need over 1 million chargers to support the 8 million electric vehicles anticipated on the road by 2030, and even more to meet the state's 2035 electric vehicle mandate.

California will also need to retrofit much of our existing buildings to cut greenhouse gas emissions from homes and buildings, such as converting to electric appliances and equipment.

Meeting these goals requires that governments at all levels partner in developing and implementing strategies to transition to a clean energy future, ensuring that EV charging and building electrification are available to those who are least able to access these, including lower-income communities, renters, and people who live in multifamily housing, and that transmission infrastructure is sufficient to support truck and vehicle delivery fleets and small businesses requires on the ground knowledge in our local communities.

Local governments are crucial partners in meeting our climate goals because they know the needs of their communities the best and because local planning is necessary to plan for the electric transmission and infrastructure needs of all communities.

We always say in the climate space that this is an all-hands-on-deck crisis that we're dealing with and we need all levels of government involved. AB 1176 embraces local decision-making and requires high-level planning and strategies at the local level to meet the electrification needs of our community residents, visitors, employees, and businesses.

Lastly, recent amendments. We took a number of amendments on the Assembly side to address the concerns of legal cities and many cities' jurisdictions. And then we took, on this side, recent amendments to limit this to jurisdictions with 75,000 residents or more to make sure that we're not imposing hardships on some of the smallest jurisdictions.

With me today is Melissa Romero of California Environmental Voters to assist with questions and provide additional information.

Good morning. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters.

I just want to remind you the two minutes.

Of course. Just want to thank Assembly Member Zbur for his leadership on this issue. Enviro Voters is here in strong support of AB 1176. We know that electrification is happening in our state, and our state has adopted ambitious climate goals that require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in all the different sectors.

Significant challenges to deploying EV charging infrastructure and building electrification have caused some gaps based on race and income in California in this transition. A patchwork of state initiatives and local ordinances have contributed to slow or incomplete electrification.

And with wealthier Californians transitioning and benefiting from the first retrofits, new construction, and EV charging access. So, lower income communities, renters, and multifamily homes are facing significant cost barriers to adopting efficient and electrified building technologies. Public charging access and strategies to facilitate electrification in rental and multifamily homes are crucial for ensuring an equitable electrification transition.

We're happy to support AB 1176 because it promotes proactive measures to ensuring that our communities are prepared for those changes and know that they are coming. And this bill does not promote a one-size-fits-all all solution, but rather it leans into local governments and their municipalities to identify what those solutions are that work best for them.

And with that, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Do you have? Is this your witness?

She was my witness, yes. Thank you.

Okay, so now we'll have other witnesses in support. Thank you.

Dan Cha on behalf of FLO EV Charging in support.

Thank you.

Kai Cooper on behalf of Calstar in support.

Thank you.

NJ Mvondo, Chair of the Yolo County Climate Action Commission, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no more witnesses in support. Anyone in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, respectfully opposed. I'd like to begin by appreciating the Committee's efforts in considering the bill, specifically with respect to the acknowledgement of the increased time and resources that implementation would require in the committee analysis.

As pointed out, many of the recently enacted laws governing increased planning requirements fall to the same local government staff, leading to a detrimental impact on ultimately realizing this bill's stated goals. It's Kern's opinion that this bill is certain to exacerbate that outcome given implementation requires highly technical, cumbersome, and costly efforts.

And for that reason, Kern must respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none come back to the Committee. Senator? Yes.

Good morning.

Hi.

So, the opposition brought up some points, and I think you can sum them up, sum what his concerns are. Is that what exactly does this plan, what are they supposed to plan in their general plan to electrify? Are you talking about new housing construction? Are you talking about existing housing and trying to retrofit everything.

So, it doesn't necessarily have to be in the general plan. So, part of the flexibility is that it can be in another plan. For example, the City of Oakland, the City of Santa Monica have actually voluntarily done these kinds of plans.

If you look at what they've done, what it does is it creates strategies for increasing electrification for both vehicle charging in their jurisdiction. So, they include policies, for example, that they would actually employ when they have discretionary decisions coming before them.

They think through whether or not, you know, how they're going to provide electric vehicle charging for people that actually live in apartment buildings. They plan out areas in the that when they get plan, when they get funding that they could provide on-street charging, they're thinking long term about providing the vehicle charging that their communities need.

And it's basically a planning exercise similar to every other kind of planning exercise that local jurisdictions do.

Right. And so local jurisdictions who want to do this are already doing it. My problem with some bills like this is when it starts out with, this bill requires cities and counties to do this, it puts them on a timeline that may not be attainable to them as opposed to others.

Also, you know, the whole effort with what I call a very unrealistic effort, instead of adjusting to something that we can actually achieve over a longer period of time, it translates into a very unaffordable future for everybody in California, including my kids. I'm tired of having to watch kids move out of the state. And this is part of it.

These type of bills that continue to raise costs for everybody. Increase, you know, when you're increasing work at the cities to do plans like this, and then those plans turn into mandates for people to spend more money on their existing homes, to get them out of their gas stoves and things like that.

Because all those houses, when you put everything into electrical, if you try to electrify all of these houses, whether you have 1950s or '40s or '60s stock homes, they have to be re real, the wiring has to be redone in order for them to be able to accept the amount of electricity that is going to be used in a household that is all electric.

There is a lot more to this than just saying, hey, make a plan. And I think it's up to the cities to determine when their community is ready and able to do this type of thing. And I don't think the state should be imposing these type of mandates on cities.

So, I will be opposing this bill, as I will a bunch of the other bills that come through that are going to continue to increase costs for Californians to the point where we're losing Californians that have the ability to help our tax base and we're losing our kids. Our kids can't afford anything here.

They can't afford houses that are all electrified like this or having to buy a house that has to get electrified and spend an additional $30,000 on those type of things.

So, I think we need to lay off on some of this, and I think we need to let technology catch up and the market catch up, and that will help us do a smoother transition, because right now this is not a smooth transition. People are feeling it and they're sick and tired of it. Thank you.

May I respond to that?

Yes, go ahead.

So, first of all, this gives cities and towns great flexibility. The compliance deadline isn't until 2029. It's not a year or two out. It's many years out. So, you have great flexibility in doing that.

I would sort of push back on the assertion that this is going to raise costs for consumers. I mean, one of the things that I think when you actually look at the move to electric vehicles is that I spend a lot less on my transportation needs with an electric vehicle than I would if a gas vehicle.

And what this does do is it requires that local. First of all, it gives cities great flexibility in terms of how they do this at the local level. But second, it also makes sure that they're thinking about the fact that charging infrastructure should be available for everyone at all income levels wherever they live.

And that's something that will not increase costs. It will reduce costs because if we have public charging stations in places where people can access them, they don't have to put them in, in their own jurisdictions. And it allows folks to basically think about when a shopping center goes in, thinking about putting chargers there.

Most of those are going to probably be private, for-profit things that won't require a lot of costs. But if you're not thinking about those things, then, and we already have mandates that are in the law, we have mandates that we are going to be selling only electric vehicles by 2035.

We have to take the steps to plan for them and implement them anymore.

I know when she gets back, we're jumping on it. Just, I appreciate that the timeframe here is until 2029. I think that gives timing of it, but we do get through here a lot is another responsibility at the local level, and they're not exactly all coordinated. Right?

So, we don't know exactly what has become of the responsibilities at the local government level. So, on that side, I agree that we have to be careful how and what we expect.

If you could touch any more on that in terms of your efforts to not just pile on at the local level and make sure that they really truly have the ability, because we're talking about a lot of issues that come before them. Right? Housing requirements, climate requirements. There are all sorts of things.

So, if you could touch on that in your response, it's a very legitimate concern.

So, one of the things we did in terms of the long compliance deadline was that we actually put that in so that jurisdictions can actually do this when they're doing other planning exercises, and they have. They can push those things in.

We did take many changes from cities and counties across the state in the Assembly side to make sure that there were not specific mandates, that these were guidelines, that they were ones that allowed local jurisdictions to fit what they were doing to their local needs.

And I will say that the only opposition at this point is Kern County. The League of Cities is now in a neutral position based on our hard work with them.

And that was, you know, in addition to raising this to 75,000, it was basically looking carefully and taking many, many amendments that they asked for in terms of the criterion on how these, on how these plans, you know, need to meet and actually showing them examples where some cities have actually already taken and done this voluntarily in the state.

And I think when people realize what this is, they realize that this is something that is doable and is consistent with their normal planning activities.

And if it's already done in some way, shape or form, they don't have to?

You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Reinvent the wheel. Okay. Thank you very much. If there's no further questions or comments, you can make your closing remarks.

Again, I think the only, we've taken all opposition off other than Kern County. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. All right, we won't be taking a vote right now.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate your comments.

Okay. Next, we have Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Welcome. Good morning.

I'm shorter than Mr. Zbur. Good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff as always, for their hard work on this Bill and make clear that I'm accepting Committee amendments. Today I'm proud to present AB 2085. This Bill streamlines the development for necessary Reproductive Healthcare Clinics California.

The development of these clinics would be in areas already zoned for office, retail, healthcare or parking usages. As a state, California has enacted legal protections for abortion. However, we know that across the state, access requires both legal protection and physical access to the healthcare itself.

Unfortunately, we've seen cities and counties block the construction of these clinics through bad faith requirements and unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Cities are preventing basic healthcare provision in areas that are already struggling to receive adequate healthcare access.

And let me be clear, in some parts of our state, there is not enough access to reproductive healthcare, whether we're talking about prenatal care or STD or the like. And so for communities to come in and block clinics that will provide this critical health care is really a detriment to their own communities.

AB 2085 requires ministerial approval of clinics that meet all of the locality standards, ending the arbitrary obstruction of this life saving care. With me today is Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood California Action and Alena Chavez from Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare.

Welcome. Good morning and you have two minutes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Good morning Chair Durazo and Members of the Committee. My name is Alena Chavez and I am the program manager for TEACH, which stands for Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare. And we are proud co-sponsors of AB 2085.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for this critical Bill when I was 17 years old, I had my first pregnancy scare. A senior in high school, I knew immediately that if I was truly pregnant, that I did not want to be feeling scared and alone. I looked up abortion near me on my family's desktop computer.

I felt sick. When the results came up 49.4 miles away, a 54 minutes drive and a one and a half or an hour and a half minute bus ride. How could I possibly get there with no money, no car, and two amazing but overly involved parents?

As the weeks went by, I grew more and more scared and isolated myself from my family and friends. Luckily, I eventually started menstruating and it felt like the biggest weight was finally lifted off my shoulders. However, I was just one of the lucky ones.

You see, my hometown has one of the highest STI and the highest teen pregnancy rates in all of California. By the time I graduated high school, 15 of my peers were already parents, with many more walking across the stage to accept their diplomas. Why?

Because my hometown has little to no other options for care than crisis pregnancy centers or fake clinics that promote abstinence only sex education and lie to people, typically who are poor and or BIPOC about the full availability of the pregnancy options.

I'm sure you're wondering by now where I'm from, and I'm proud to be from Visalia, California, the gateway to the sequoias. So that's why I'm here today, to show you how harmful a lack of reproductive healthcare was years ago for people in rural and medically underserved parts of the state. Unfortunately, however, not much has changed.

To this day, Visalia still does not have an abortion provider or clinic to provide this care. In fact, when I looked up Visalia abortion just yesterday, the first thing that pops up is a fake clinic where they lie about medication abortion being reversible.

In fact, when a new clinic was trying to open up in Visalia, local opposition prevented clinic construction from beginning, leaving many vulnerable populations without access to care. And Visalia is not the only location this has happened in. This has been happening throughout the state, in more rural areas like Fontana, California, that are already healthcare access deserts.

Could you please wrap it up?

Okay, sorry. So that's why AB 2085 is needed now more than ever. AB 2085 expands healthcare access in California for our most vulnerable communities by creating a more streamlined process for clinic construction to address the difficulties many health centers have faced when opening new clinics. That's why I'm here asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Good morning. Chair Durazo and Members, I'm Molly Robson and I'm Vice President of Government Affairs at Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, where we represent the seven affiliates in the state who operate over 100 health centers and provide sexual and reproductive health care to almost a million patients annually.

Planned Parenthood is sponsoring AB 2085 to streamline the permitting process. As you just heard, since the Dobbs decision two years ago, we've seen attacks on abortion, reproductive health care, gender affirming care, and birth control all intensify, transforming health care into political battlegrounds, which has dangerous consequences even in California. We've seen these attacks in action.

For example, as previously mentioned, in the City of Fontana, the local Planned Parenthood received verbal approval to construct a new clinic on a vacant site already zoned for healthcare, after following standard procedure, abiding by all local guidelines, and adjusting as needed to ensure compliance with local planning standards.

It was a surprise when, after a year of planning, the City Council placed a temporary moratorium on any new buildings in the area. The council then placed another moratorium, this time for 10 months, which has now been determined to only impact the health center.

In a post ops era, when millions of people have lost access to abortion and other reproductive health care in their home states, it is critical that in California, access is not impeded. The Fontana Health center, for example, would have provided an estimated 2000 medical visits per month and positively impacted the community, yet remains on hold.

AB 2085 ensures that local jurisdictions cannot unjustly interfere with the delivery of healthcare and delivers on California's commitment as a reproductive freedom state. I respectfully urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of this AB 2085?

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for all California proud co sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Garden, on behalf of the League of California Cities in a supportive amended position, looking for the ability to separate from sensitive areas as well as an extension of reviewing a completed application deadline from 60 to 90 days. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of CPCA Advocates in support. Thank you.

Genesis Gonzalez. On behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Kathy Mossberg on behalf of APLA Health and essential access, both in support.

Thank you.

Brianna Nelson, on behalf of TEACH and strong support as co-sponsors of the Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Say none. Anyone in opposition? Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council here in opposition to AB 2085. We believe this Bill undermines that. You have two minutes? Yeah, two minutes. Thank you.

We believe this Bill undermines local control, infringes upon religious liberty, and unjustly gives special privileges to abortion facilities which California does not have a shortage of, while neglecting the needs for more prenatal and maternity care. This Bill would force municipalities to open abortion facilities as a right and permits lawsuits against those that don't comply.

This overeat circumvents the local city councils that have the right to decide which businesses are permitted within their jurisdictions. Just as cities regulate local the location of tobacco in liquor stores or casinos, they should have the right to decide where abortion facilities go. Abortion is not just another healthcare service.

It's a profound moral issue deserving the highest scrutiny and local discretion. By forcing municipalities to accept abortion facilities, the state imposes a particular moral view and discriminates against reproductive care that is critically needed. One in four women in California received inadequate prenatal care. 46 maternity wards have closed down since 2012 and the maternal mortality rates are increasing.

It is inconceivable to prioritize the expansion of abortion facilities while neglecting essential maternity and prenatal services. It's unethical to mandate abortion clinics in communities that lack adequate facility to support pregnant women. Women in rural areas face severe challenges in accessing quality, pretty maternity care, and this Bill does nothing to address those disparities.

It's like you don't want women to have babies in certain areas. We should be rejoicing at pregnancies, not treating unborn babies like a deadly disease that need abortion as a cure. Abortion is a violent answer that harms both the child and the mother. And Californians deserve better. Thank you very much.

Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Oh, okay. Yes, come forward.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, Northern California Director of Baptist Revival Values in opposition.

Thank you. Okay, we'll come back here. Any comments or questions? Okay, seeing none, you have the opportunity to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I just want to say that as someone who has had three pregnancies, all of which I considered incredibly joyful, and I celebrated each and every one who was lucky to live in the Bay Area, where I had access to incredible prenatal care and needed it every single time, as every woman does.

I think that the opposition made my point for me about the lack of access to prenatal care across California. These community clinics do a lot more than provide access to abortion, and the blockage of them is harming our future and our communities. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, the Bill has been moved by. But we. We can't. Can't accept it until we take the quorum. Yes. Okay, hold on, hold on. All right, you're lucky. We're gonna take quorum.

[Roll Call]. You have a quorum.

Okay, now we'll take. Okay, Bill AB 2085 has been moved by. Senator Wiener will now take the vote.

Motion is to pass this amended to the Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call].Three to one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Leave that open for other Members. Okay, we will go back to. Oh, no, let's wait until. Should we wait for Senator Wuhab to vote on that? The other one. All right, let's go back and take a vote. We'll go back to. We need a motion. Motion on file item number nine.

Okay, we started with--yes. Okay. AB 2715. We need a motion. Senator Glazer moves AB 2715. Take the vote.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Okay, leave that open. We'll go back to Item Number One: AB 817.

We need a motion.

We need a motion.

Oh. We need a motion?

No motion.

There's no motion? Okay, no motion. I'm asking for a no.

That's fine.

Okay, we have a motion moved by Senator Wiener.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. Three to zero.

Okay. We'll hold it open.

Zero to three. Correction.

Thank you. All right, we'll hold that open. Next is Item Number Two: AB 1176. We need a motion. Thank you. Moved by Senator Glazer.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications. [Roll Call]. Four to one.

We'll hold that open and that's it. We'll go back and--we'll go back on all the bills so far? Okay. AB--Item Nine: AB 2715.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is four to zero with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Five to zero.

Leave that open. Go to Item Number One: AB 817.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is zero to three with the Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Zero to three.

Okay, move on to Item Number Two: AB 1176. We'll leave that other open.

She voted on that one.

Oh, she did? Okay. Which one?

File Item Number Two. Now we go to File Item Number Three.

Okay, Item Number Three: AB 2085.

Motion is: do pass as amended to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Current vote is three to one with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Four to one.

Leave it open. Okay. Now we move on to--we have any authors here? Addis? Hoover? McCarty? Bryan?

We can do a quick recess.

Okay. We have no authors here. We'll take a quick recess. As soon as somebody gets here, we'll take them up.

It's not working. Oh well, thank you, technical assistant Wiener. As I understand it, Assembly McCarty is having a special presenter here today, the Chair of our Committee, Maria Elena Durazzo.

And we'd like to recognize you to present. This is SB. This is AB 2593. No. Oh, it's Addis. I thought. Oops, boy, I apologize. Signals are getting crossed here all over the place. This is file item four. Is that correct? Assembly Bill 2302 by Assemblymember Addis. Chair Durazo, the floor is yours.

Okay.

Thank you. Yes. On behalf of Assemblymember Addis, this Bill will clarify the number of meetings that Members of a local legislative body can participate in remotely for just cause or emergency circumstances. During the Covid-19 pandemic, local bodies found that allowing Members to attend meetings remotely was helpful when they had difficulties attending in person.

In 2022, AB 2449 allowed Members of legislative. Local legislative bodies to participate in meetings remotely under certain circumstances for a maximum of 20% of meetings a year. Current law does not specify whether multiple sessions of a legislative body on the same day should be classified as one meeting or two separate meetings.

This creates an unintentional two tiered system where legislative bodies are treated differently under the law. AB 2302 would clarify the number of meetings that Members a local legislative body can participate in via teleconference each year based on how many times the local body meets.

And it preserves the original intent of AB 2449 because it still equals about 20% of the legislative body meetings each year. It clarifies that the term meeting means any number of meetings of a legislative body that begin on the same calendar day. This will reduce confusion. Okay. Around existing law, and ensure that public servants will not receive any unfair penalties while attempting to follow the law in good faith and serve their communities. Witness today is Dave Fleishman, City Attorney for the City of Pismo beach.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. So, we'll hear from your witnesses, and I understand it's a two minute limitation per witness for the Chair.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dave Fleishman. I'm the City Attorney for the City of Pismo beach, and I'm also the past President of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities. On behalf of the City of Pismo Beach, I'd like to express our steadfast support of AB 2302, which will give cities like Pismo Beach flexibility that was afforded to all other local governments during discussions around the Brown Act in 2022.

I also want to thank Assemblymember Addis for her willingness to author the legislation. The City of Pismo Beach is a small coastal community on the central coast and prides itself on transparency and public participation. The City Council has always encouraged input from the residents, especially at City Council meetings.

This has led the city to conduct both its open and closed sessions of the City Council meetings as separate individual meetings with separate agendas to provide a more predictable timeline for the public to participate. These meetings are always held consecutively on the same evening, and thus this nuanced approach has served several cities well to maximize transparency.

As you know, new laws were adopted in 2022 that addressed virtual participation in City Council meetings, capping the number of meetings Members of the legislative body can participate in virtually. This language was negotiated with local governments with the understanding at the time that they would be applied uniformly across all public agencies.

However, some interpretations of these new laws disproportionately impact cities like Pismo Beach, who agenize and conduct separate meetings of the City Council for open and closed sessions, as this results in a double counting of meetings in which Members of the City Council can participate remotely.

AB 2300 and two seeks to rectify the unintended consequence of these comprehensive bills from 2022 and restore flexibility and parity that was previously afforded to all local governments. We believe that this Bill is the right approach to addressing the problem and simply clarifies the intent from AB 2449 from Assemblymember Rubio in 2022.

Under interpretation of current law, our City Council Members in Pismo Beach can participate remotely only half the time than what was intended. In one instance, it resulted in our mayor opting to not attend one of the meetings to preserve his ability to appear remotely at a future meeting. Thank you for your consideration of AB 2302, and I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Great. Thank you, sir. Are there anybody who wants to do a me too on this Bill in support? Please come up to the microphone. Give us your name and affiliation.

Thank you, Members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also in support.

Thank you.

Sylvia Solis Shaw on behalf of the City of Goleta, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, in support.

Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. We're now going to turn to opposition. Are there main opposition witnesses here? Anybody here who wants to indicate their position in opposition? Alright. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Yes. On behalf of Assemblymember Addis, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Looking for a motion. Senator Wahab has moved the Bill and it is a due passed to what? To our secretary.

The Senate Floor.

That's a due passed to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

Motion is due passed to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]. Five to Zero.

Five to zero. We'll put it on call for absent Members.

Thank you, Members.

Good morning. We're moving on to Item Five: AB 2350, Assembly Member Hoover. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2350 to you today. As a former school board member, we are just introducing this bill as a simple change to the Brown Act, essentially. Under current law, it is required in the event of emergency meeting to contact members of the press via telephone.

This would simply allow an alternative to that, to contact members of the media via email for those members of the media that opt into that. We took some amendments in the Assembly to address concerns by the First Amendment Coalition, and I believe the bill now has no opposition. Would appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any--do you have anybody here?

I do not have testimony. There might be a couple people, MeToos.

Anybody here in support of AB 2350?

Madam Chair and Members, I'm Jenny Le Roux with First Amendment Coalition. We're not on record in support, but we are considering moving to support. So I thought I would share that.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Okay, seeing none, questions, comments here on the motion? Thank you, Senator Wahab. Let's take the vote. Oh, closing remarks. I'm sorry.

I'd just appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion is: do pass to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]. Six to zero.

We'll leave that open. Thank you. Next we have Senator--I mean Assembly Member--Assembly Member Bryan, and that's AB 2684. Welcome. We like to shake things up here.

Thank you.

Keep it spicy. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm proud to present AB 2684, a bill that would require city and counties to account for extreme heat in their local hazard mitigation plans or safety elements. First, I want to accept the committee's amendments and thank the committee staff for working so hard with me and my team.

Strategic planning in response to extreme heat will allow our local jurisdictions to be as prepared as possible to protect our residents from extreme heat. Looking ahead to 2050, over 200 of our cities will be experiencing average temperatures surpassing 90 degrees fahrenheit. Or looking back to yesterday when it was 106 degrees here in Sacramento--I looked at my weather app and it called it 'sizzling sunshine.'

The reason it's important to plan for extreme heat in our local hazard mitigations plan is because it allows local jurisdictions to have access to FEMA dollars in case of emergency heat or extreme heat emergencies, which they currently don't have access to.

Right now, the burden for these kinds of emergency crisis rests solely on those local jurisdictions and the state. By planning for these kinds of disasters, we open ourselves up to the ability to get outside resources from the federal government, which I think is critically important at a time like now where we're facing such an extreme budget deficit.

This bill had bipartisan support in the Assembly, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Joining me today to testify is Michael Jarrett, on behalf of Climate Resolve and former Assembly Member Roger Dickinson, representing CivicWell.

Welcome, and you have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good morning. My name is Michael Jarrett. I'm testifying on behalf of Climate Resolve. Climate Resolve is a nonprofit based in Los Angeles that builds collaboration to champion equitable climate solutions. Climate Resolve connects communities, organizations, and policymakers to address a global problem with local action.

Climate Resolve is proud to sponsor AB 2684, which supports local planning efforts on extreme heat. One of Climate Resolve's areas of focus is extreme heat because it is a silent killer that disproportionately impacts the elderly, children, low-income households, those with preexisting medical conditions, and communities of color.

Extreme heat is growing in intensity--we can see that today--frequency, and duration, and our communities are not prepared. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths than any other disaster in California. The Legislature has recognized the impact of extreme heat by establishing the Office of Planning and Research's Extreme Heat Community Resilience Program, a first-of-its-kind grant program to combat extreme heat in communities that need it the most, and by codifying the Extreme Heat Action Plan last year in Senator Caballero's SB 306.

AB 2684 looks to support local governments, making more local communities eligible for FEMA pre-hazard mitigation funds. Extreme heat impacts some communities every year, and others can be impacted in rare extreme weather heat domes.

Climate Resolve believes it is good government for every local government to plan for extreme heat. AB 2684 would open up new funding channels for local governments to plan and implement transformative and resilient infrastructure adapted to rising temperatures. We respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2684. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Roger Dickinson, Policy Director for CivicWell, formerly the Local Government Commission. Assembly Member Bryan has described the bill well, and we want to thank him for his leadership. Extreme heat is increasingly a major issue for communities across California as the impacts of climate change manifest themselves.

We not only see cities and counties in the Central Valley and southeast California enduring growing numbers of episodes of extreme heat, but cities and counties elsewhere throughout the state are experiencing the same pattern. Extreme heat can cause profound consequences for public health, local economies, and the environment.

Those who are most vulnerable among us, older populations, children, and those with health conditions face the greatest risk. However, there are steps we can take to reduce the impacts of extreme heat, including applying cool surfaces and creating green spaces. We can improve energy efficiency and increase clean energy to reduce heat island effects.

AB 2684 will allow local communities to build on the state's Extreme Heat Action Plan and Extreme Heat and Communities Resilience Program through the Office of Planning and Research by incorporating extreme heat components in the safety element of their general plans. In so doing, communities can use hazard mitigation planning and funding to address extreme heat conditions.

AB 2684 also provides a complement to SB 852 by Senator Dodd from 2022, which CivicWell co-sponsored that authorizes local governments to establish climate resilience districts. AB 2684 addresses a major threat to cities and counties throughout our state. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you, Assembly Member Dickinson. Okay, any others in support of AB 2684?

Alyssa Silhi with the City of Carlsbad, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more in support, anyone in opposition?

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Angie Manetti, here. I'm testifying on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Just wanted to clarify our position is opposed unless amended. I know the analysis has us stated as opposition. We are simply asking that when local governments update their safety element to address extreme heat, that it's consistent with the law that was passed by this Legislature in 2002, AB 209.

That law required the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit by January 1st, 2025, recommendations to the Legislature, which were designed to ensure that residential dwelling units can maintain a safe indoor air temperature. We ask that the mandate in AB 2684 on local governments is consistent with the HCD recommendations.

Those recommendations are intended to take into account methods for reducing indoor air temperatures, including but not limited to building and site electrical system limitations, cost barriers, electric utility capacity limitations, state and federal statutory requirements, and other relevant factors. The important considerations for heat mitigation will certainly be cost barriers for existing buildings and electrical utility capacity limits. We believe our requested amendment is reasonable and does not conflict with the goal of AB 2684. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, come back to the dais. Any comments or questions? Senator Glazer?

Thank you. Assemblyman Bryan, first let me just thank you for your leadership in this space. I think you're absolutely right. It's a big problem, and getting in front of it, certainly as it relates to trying to match it up with federal money, is the smart thing to do. The issue that I'm challenged on the bill is not about the goals, but really it's about how it's weaved into our existing requirements that are in law, and one of the things I note in this bill is that your effective date is not till 2028. Is that right?

Correct.

Yeah? So I'm wondering, the suggestion from the Apartment Association is that they're happy to have it adhere to these HCD regulations that are coming out next year, but nobody knows what they are, and I know it's your point of--I mean, the analysis raises the issue of definition as a challenge.

And you, I think, rightly, through staff have indicated that if you don't know what HCD is saying, how can we comply with it? Right? And so I think that's a fair, that's a fair point, too, yet we want to make sure that there's some consistent practices and policies that go forward to local governments. I know from my time in local government that these things are not, you know, it's not a light switch to turn on.

There is a process, there's an expense that every local government has to go through to do these things, rightfully so, but want to make sure that if we're going to direct them to do it, that there's some consistency in, and so they know how to do it. And that would really be my question to you, given that the implementation date of 2028, even though I won't be around, you will, why not pause a day, why not pause a year on this worthy proposal to make sure that we're going to get it right?

Yeah, I think, unfortunately, our climate emergency isn't one of those things we can pause here. As I mentioned yesterday, 106 here in Sacramento. Every year we are not planning for urban heat is a year that we are failing our seniors, we are failing our vulnerable communities. We should have started this process a long time ago. It also is another year where an emergency could happen that we can't get outside aid for.

Even giving it a 2028 headline gives local jurisdiction--we want to give them the flexibility to plan over time and over space, which is part of why not knowing what those recommendations from HCD are, boxing them in to recommendations that don't exist, I think, is unfair to our local jurisdictions. The needs of the Coachella Valley might be a little bit different than the needs of San Francisco, and so definitely want to maintain that flexibility.

I appreciate the Apartment Association, and we've been in communication about this bill and others, and I think we will stay in communication because our goals are aligned and I think we'll find that right landing spot. I'm not sure if it's forcing local jurisdictions to adhere to recommendations that don't exist yet, but I will be here next year and in 2028 if the people will have me, and so this is an issue I plan to work on through many iterations.

This is just, I think, the first step to making sure that our local jurisdictions are prepared for what is happening, what's coming, and have the resources both locally and nationally to deal with these crises.

If I could, in follow-up, again, I think our goals are aligned. I grew up here in Sacramento and 106 is not unusual. As I was growing up, I certainly had many of those days. But we are still in agreement about climate change and how this is a rising problem, so for sure. And I guess that's my pause. I still want to support your bill and what you're trying to do with it, it's just that--it just seems that this definition is critical to making sure there's consistency.

And the state has recognized in previous bills that this is a problem and there's requirements and the Governor's Action Plan is advancing. So it's not like this is a brand new--we're waking up and we see a problem. So you're trying to weave something into what is an existing action plan of the state, which is fine. It's just trying to make sure that we have clarity to local governments and that's just the pause that I guess makes me--want to support your bill--but has some concerns about making sure it can be, it can work well.

You have my commitment to continue working through it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Can I have a motion? Thank you, Senator Wahab. Closing remarks?

Yeah. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. Our local jurisdictions have been failing our seniors and vulnerable communities by failing to prepare for extreme heat. It is getting hotter and we are doing all that we can to reverse that trend, but as we know, that trend is continuing.

It's important that jurisdictions plan for this and have the resources they need when they're hit with a crisis. And that's not just their resources or the state's resources, it's federal FEMA emergency resources. This bill takes us one step closer to having that reality, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Take the vote. Now we have a motion.

Motion is: do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Okay, we'll leave the vote open. We have one more--we have one more bill who is not here. Oh, there he is, walking through the grand entrance. And Assembly Member McCarty, we are ready for you. Good morning. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to present AB 2593. This is a district Bill and a bipartisan Bill that I'm authoring jointly with Assembly Members Hoover and Nguyen, focusing on having a better regional, coordinated approach to tackling homelessness in our county. It's a problem in all counties.

I will note this morning, they came out with our point in time count here in Sacramento. So the good news is there are fewer homeless in Sacramento, a decrease by 29%. It was over 8000. Now, 6500 ish. But the bad news is there's still 6500 people sleeping outdoors. And as we know, they say over half of them have mental health challenges.

So what this leads us to really focus on and what our grand jury reported last year is a lack of coordination between the local jurisdictions, because at the end of the day, we are all in this together in our communities, and we're focusing that on the budget allocations to cities.

We're saying we want counties to have regional plans to work on these issues together. So what this Bill would do, it would set up a joint powers authority, like many of you came from local governments as well. We have JPAs on wastewater, transportation.

The library system in your county is ours here as well, but not one on the most pressing issue facing our community. This would set up a joint powers authority and a governance structure where the county and the cities within the County of Sacramento would work together and partner to focus on a regional plan.

That's one of the amendments that we're taking here, but more importantly, just better coordination and pooling resources. So this GPA won't have a land use authority to cite these locations. It won't use other jurisdictions dollars, but it will make sure that they work together in partnership to tackle this critical issue for Sacramento.

So with me today is April Ludwig, who's the CEO of Hope Cooperative, a local homeless organization making a difference here in Sacramento, and ask for her to testify and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, Ludwig, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. So, my name is April Ludwig. I'm the CEO of Hope Cooperative. It's my honor to be here to support AB 2593. Our organization has continuously provided services here in the Sacramento region for 43 years. And in those services, we provide mental health services, those who are suffering or who have substance abuse challenges, as well as who are experiencing homelessness.

As we are looking at this joint powers of authority, what we're excited about is the opportunity to bring local jurisdictions together to support in, incredibly, thinking about a plan, a strategic plan as well.

So we want to make sure that we are, the JPA would be supporting homelessness with making sure that our leaders set goals, share resources, and most importantly, follow a regional strategic plan to address homelessness. Such a plan has already been approved and developed by Sacramento's continuum of care provider.

Sacramento's depths forward, but needs the accountability that a JPA or joint powers authority would provide. So we're incredibly supportive of that plan, specifically based on the services that we provide with the individuals we provide those services to. Thank you so kindly for considering this.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay, seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Questions or comments from. Yes, Senator Dahale?

Yes, Senator, I just have a question. I'm coming out of local government, and I think we have the ability to do jpas with other agencies without having to do legislation. Why is this? What can these agencies not do? And what's the requirement for the Bill?

Yeah, we talked about that. There are some jpas, I know you have a little bit of Sacramento county as well, that were created by the Legislature statutorily. And so, you know, we just thought having the state create this would put more substance in it.

And we think, too, it's a really good tie in with what we're doing in the budget, because in the budget, we're saying more and more we want jurisdictions to work in partnership. So that was debated, but we are working with the jurisdictions. None of them oppose this measure, and it is all voluntary. All these jurisdictions would have the chance to opt in or, conversely, opt out as well.

So just back to my basic question, though. I'm a support your Bill, but I'm trying to make sure that there's. They legally can do a JPA their own without having to do state legislation. All these interested parties can come together form a JPA right now.

That's possible.

Okay.

But some, conversely, some JPAs are created through.

Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

Okay, just a clarification. Assembly Member, could you clarify that you are accepting all of the Committee amendments?

Yes. I'm sorry, I thought I said that, but maybe went too fast. All of them.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Glazer moves the Bill. Assemblymember McCarty, closing remarks?

Yeah. Thank you for working with us. This is an issue in all of our communities, and hopefully this can be a model that can help Sacramento but can be utilized elsewhere in California. Thank you.

All right, call for the vote.

Motion is to pass us amended to the Committee on Housing. [Roll Call]

Okay, we close the roll on AB 2593. There you go.

File item number nine or do you want to start with number one?

No, we'll just go with number one. So we'll go back to item number one. AB 817.

Motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is zero to three. With the Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Zero to four.

If there's no objection. I'll close the roll first. Okay. All right, we'll close the roll first.

Zero to four. The Bill fails.

Okay. Zero to four. The Bill fails. There's no objection. Grant reconsideration. Okay. All right, move on to item number two. AB 1176.

Motion is due passed to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. Current vote is four to one, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Five to two. Close the roll.

Close the roll. Move on to item four. AB 2302.

File item number three.

Oh, do we. Oh, sorry. Item three. AB 2085.

Motion is due passed as amemded to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Current vote is four to one, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Five to two.

Close the roll. Five to two. Okay, we move on to item four. AB 2302.

Motion is due passed to the Senate Floor. Current vote is five to zero, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

Close the roll. Item five, AB 2350.

Motion is due passed to the Committee on Education. Current vote is six to zero, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

Close the roll. Item six. Oh, no, we don't need that. Item seven, AB 20. We did that already. Yes. Okay. Item 8. AB 2684.

Motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is four to zero with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Five to one. Close the roll.

Oh. Close the roll. Okay, we close the roll. Go on to item nine. AB 2715.

Motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is five to zero, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

What's the last item? All right, that's it. Close the roll n item nine. Yep. That's it. 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.

Everyone's participation comments are very important to us. We want to include you in the official records. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda. Happy birthday, Jonathan. And Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.