Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Now we'll come to order. Thank you all for joining us at this meeting. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our Committee meetings here in the state capitol. I ask all Members of the Committee to please be present in room 113 so so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We had 17 bills on today's agenda, three of which are on consent item six, AB 20117 by Assemblymember Patterson item 13, AB 2939 by Speaker Emeritus Rendon, and item 17, AB 3276, by Assemblymember Ramos. In addition, we have a few housekeeping notes. File seven, AB 2729 by Assemblymember Joe Patterson, has been pulled.

File 11, AB 2791 by Assemblymember Wilson, has been pulled. We also have a hard out at noon, so I encourage all authors and witnesses to please be brief in your comments to the extent possible. We do not currently have a quorum, so we will start by operating as a Subcommitee. Now let's hear from our first author, author for several bills. Assemblymember Friedman Good Morning. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair. My first Bill is AB 930. First, I'm going to be accepting the Committee amendments starting on Page 10, comment five of the analysis. I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their work on the Bill. Many local governments would like to boost investment in infrastructure and transit oriented infill development.

However, lack of access to funding and projects are not economically feasible. Sorry, accessing funding and projects are not economically feasible due to a lack of available land, high infrastructure costs, weak market comps, and expensive and risky entitlement processes. In 1945, California enacted the California Redevelopment Act to assist local governments in eliminating blight through development.

This program allowed redevelopment agencies to use state and local incremental tax - property tax to support redevelopment. This program was successful in eliminating blight and resulted in thousands of new housing units over the course of its 67 year history, including a lot in my district. This program was dissolved however, in 2012.

AB 930 will permit two or more local governments to jointly form a reinvestment in infrastructure for a sustainable and equitable California, known as a RISE district, to unlock tax increment financing for infrastructure, affordable housing, and equitable development in location efficient areas. This is completely an opt in for municipalities and localities. No one's forcing them to do this.

RISE district plans will align with metropolitan planning organization sustainable community strategies while targeting infrastructure investments that support equitable development in existing community centers while reducing car dependence, lowering carbon emissions, and encouraging economic development and climate resilient housing production, near transit and walkable communities. The RISE act will align planning and infrastructure investments to refocus growth towards community centers.

The Bill is sponsored by the Council of Infill Builders, SPUR and CivicWell and is supported by California Home Building Alliance, the City of Oakland, Monterey County and SCAG. Testifying in support today are Meea Kang, Senior Vice President with Related California and Director of the Council of Infill Builders, and Roger Dickinson, Policy Director with CivicWell. Hi Roger. With that I would respectfully request an aye vote when you have a quorum.

Hi, good morning Madam Chair and Members. My name is Meea Kang and I am the - I'm a Senior Vice President with Related California and one of the founding board Members of the Council of Infill Builders and we're one of the Bill's proud co sponsors. I've been developing affordable housing in California for the last 2500. I'm sorry.

For the last 25 years, I've built almost. I've built almost 2000 units of affordable housing in the state. So I started my career working with redevelopment agencies who once played an enormous role in creating affordable housing in the state. Redevelopment agencies were required to set aside 20% of their revenues to create and rehabilitate and preserve affordable housing.

Prior to the elimination of RDAs in 2012, it was estimated that RDAs contributed about $1.0 billion a year to affordable housing, and this was the largest pool of non federal money that was available for affordable homes in the state. Today, the majority of the funding for affordable housing is awarded through competitive state programs.

Last year, HCD Super NOFA, as it's known, was awarded $576 million to fund affordable housing. However, the total amount requested by qualified developers and projects around the state was more than $3.5 billion, representing over 20,000 units. For the majority of projects that were not funded, they were mothballed and were waiting for the following year to request funding.

It is common right now for developments to incur about 10 different layers of funding to make affordable housing work, and sometimes it can take a decade to bring all the funding together. AB 930 will permit local governments to form rise districts to leverage tax increment financing for infrastructure and affordable housing.

50% of the funding will be required to be spent on supportive infrastructure to help those communities with transit and affordable housing infrastructure. 30% of the money will be a new dedicated source for affordable housing and all the units are required to be deed restricted.

AB 930 also establishes a new revolving loan fund at Ibank that will help to jumpstart growth in new rise districts. That will help to fund infrastructure to help jump start the RISE plans in suburban, rural and urban communities, reducing car dependence, and lowering carbon emissions.

AB 930 will incentivize local governments to work collaboratively together to leverage resources and align climate planning and strategic investments in infrastructure and affordable housing. AB 930 will provide sustainable long term financing that will empower local communities to build more equitable housing and create more resilient communities. We thank the author for her visionary leadership, and we respectfully ask for the Committee's aye vote. Thank you.

Thanks, Mia.

I did announce earlier that we have two minutes for each and if you did it in less time, it would be even greater.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, good morning. I'm Roger Dickinson, the Policy Director for CivicWell, previously the Local Government Commission and I want to thank Assemblymember Friedman for her leadership and great description of the Bill. I've been deeply involved in efforts to integrate land use and transportation for multiple decades as a county supervisor, as a Member of the Assembly, and as a citizen to promote a stronger economy, a healthier environment and sustainable communities, including as a principal co author of SB 628 by Senator Bell in 2014, which authorized the creation of EIFDs.

AB 930 builds on the concept of EIFDs by allowing local governments to dedicate growth in local property tax revenue to finance investments in infrastructure and affordable housing in geographic areas, near transit and in location efficient sites. In so doing, AB 930 provides a form of Value Capture. Properties that enjoy enhanced value due to their proximity to transit or other desirable location will help underwrite the cost of public investment.

Local governments will be able to focus that investment where it will yield the greatest return in fostering the elements in which sustainable communities depend, a greater supply of affordable housing, a development pattern that reduces trips and greenhouse gas emissions, and a setting that provides walkability and social cohesion.

AB 930 can jumpstart projects that will bring results through the concept of a state revolving loan fund, as Miss Kang described, and it dovetails nicely with AB 2011 SB six. AB 930 provides a significant new tool for local governments to use as they endeavor to grow smarter, and I respectfully request your aye vote for AB 930.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Appreciate it. And now do we have any more in support of AB 930?

Michael Lane with SPUR. Co sponsor and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action in support and on behalf of our chapters and Members, including East Bay for - East Bay YIMBY, Mountain View YIMBY, Northern Neighbors Peninsula for Everyone, San Francisco YIMBY, Santa Cruz YIMBY, Santa Rosa YIMBY, SLOCo YIMBY, Urban Environmentalists, Grow the Richmond, Ventura County YIMBY, Streets for People, Southside Ford, How to ADU, People for Housing Orange County, Progress Noe Valley, South Bay YIMBY and Napa Solano for Everyone. In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Watson, on behalf of BART. We had a support, if amended position, but with the recent amendments are supportive now. Thank you to the author. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Bob Naylor for Field Stud & Company. Howard Ahmanson, Jr., an Orange County philanthropist moving from oppose to support based on the amendment, for which we thank the author banning eminent domain.

Thank you.

Marc Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Thank you.

Any more in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association. Unfortunately, in opposition.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Come to the dais. Questions or comments, colleagues? Okay. We don't have the quorum. Okay. So when we do have a quorum, then we will take up the motion. Thank you very much for this presentation. Assemblymember, move on to AB 1889.

Thank you very much.

First, I will be accepting the suggested committee amendments mentioned on page five, comment four of the analysis. AB 1889 requires local governments to consider and minimize impacts to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity as part of the conservation element of their general plan, in consultation with state and local agencies, starting with the next general plan update after January 1, 2028. California, as you know, has a very rich resources in terms of its biodiversity.

But when we build without thinking of the migratory paths of these animals, a lot of times we end up with unnecessary and often dangerous interactions between humans and wildlife, particularly large wildlife. This can be avoided if we just did a little better planning up front.

Figure out where animals are migrating, the best path to get them to migrate through areas, and then build around that and protect those corridors. Right now, in Los Angeles, we're having to go back and add wildlife corridors, which is expensive. We see large migratory animals, particularly deer, causing human deaths every year on our roadways.

That doesn't have to happen if we just do the planning that we need upfront. Some jurisdictions, like Ventura County, have voluntarily adopted wildlife connectivity policies, but it's important that we have statewide implementation. These animals don't recognize those boundaries. And I want to stress that AB 1889 is not creating any new protections or programs or providing for more enforcement authority.

And if you're worried about this program stopping new housing, recognize that housing is stopped when someone buys a piece of land, comes up with a plan, because that's what was in the general plan, and goes to build on it, does an EIR, and then gets hit with someone saying, hey, you've got migratory animals.

It's much better for developers to know up front and to come right in with their plan with a mitigation plan, like fencing or a little path or a ditch or whatever it is up front. So this, we're talking about connectivity. We are not talking about wholesale putting large pieces of land aside for these animals.

That's not what this bill is about. It's simply about migrating animals. Nothing in AB 1889 requires local jurisdictions to construct new wildlife crossings over existing roads or highways. This is really encouraging local jurisdictions to take a holistic approach as they plan in the future.

It also gives local jurisdiction access to tools by having state agencies be available to them. So, really, this is something that should be a no brainer, easy aye. Today, testifying in support is former Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks and Joshua Hugg with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. This bill, by the way, has had bipartisan support, and I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Good morning, Chair Durazo and Committee Members. I'm Linda Parks. I'm a former Planning Commissioner, Council Member, Mayor, and recently retired from the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. During my time on the Board of Supervisors, we adopted and implemented Ventura County's wildlife corridor ordinance. And I'm here to tell you today that AB 1889 is needed and very feasible. Like Ventura County's ordinance, AB 1889 provides clear directive to planners and developers to consider wildlife crossings and wildlife corridors in the planning process.

Planners can use existing resources, such as California Fish and Wildlife's Essential Habitat Connectivity data, and developers will know early in the development process what is expected of them. This will minimize the need for project changes later on, and it saves money and time. And it will also minimize the need for project changes. AB 1889 won't prevent development.

Rather, it calls for things like wildlife friendly lighting and fencing and landscaping. Don't plant invasive plants, for example. And where possible, do cluster development instead of harmful urban sprawl. We know that CEQA already requires, at the project level, looking at wildlife corridor impacts, but this allows for all foundational scientific information to be all in one place, the conservation element of general plans. We would like to ask that you help facilitate better regional planning by adopting AB 1889.

It will also help avoid the unnecessary extinction of iconic wildlife like mountain lions. And while I'm here, I just want to thank you and also the Governor for your investment in wildlife infrastructure like crossings, like the Wallis Annenberg Bridge, which is currently being built in Agoura over the 101 freeway, the largest wildlife bridge in the world. And because of Ventura County's wildlife corridor, wildlife corridor ordinance, wildlife crossing that bridge, we'll have connected open space on either side. So just urging your support to allow room to roam. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair.

Morning.

Chair Durazo and Members of the Committee. My name is Josh Hugg. I'm the Governmental Affairs Program Manager for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Midpen is a special district located on the San Francisco Peninsula that has, for the past 50 years, had a three part mission, acquire and preserve open space land, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.

To date, we have protected and managed over 72,000 acres of open space next to Silicon Valley. As an agency that is shepherding two large scale habitat connectivity projects serving wildlife as large as mountain lions and as small as newts, we urge your support for AB 1889.

This bill provides local jurisdictions the opportunity to identify, establish, and protect habitat connectivity while allowing development in locations that may be less beneficial to local wildlife. Wildlife are doing their best to survive despite intense pressure from human development, including roadways, water and power lines, and intensifying residential and recreational uses.

For our two projects, wildlife are facing all of these factors, and they need the ability to safely move through and across the remaining habitat. Connections are vitally important for both people and wildlife. They are able to live longer and thrive when they are connected and can freely move between places they need to survive.

People benefit from these healthy, connected ecosystems through clean air, filtered water, pollinated crops, and healthy soils. Today, habitat connectivity requires large infrastructure projects that can cost tens of millions of dollars. Let's build upon these voter supported projects by ensuring that open spaces are reconnected and protected from future development that would further fragment habitat.

Thoughtful land use planning can connect our landscape and provide access to intact natural areas for future generations, while bringing the state closer to its 30 by 30 goals. In summary, 1889 is crucial as it addresses the pressing need to identify and safeguard wildlife corridors in California to mitigate habitat fragmentation, preserve biodiversity, and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that'd like to me too in support of AB 1889?

Good morning. Abigail Smet on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Erin Woolley with Sierra Club of California in support.

Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, anyone in opposition to AB 1889? Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and we do have an opposed unless amended position on AB 1889. We've been concerned that AB 1889 would require local governments to modify the conservation element within their general plan in such a way that would expand the scope and scale of the element beyond public lands and require levels of mitigation that should be dealt with at the project level, and in doing so, put restriction on housing development.

However, we've had positive conversations with the author's office, catching up with the consultant behind you here. Some of these amendments have been accepted, so I will be brief. There's a few remaining issues, but just very quickly to touch on them. We were concerned about the lack of inclusion of the word feasibility in Section 65302.

So there's been some acceptance of that. And I would like to continue to work to ensure that it's equal to other elements in that regard. And then two, there was a change that I understand was now made from and or, so that we don't have to mitigate if we have avoided impact on wildlife. So thank you for that. And then we'd like to continue to work on the definition of wildlife. We had some conversations with the author's office, but we'd like to at least keep that door open to have continued conversations.

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1889?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended. Wanted to thank the author's office. The amendments are moving the bill in the right direction. We do believe that it would be more efficient to have it contingent upon AB 2320, which is moving through, that would map out these wildlife corridors. For it, make it easier for our cities and our staff to do that. Cal Cities has supported that bill, so we want to see that upon that. But we think the bills move it in the right direction. Look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we come to dais. Yes, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author. We had a text exchange yesterday about this, and I appreciate you working with the housing folks on this. I'll be supporting this bill, and it's an important issue. But when I saw it, it did set off some alarm bells to me because I also know that sometimes the best crafted environmental protections can be abused by bad faith actors who are really not concerned about wildlife but are concerned about stopping new housing in their community.

We saw this in the most dramatic way, and you'll remember this, when the City of Woodside, in bad faith pronounced itself, the entire city was a mountain lion refuge, or whatever wording they used. And their goal was to exempt themselves from state housing law because, honestly, because this Legislature has a habit of putting in very vague exemptions in the state housing laws. And Woodside tried to abuse that. Fortunately, the mountain lion advocate came forward and said, no, duplexes are not harmful to mountain lions.

And it was just an absurd, frivolous argument by Woodside. But honestly, it gave a black eye to a lot of different efforts, like legitimate efforts like this to protect wildlife. So I just want to make sure that this is not going to create yet another tool for bad faith actors who want to oppose housing to do so purportedly in the name of wildlife. So can you just maybe just comment on that general issue? And I appreciate your continuing to work with the opposition.

Totally appreciate the concern, and it's a very reasonable one, which is why we work to strike this balance. I would say that in my experience, and like you, I come from local government, when folks come up to bring up things like wildlife to block projects, it's usually at the project level. Someone's proposed a specific project. They're looking for a way to stop it, and they'll come up with an excuse.

I actually think that moving some of this, moving this planning to the general plan stage, people aren't as likely, I believe, to start to look at specific areas and say, well, you can't have development there, or you can have development there, because what you'd be looking at, when you're looking at that early stage is, do we have migratory animals, first of all?

And if so, where are they going? And how do we just make sure that they can move through without having conflicts between people? And by doing that work up front. When projects do come in at the later stage, that work has already been done. And if someone comes in and says, what about the deer? They can say, hey, the city already has this mitigation plan. We've adopted the mitigation plan. It's been incorporated into our development, and it takes the wind out of the sails of somebody who's going to oppose a project at the project level.

So I actually, from my experience, believe, like, for instance, when I was doing historic preservation in Glendale, by doing a windshield survey up front and identifying those properties, it let the developers know what they were getting into right away from the get go. That project's been identified as potentially a historic structure.

Maybe I better think twice before I purchase it, put all the money into it. Instead, they said this project was surveyed not historic. I know going in, I'm not going to have that fight. And so it made that process at the project level a lot smoother. And so that's how I envision this working.

Yeah. And I think with cities acting in good faith, that will 100% be the case. We know that of the 500 cities, there are some bad faith actors who will. Some cities that could use this to try to put stuff in there to try to poison the well at the project level. So we have to be mindful of that. But I am supporting the bill, and I appreciate your work with the stakeholders on it.

Thank you. Yes, Senator Dahle.

Just had a couple comments and then a question as well. I came out of the local government, did general plans for counties. Those processes sometimes take 10 years, and you're supposed to do them every 10 years. But we had, at least in the rural parts of the state, huge migratory issues and zoning is critical to that. But my question to you is that, and I sat on Sub 2, which is where we funded when we had money, the wildlife crossings down in Southern California for lions, quite frankly, where there was an issue.

So where you already have development, severe development, which is mainly the coastlines in Southern California. What is your, what is your, what is it, how is this going to impact areas where it's just very difficult already to figure out, those corridors have been ruined, quite frankly, by interstate freeways. And so what's your thought on trying to manage those small areas that are left in very developed areas? How is this bill going to impact that?

Yeah, you know, there is, in this bill, it doesn't create any new programs. It doesn't. And I would say sort of his answer as well to the other concern, that it doesn't create any new burden. All it's doing is saying plan earlier for it. The burden is there regardless when you develop. In terms of existing areas, I think it would be great if they know they have an issue, as we have in Los Angeles with some of our big cats. We now have a new lion in Griffith Park.

To use this as an excuse or as a time when we can start looking and mitigating some of the existing impacts. You know, we've had something like nine lions or eight lions in the last five years killed on the freeway. That's really dangerous for humans. That's why we're building the wildlife crossing.

You know, if we're doing this every 10 years, it's an opportunity for cities to take a look at when they're having traffic. You know, they're having these traffic collisions where they're having, and I've got parts in my district where there's bears being like airlifted out of neighborhoods, you know, on a fairly regular basis It seems like.

You know, these are really causing a problem in communities. This could be a time to look at, hey, is there an area we can fence? And the beauty of this is that now it makes Fish and Wildlife available to the agencies to consult, whereas right now they don't really have that same access.

So we've had agencies tell us, you know, this actually could be helpful because now we can get data from them, we can get information from them, we can get suggestions. There's no enforcement in this. No one's gonna come and ding them if they're not doing it. I think it would be nice if they took a look if they know they're having problems. But this is really much more perspective. It's about development in the future. That's what it's aimed at, not trying to fix things that are there now.

Thank you. Just one last comment. We had the Williamson Act, which was a long time bill that allowed agriculture to get a tax exemption on their property tax, a small tax exemption to keep open space, and you had to not develop, but unfortunately it doesn't get, it never gets funded.

So nobody uses that program anymore as ag, where we had the opportunity to keep some open space in areas and actually till it, and make a living off it. Anyway, I'm going to lay off your bill today. I want to make sure the amendments that you are talking about making satisfying. So we'll see what happens when it gets out of committee and onto the floor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any closing remarks?

Appreciate the conversation. We're definitely listening with our ears open and we'll do our best to address the concerns.

Great.

When we get our quorum, we will take up the vote on this. Next, Assemblymember Friedman is AB 2553.

Thank you. I'm halfway through. Proud to present AB 2253. We will be accepting the suggested Committee amendments on Page 4, Comment 3 of the analysis. And again, I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their work on the Bill.

AB 2553 clarifies when local jurisdictions must impose lower traffic impact fees on transit proximate housing developments. It also updates the definition of major transit stop to reflect post Covid service levels. First, if a local agency has adopted a traffic impact fee.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires the fee to be set at a lower rate for housing development projects that generate reduced vehicle trips, as determined by whether the housing development meets several criteria, including proximity to transit. Currently, the law requires housing developments to be within one half mile of a transit station, which is a very narrow and old fashioned definition that excludes many projects well served by transit.

Many local agencies have very high traffic impact fees, posing an impediment to the production of housing and overcharging transit proximity at housing developments that would have minimal traffic impacts. However, several other statutes, including the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Density Bonus Law, encouraged development to occur near transit by providing benefits such as a streamlined environmental review and lower parking standards, amongst others.

Under these statutes, a development project must be proximate to a major transit stop, which, among other things, includes the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during morning and afternoon peak periods.

AB 2553 requires the agencies to consider reducing traffic impact fees for housing development within a half mile of major transit stops to conform the language and the intent behind these definitions. And because some transit agencies cut their service time because of Covid-19 there are fewer locations that are meeting the definition of a major transit stop.

However, we still know that people are riding transit and that projects close to transit do reduce the need for people to be driving around, and we should give those projects the same benefit that they used to receive pre Covid. Speaking in support of AB 2553 today is Michael Lane, State Policy Director for SPUR. This Bill has had bipartisan support, no opposition, and has gotten no no votes. With that, I would request we continue the trend. Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair and Members.

Go ahead, go ahead, Mister Lane.

Michael Lane was SPUR public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we really do see this legislation is building on the state's policies, plans, and funding priorities, particularly for transit oriented affordable housing, and to create more opportunities and incentives to be able to build that type of housing and to also help to boost transit ridership. So I think it really ties in with all of our other goals, including equity, affordability, and sustainability in terms of environmental quality. So we urgently ask your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2553?

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action and the interests of brevity I won't listen the nearly two dozen chapters that are also in support of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you twice.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs here in support on behalf of Sandhill Properties, Habitat for Humanity California and CivicWell.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Good morning. Mark Vukovich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Thank you.

Anyone in opposition to AB 2553? Okay. Seeing none. Yes. Closing remarks? Oh, sorry. Senator Dahle, any comments or questions? Okay. All right. Seeing no more. No more questions or comments. Would you like to close? Thank you. Okay. Okay. And your last Bill is AB 2712?

Yes. I will be accepting the Committee amendments by completely eliminating Section 658631 c of the Bill. I want to thank the Committee and Committee staff for their work on this Bill. This is a district Bill. It only applies to the City of Los Angeles.

And what this Bill will do is in areas where my previous Bill that removed a city's ability to require mandated parking near transit, we have had a problem in some of our most dense areas where developers are coming in with very large market rate projects, and they are promising everybody that they will have permit parking for the neighborhoods behind them because some of these corridors were actually never zoned for housing in the past, and so they were sort of looped into preferential parking zones because they didn't have housing.

The City of Los Angeles sort of drew a line down some of our major corridors, like Wilshire Boulevard and Olympic, because at the time, those were all office buildings and retail.

And so now developers are coming in and building these large, building, large buildings and saying they're going to try to give everybody in the building two or three preferential parking passes in areas where the existing neighborhoods cannot absorb that kind of impact.

And as the author of the Bill that did get rid of those parking requirements, the idea was that developers would build the parking that their park, that their projects really needed, and that if people were going to move into a unit that didn't have parking, they were going to self select in based on their ability to ride transit or to walk to work, not that they were going to add impact to the neighborhood surrounding it.

So AB 20712 will exempt resident. There are some exemptions. It exempts residents and residential developments that are 20 units or less. So it won't stop people from adding a couple units to an existing building because we need that.

It exempts the residents in units that are deed restricted developments intended for households that are very low income households, extremely Low income or lower income households. It allows the city to. So this is a Bill that, you know, is really to try to address some of the unintended impacts of my previous Bill, AB 2097.

It is limited to the City of Los Angeles, and it's received bipartisan support. Speaking today in support is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. And I respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Durazzo and Members of the Committee. My name is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League, and I'm here today to second what Assemblymember Friedman has said and to express California's need for the smart and responsible parking reforms put forth in AB 20712.

This Bill recognizes the need to support transit oriented development and affordable housing without encroaching on and overcrowding the curb parking that existing residents rely on. By excluding large, Low and no parking developments from preferential parking districts in Los Angeles, 712 will, one, prevent infill development from displacing neighbors from the curb parking they currently rely on?

Two, it'll diffuse opposition to new housing and businesses on the grounds that they will overcrowd nearby street parking, making it easier to get these projects off the ground and three, it'll ensure that transit oriented development is actually transit oriented. These projects should support car free tenants and customers, not simply push parking demands to already crowded streets.

AB 2712 is a win for affordable housing, for existing neighbors and for our climate and public health goals. We know that California cannot meet its long term climate goals without reforming our land use patterns to curb VMT growth.

We know that affordable housing won't truly be affordable as long as Low wage households are displaced to the urban periphery and priced out of transit access and proximity to economic opportunities. Where transit is an option. We know that mandatory parking minimums impose artificially inflated prices on residents they do not need and potentially cannot afford.

By addressing concerns about removing parking minimums and reducing opposition to nearby Low income house housing development, this Bill fosters inclusive and resilient communities. And by curbing urban sprawl and induced car usage, this Bill contributes to reductions in vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing California's climate goals, which is a win for everyone.

AB 2712 is an incredibly creative and incredibly pragmatic approach to our climate and housing crises that supports both equity and existing community needs. This Bill is important and thoughtful and error to your support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2712? No, seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 2712? Okay, great. All right, Senator.

Well, I just. God, this is a tough one for me because the unintended consequences of trying to do infill around transit is you still, the public is still driving cars. Unfortunately, we're not going to shut. We're.

The policies have been pushing them towards getting out of vehicles because we're going to save the world climate wise here in California. But at the end of the day, it's really not happening. On the street. It's not happening.

People still have cars and they're trying to figure out how to live in this Low income housing next to a transit. But they still have a car. So what are they doing? They're parking next to it in somebody else's lot or somewhere and it's caught. This is the problem.

And so if you don't address parking, you're still going to have ticked off neighbors and you're going to have, and if you don't have a designated spot, somebody's going to take your spot. I was in San Francisco just the other day. I'm sorry, the other representative from San Francisco is not here. I couldn't find a parking spot.

It's like literally no parking. Well, I haven't a meeting to go to or actually it was a medical meeting and it's like it was miles before I could find this place to park. So how is this going to, this is only for Los Angeles, but there's a statewide problem when you do infill, I mean, right here on Folsom Boulevard, they did infill right next to the light rail station. And, and there's a lot of little scooters there, but there's still cars everywhere.

So I'm just trying to figure out, I mean, I know your previous Bill, I know you're trying to fix it, but you're not fixing it for everybody. And then we have to have an adult conversation about parking because Californians are not moving fast enough out of their cars to mitigate the housing issue we have.

So. Yeah, and just to be clear, we've already gotten away with the parking mandates. So developers are still free to build parking on their sites. If they feel that their tenants are going to need the parking, they can still provide that.

And what's ironic is that this Bill is in response to market rate developers who are building, not affordable housing developers who are just not wanting to pay for that subterranean parking. These are areas where if you gave all these people permits, you're still not creating any more curb parking. So that is not a solution.

So we have a choice. The choices we, we don't build in these areas at all. And we keep pushing people further and further away from these urban centers where their jobs are. That's one solution. That's what we've basically been doing.

Or we can make the investments in mass transit that we really need to make while still allowing for building, you know, other cities that have developed have figured this out, whether it's, you know, I was just in Washington, DC, and I didn't have a car in Washington, DC.

I took the bus and I took transit everywhere, and it was glorious. You know, there are ways that cities can mitigate. I had another Bill that passed last year that allows for developers to share parking. Developers can contract for parking with, and we've seen this already in Los Angeles.

We have a lot of office buildings that are lacking tenants right now and have giant parking spaces underneath. We are seeing some housing developers leasing out those parking spaces and letting people park in that building. That one is one or two buildings over.

So when you really need to use this resource, cities can figure out ways to do it. I'll tell you, city, my district office is. My district office is in a building that has a giant above ground parking lot that's taking up a lot of space. There is less than one floor of that use at any given time.

At the peak of the office day, half a floor maybe, and it's got another six floors above. It's a complete waste of space at this point. And yet when the city wanted to develop a housing unit in the downtown, you know what they try to do? Get that developer to add a whole bunch of subterranean parking.

So there are, there are reasons that we need to push cities and developers to also use the resources that we have more wisely and make those investments into the transit that will allow us to build.

Because just because we build the housing, even if you build it with the parking, you're now adding so much congestion that people can't even get around in a lot of our areas. So we have got, we can't just say, hey, give them the parking permits. Problem solved. As my witness said, you need to.

We need to be thinking of other ways to, to do mobility and better ways to do mobility. Many cities around the world have figured this out. We need to do, I'm talking about Los Angeles specifically now. We need to do a much better job.

But we know that bringing more cars into these areas is the opposite of what we need to do. All we're doing is adding congestion and adding to the parking problem. So we can't figure it all out in one Bill.

But I know that doing this will actually help the problem and not to continue to exacerbate and make it to the point where these residents who live nearby will oppose the housing that we desperately need in these areas. Desperately need it. Thank you.

Well, I want to just follow up because we talk about transit and that's people aren't riding transit. I mean, it's another problem. I sit on the Transportation Committee, and transit is a big issue, too. And it's not just. It's. They're trying to do a Bill in San Francisco to just Fund their transit there because people aren't riding it. So. So what? So, I mean, it's just like every option we have is not working when we're trying to crowd people in, which is very frustrating. I guess, for me, it's like we want to tax the people for more money to go build transit when people aren't even riding the transit as it is. So, I mean.

Thank you. Well, in Los Angeles, our ridership is growing, and so there's something that's attracting more people. Unfortunately, sometimes they're forced because of the cost of gasoline and other things. That should not be the reason. But we know that ridership is growing.

So, as the author says, this is not the whole picture, and we have to do a number of things all at the same time. Thank you. No more questions. Do you want final, final words on your final Bill?

Appreciate the discussion and absolutely agree that we need to make transit better, invest it, and find a better way to invest in it so that more people want to ride it the way they do in other cities that have excellent transit. Thank you.

And we will be taking up, when we get a quorum, take up all four bills. Thank you. Next we have Assemblymember Schiavo, AB 1820, and if you have a witness. Okay. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1820 to you. This is a simple, good government measure that allows housing developers to know development fees prior to committing shovels to ground in 2021.

A study conducted by the Turner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, found inconsistent compliance with AB 1483, which required cities and counties to post the fee schedule to their websites. Many jurisdictions had incomplete, unreliable fees or hard to find information.

Knowledge of these fees are critical because these fees can add up to 20% of the cost of a home, which can be the tipping point for many people in being able to access an affordable home.

AB 1820 provides guardrails, especially for affordable home developers, to have predictability of costs affiliated with the affordable housing that we need so urgently. The recent author amendments removed all opposition. We appreciate working with Committee staff. These amendments were technical and provide better clarity.

CSAC, CAL FIRE chiefs and the league, along with park and special districts, were instrumental in these discussions, and I want to thank all of the stakeholders in this process and here to testify and support. I have Michael Lane from Spur. And Wes. Is Wes here too? Wes is here too. Wes Sagewalker, a local Sacramento developer, is also here.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Michael Amos, for a public policy Think Tank in the San Francisco Bay Area, we really see this as the bill's premise to be no surprises.

We think it's really important for developers to be able to engage early with the local jurisdiction to identify what those fees might be, because they can be millions of dollars and up to nearly 20% of the cost of a new housing unit, and to catch any errors and omissions early in the process, if they do exist, or any misunderstandings, to hopefully avoid any kinds of conflicts or even potential litigation with respect to requests an aye vote. Thank you.

Any other, anyone else here in support, go ahead.

Morning, Madam Chair and council and Members of the Committee. My name is Wesley Sagewalker with Gateway Development Company. We've got over a thousand units in our pipeline in the Sacramento area, principally focus on multifamily with privately financed affordable housing component to it.

So not taking any public subsidies, but still managing to create restricted units, which is, I think, cool thing. And so really, I'm just here because the job fundamentally of a real estate developer is to do risk mitigation and to handle risk. There are a lot of different buckets of risk, but one non trivial source of risk is impact fees.

When we go in to submit a project, often we are really just trying to base our guesses on what that is going to be based on past projects, and then obviously we'll go to their tables and try and do some of our own calculations.

But it's not always, our calculations do not always line up with the numbers that were presented from the city, particularly when it comes to any sort of offsite requirements that come down the pipeline from various agencies. As stated, these impact fees do contribute a non trivial amount of the cost per unit.

And so the variation that you can see from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from, frankly, project type to project type can really be a real source of risk. And so I think having greater clarity on that earlier in the process is a way for us to help reduce risk on projects which, you know, would help more projects move forward. Finally, the main benefit I see here is that I think that this can help increase market competitiveness, particularly if you're an established development firm.

If you could wrap up, please. Yeah, absolutely.

If you're an established development firm, you can more easily go into other jurisdictions. And if you're a new developer, this is information that you wouldn't necessarily know. So thank you much. Thank you for being here. Others in support of AB 1820?

Yes, Madam Chair. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here in support on behalf of the California Building. Industry Association, Sandhill Properties and Buckeye properties. Thank you.

Thank you.

On behalf of Habitat for California and Civic Wealth. Thank you.

Ralph Hassenfeld with the Feldwolf Action support. Thank you.

Catherine Charles. On behalf of Brownstein. On behalf of Housing Action Coalition, Housing California in support.

Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY is a proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Just a bad sound there. Okay. Anyone in opposition to AB 1820? Okay. Yes. Come up to the mic.

Morning, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association wanted to inform everyone that we've moved from opposition to neutrality and kind of an Oscars acceptance speech here. Thanks to the author and her staff and the proponents and all the other stakeholders. It was a lot of hard work. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Grant, on behalf of the League of California Cities, also moving to neutral on this Bill. Appreciate all the conversations we've had on the good work by staff and the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Likewise, Alyssa Zilhai with the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. The author's office and sponsors came together and worked really hard with us and we're happy to go neutral.

Thank you. Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the. Health California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of, California, moving to neutral. Thank you. Thank you.

Seeing no one else in opposition. Senator?

Great Bill. I like transparency. I think it's a good idea to let people know ahead of time and people who have developed or not developed, these developers know. But when you're trying to put an ADU in, a lot of people are trying to put adus in their backyard and they're finding out that it costs a lot of money to hook up to the sewer system. And they should know that in advance. And if there's impact fees to schools and such, then they should know that. So I'll be supporting your Bill when we get a quorum.

Thank you so much. Any closing remarks? You don't have to, but if you want to. No.

Just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you.

And we will be taking up the vote when we get our quorum. Thank you. It a little bit of a break. Recess waiting for our presenters.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2557 today. I will begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank your staff for all their diligent work with my team.

I must say that in preparing for today and this bill in particularly, I have been really shocked at the amount of pushback that this simple reporting and transparency bill has received, especially from our non-sector community. I grew up in the City of Oakland, where nonprofits were essential to children who looked like me.

And if it wasn't for the nonprofits, I wouldn't be here today as your state Assembly Member. Which is why it's been so shocking to hear and see the opposition's letters and comments throughout this process. In fact, in looking at several of the executives who signed the nonprofit opposition letter, it was brought to my attention that many of them make upwards of over 200,000 per year.

Some make even more than 300,000 while many of their staff are in line for services that we provide in the nonprofit sector, as this bill does require that public contracts are publicly posted online and that they include the contract objectives and the salaries and pay skills for the contracted workforce. Senator, as lawmakers, we have the right to know what our taxpayers' monies are going for and making sure that the results that we're looking for are achieved. And so this bill simply does that.

It is a transparency bill that ensures that we are held accountable to our taxpayers and that we are able to see that we are delivering results. Today, witnesses in support of my bill are Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME and Ivan Carrillo with the California Labor Federation.

Good morning. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Bryant Miramontes with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. We represent over 200,000 public service workers in California, and we are proud co-sponsors of AB 2557.

It is no secret that local governments are increasingly relying on private contractors to provide goods and services traditionally provided by the public sector workforce. While our members see rampant contracting out of public services from foster care to mental health to transit on a daily basis, the scope, costs, and conditions of these contracts are challenging and at times impossible to access, even with such records being subject to the California Public Records Act.

Without common sense oversight measures, pushing public services to the private sector has proven to lead to wasted taxpayer dollars, the degradation of public sector workforce, and the deterioration of quality public services.

AB 2557 aims to address this issue by making these contracts readily accessible to the public. With this transparency, we can ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent more wisely and efficiently. As is provided under the bill, requiring local governments to notify the affected workforce and include essential information in these contracts is crucial for ensuring that the public has a clear understanding of the agreements being made on their behalf.

Information such as the parties involved, the scope of work, and financial details should be readily available for anyone to review. This level of detail empowers residents and affected workers to hold our public leaders accountable and to participate more meaningfully in the decision-making process. And with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernández with the California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2557. As stated by the author and my colleague, we appreciate the opportunity to work with committee staff and working on the amendments for this bill.

As amended, AB 2557 will require local agencies to post contracts they have entered with private service providers on their websites. By 2026, contracts between local agencies and private contractors will contain key information such as financial expenditures and deliverables for the information of the public.

AB 2557 will also require local agencies to notify bargaining units of outsourcing. AB 2557 aims at addressing the widespread practice of outsourcing by local governments. Contracting out has led to a decline in high-quality services and the degradation of the public sector.

In regards to the public sector, contracting out has led to the elimination of middle class career opportunities that have affected BIPOC individuals and women. Previously viewed as the backbone of the middle class, public sector jobs provided community members with long-term, sustainable employment.

Today, many simply do not have these opportunities due to local governments choosing to utilize a quick, contracted workforce. In terms of service delivery, contractors do not possess the same qualifications or training as in-house public sector workers, which has led to crucial services being provided by less qualified contractors to communities in need.

The current process of local governments approving and reapproving contracts needs improvement. Given the fiscal environment we're in, we need to ensure every dollar is spent effectively. AB 2557 increases transparency on contracts between private service providers and local governments by requiring contracts be made publicly available and by fostering public employee relations. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on to others in support of AB 2557, please come forward. And since we've heard our two key witnesses, we're asking everyone in support to please state your name and organization and say you're in support or opposition. Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, proud co-sponsors, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Janelle Jokes, SEIU 721, LA County nurse, in support.

Hello. Hello. Hi, my name is Cynthia White, and I work for the Department of Public Health, and I'm a SEIU 721 member, and I support AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Angel Jones. I work for Department of Health Services. I'm an SEIU 2721 member, and I support the AB 2557 bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Robert Garcia, Governing Board Member at Etiwanda School District and candidate for State Assembly District 50. I'm here in solidarity with SEIU 721, and I strongly urge your support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rawl Campbell. I work at San Bernardino County Children and Family Services. I am a SEIU 721 member, and I am also in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Brandi Williams. I'm a children social worker for Riverside County. I'm a SEIU 721 member, and I'm here in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Eric Bush. I work for City of Riverside in the senior and disabled transportation. I'm a member of SEIU 721, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is John Chavez. I work for Riverside University Health Systems as a clinical therapist, and I'm with SEIU 721, and I'm here to support the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Pablo Reyes. I'm an employment services councilor in Riverside County. I'm here in support of the AB 5527.

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Juan Valdelomar, and I'm a social worker in Riverside County. I'm a member of SEIU 721, and I support bill AB 2557.

Thank you for coming.

Hello. Good afternoon. Good morning. My name is Alan Jordan. I work at St. John's Community Health Clinic. I am the health educator there, and I'm in support of bill AB 2557.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Azula Ruiz. I work for a transgender health program of the St. John's Clinic, and I'm here to support the AB 52--I'm sorry--2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Gary Poe. I'm an outreach coordinator for 14 years at St. John's Community Health, and I'm a SEIU 721 member, and I support AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Fiona Henlon. I'm a registered nurse at LA General Hospital. I've been there for 25 years. I'm a member of SEIU 721, and I support AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Cindy Magdalena. I've been with LA County for 39 years. I worked with Department of Health Services, and I am strongly in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Irene Leon-Chavez. I work for Los Angeles County for 39 years. I support AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. My name is Cynthia Mitchell. I work for Los Angeles County. I've been employed there for 24 years. I work at Los Angeles General in the Emergency Department. I am a SEIU 721 member, and I support AB 2557. You guys have a good day.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Del Conte. I work for Los Angeles County Department of Health. I'm a mental health transformation advocate. I'm also an SEIU Local 721 member, and I'm in support of AB 2557. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. My name is Ameshica Moore-Burris, and I work at Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and I'm a member of SEIU 721, and I support AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Ashley Guzman. I work for St. John's Community Health. I am an SEIU 721 member, and I also support AB 2557. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Vanessa Williams. I work for the County of Los Angeles at Los Angeles General Medical Center in the Emergency Department for Patient Access Center, and I am a proud member of the Local 721, SEIU member, and I support AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Aytisha. I work for the County of Los Angeles as a county social worker. I'm a proud member of SEIU 721, and I am in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Evangelina Madrid, and I work at Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. I am a proud member of SEIU 721, and I am in support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning to all. My name is Mabec Yumel. I'm a mental health counselor, RN. I work for LA County Department of Mental Health, and I'm here because I am a member, a proud member of Local 721, SEIU, and I support AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Ruth Castillo. I am registered nurse, Department of Mental Health. I also support AB 2557, and I am a proud member of SEIU 721. Thank you.

Too many numbers, huh?

Yeah.

Hi. My name is Megan Umel. I work at Harbor-UCLA. I'm a proud member of the SEIU 721, and I am in support of the AB 2557.

Thank you very much.

Hi. My name is Jasmine Rubio. I'm representing a member of 721, and I'm here to support the AB 227.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Evonia Weissman. I work for Department of Health Services. I'm a proud member of SEIU 721, and I'm here in support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Irene Rodriguez. I work for LA County. I am a 721--yeah--a 721 member, and I support as well.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Leilani, and I am a member of SEIU 721. I'm a union steward at West Valley DPSS, and I'm in support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

My name is Veronica Johnson. I'm with the County of Los Angeles, and I'm with Local 721, and I support AB 2557.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Sandra Buenrrostro, and I'm a public health nurse for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and I'm in support of SB 2557, and I'm a SEIU 721 union member. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jason Calixto. I work for the County of Los Angeles at LA General Medical Center for the Custodians. We are all in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Rose Manu. I work for DPSS, LA County. I'm an SEIU member, and I'm here in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jessica. I'm with Riverside County. I'm an SEIU member, 721, in support of AB 2557.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Hi. My name is Kim Holland. I'm here from LA County. I'm a member of SEIU 721, in favor of AB 2557.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Good morning, everyone. My name is Johnny Morales, and I work at Clínica Romero. I am a SEIU 721 member, and I am in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Morning. Good morning. I'm Tisa Rush. I represent Los Angeles County. I am SEIU 721 member, in support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Brandy Compton. I work at Gateways Hospital. I'm a seven--SEIU 721 member, in support of AB 2557. Thank you.

Mental health clinic.

Hello. My name is Crystal Ramirez. I work at the Watts Health Center. I'm a SEIU 721 member, in support of the AB 2557.

Thank you.

Morning. My name is Nancy Rodriguez. I work at Watts Health Center. I am SEIU 721 member supporting AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Teri Evans. I'm a registered dental assistant at the Watts Health Center. I'm in favor of the SB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Coquinda Butler. I am an employee at DPSS. I'm a SEIU 721 member, and I'm in support of AB 2557.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Deidre Betty. I work at the Department of Health Services. I am a Local SEIU 721 member, and I'm in support of AB 2557.

Thank you. And who's this young lady?

This young lady; that's Julie Betty.

Hi, Julie. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, anyone in opposition? Could you--could you let him? We'll have you one at a time. Good morning.

Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes.

I'm Bruce Gibson. San Luis--

Can't hear you.

Is that--is--

Is it on?

I am not sure. How's that? A little bit closer. There we go. And being so close, I need my glasses. I'm Bruce Gibson, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor and President of the California State Association of Counties, the voice of all 58 counties, also known as CSAC. CSAC opposes AB 2557 quite simply because it will harm our ability to care for the 39 million Californians your chamber and our boards mutually serve.

As you know, the counties are service providers, especially for the most vulnerable Californians, and we have long depended on both our outstanding county staff and our contracting partners in order to meet the needs of our residents. AB 2557's reporting and noticing requirements are burdensome, duplicative, and impractical.

Counties will incur significant administrative costs in meeting them, and we are also already perceived as slow, and AB 2557 will slow us down further. In San Luis Obispo County, our contracting partners are various, but I'm especially proud of our nonprofit sector partners and respectfully disagree with the proponent who testified.

Our partners provide us outstanding service and significant expertise in areas which our county can't match. In homeless services, they address housing, mental health, and substance abuse treatments. In our jail, they provide health care after a horrific death--has greatly improved that service--and in economic development for all, they provide great expertise.

AB 2557 will discourage partnerships between local government and private entities, and on behalf of CSAC, I want to emphasize that if it is perceived that county contracting has imperfections or could be improved, we are more than happy to sit down and have a conversation about how that might happen.

But AB 2557 represents a sweeping change to the fundamental work of county government, creates additional layers of administrative bureaucracy, and it won't improve the delivery of county services. Our local communities, yes, face tremendous challenges. They deserve a contracting system that works for all Californians. We respectfully ask for your opposition on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jose Vargas with United Ways of California, here in respectful, ongoing opposition to AB 2557. We really appreciate your leadership, Madam Chair, and your staff's efforts to engage with us, the author, and the sponsors to substantively address some of the many concerns that we've been raising for months. Because the last amendments were shared with us yesterday evening, we're still reviewing those.

United Ways of California is part of a nonprofit contracting coalition that has been working to strengthen and improve the partnership between government and nonprofits. As conveyed in a letter saying by leaders of more than 200 nonprofits across California, we urge your no vote to avoid significant negative impacts that would result from the bill's enactment, including the potential disruption of service delivery for countless Californians.

United Ways partnered with local governments on a wide variety of critical issues, including providing free tax preparation and assistance and operating two in one information and referral services for millions of Californians.

Governments turn to nonprofits to extend their reach and help deliver critical service, including health care, food aid, shelter, animal welfare, juvenile justice, immigration support, legal aid, and so much more. We have a long and proven track record of providing quality, cost-effective, linguistically and culturally appropriate services that are trusted by and deeply connected to communities of all types.

Californians trust nonprofits to deliver services by margins as much as 40 percentage points higher than either the private sector or government. A robust nonprofit sector complements a strong public sector, and both benefit from more collaboration, like the effort by civic leaders, nonprofit providers, and public employee union leaders in Los Angeles who together developed a framework that's part of a measure headed for the November ballot that would raise more than a billion annually, supporting homeless services and affordable housing construction.

In short, we all work together for the betterment of our communities. We call for a no vote today because we would far prefer to find a path forward that ensures robust public employment, improves the ability of nonprofits to serve as partners to government, and continues to ensure quality services for Californians who are counting on both the public and nonprofit sectors to work together on their behalf. Thank you.

Thank you, and if others who are in opposition, if you would just come up to the mic and give us your name and organization. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Ashley Lugo, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, in opposition to AB 2557. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Larisa Mercado, on behalf of the County Recorders Association of California. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the California Park and Recreation Society, the Tahoe Water for Fire Suppression Partnership, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Amer Rashid with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Darby Kernan, on behalf of the EMS Administrators Association of California and on behalf of Meals on Wheels California. And then we didn't get our letter in on time, but Amity Foundation is also in opposition, and as you, Madam Chair, have been there and seen this, as we are implementing CalAIM, all of these nonprofits are contracting with counties in the state, and this will throw a complete interruption into people getting reentry services. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Jason Gonsalves, on behalf of the Cities of Fairfield, Lakewood, Lomita, and Thousand Oaks, in opposition. I put this in the great-author-bad-bill category. Thank you.

Kaylin Dean, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition, also on behalf of the California Association of County Veterans Services Officers, the County of Sacramento, and the California State Sheriffs' Association.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, and also on behalf of the Cities of Bakersfield, City of Foster City, City of Merced, City of Corona, and Town of Hillsborough. Thank you.

Thank you.

Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Julie Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the California Building Officials, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Reefe, on behalf of California School Boards Association. Opposition. Also have permission to say on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed, also on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, the Association of California Water Agencies, and the California Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of San Bernardino County, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jean Hurst here today, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the County Welfare Directors Association, the California Association of Health Executives, and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, all respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Counties of Butte, Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, Placer, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and the Public Risk Solutions and Management Organization, all respectfully opposed to the version in print. Looking forward to continuing to review. Thank you.

Good morning. Jeff Neal, representing the County of Contra Costa, also in opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of California Association of Nonprofits and also San Diego Humane Society. I want to echo the gratitude expressed by my colleague with the United Ways of California for the work that you and your staff have done to help try to move this issue along. We're still reviewing the amendments, but remain in an opposed position respectfully. Thank you.

Thank you.

Trent Murphy, representing the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, there's nobody else who can speak except me. You're stuck with me. I really appreciate working--our staff--working with the author and with your staff on this. It's been, it's been difficult because everybody's right.

We need a partnership between our local governments and our entities, local entities to be able to count on partnerships with both private sector, which a lot of private sector are impacted in this way, and with our nonprofit sector. I don't think we can fulfill all of the needs that we have in local government without--at one point or another--having partnerships.

So we all agree--I think we all agree with that. The issue that came to me through this bill is that there is a lack of information available in a more centralized way and a clear way and notification when contracting does go out to a private sector or a nonprofit.

So that, to me, makes sense because we should know what--we should have the information available to us when this is being done, and we should know what the services are that are being provided and know what salaries are being paid, just like we do in house, everybody in house and local government.

We know exactly what they make, what their, what services they're providing. We have expectations of all of our in-house employees of local government. We can follow what they're doing. When they're not doing something, we can follow that as well, and it seems to me anybody who is receiving a contract based on--you know, that's coming from our tax dollars--we shouldn't have a different standard or a different expectation. For me, those were the primary issues. This is not anti-nonprofit.

This is not anti-private sector who are also receive many, many contracts from our local government. There was some reference, but I think one of the key witnesses in opposition that talked about 'this would cause disruption,' I'm not exactly sure what that means.

The effort that we put into making sure that there was time allowed for the information, the notification, this is not something that's going to happen tomorrow, even though some people might have wanted that. That's not what we're doing here. I think--well, those are my primary issues that moved us, and I appreciate that you've accepted the amendments that we've offered. I think there's one more. Yeah, I was told by one of the members of the committee on the 120 days, if you could say--

Yes, that is correct.

Say what that is?

We will remove the clause around the reporting within the 120 days and just make it within a reasonable time.

Okay. Okay. So I don't know if that helps or to clarify for any of the opposition witnesses, but that's the latest amendment that was made and accepted. I think that's it. That's it for me. If you want to make any final remarks?

Just want to thank you again and your team for working with us and making sure that we do get to that goal of transparency and accountability. As was mentioned earlier, this was not a bill to punish our nonprofits, but to work together.

It's hard to work together when we don't see the data and are able to access the results in which we're looking for in a very clear and direct manner, and, you know, once again, someone said this was a good-author-bad-bill, and I'll go back to my opening statement, which is, I'm really shocked.

From the beginning, this has just been a transparency bill about being accountable to our taxpayers. I am asked every day where our taxpayer dollars are going to, and therefore, I was asking our partners the same question in a way that can be clear and direct and in that, you know, found some upsetting information when you have some of our nonprofit executives making more than the Governor.

It's, you know, I question why this has been such a hard thing to discuss and move through, but with that, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you very much, and we will have the vote later when we get our quorum.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for everyone who came from, especially from out of town. Good morning, Assembly Member.

Good morning, Chairwoman.

And you will be taking up AB 2661?

That's correct.

Thank you. Welcome, and you may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair. AB 2661 as proposed to be amended, will help achieve California's renewable goals by leveraging the existing capabilities of Westland's water district to deliver new solar generation and transmission lines to combat the impacts of climate change.

California has set ambitious goals to increase the use of clean energy, aiming to achieve 60% eligible renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero carbon energy by 2045. To meet these goals, new renewable generation facilities and thousands of miles of new transmission lines are needed.

The California independent system operator has already identified an opportunity to develop 30,000 gigawatts of solar in the San Joaquin Valley. Cal ISO's identification of these potential resources is especially timely given the changes occurring in the Central Valley due to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Acts known as SGMA.

As groundwater basins adopt sustainable groundwater management plans, many regions of the state are expected to experience as much as 20% decline in available water supply by 2030. This is especially important in the Central Valley as we're seeing more and more lands being fallowed as a result of SGMA due to this massive change.

Specifically, it's estimated that between 500,000 and 900,000 acres of farmland may need to be fallowed just in the San Joaquin Valley alone. This fallowed farmland can be the key to expanding our solar generation.

Westlands Water District, who is in the best position to identify suitable fallowed farmland in their service territory for conversion to solar generation, can help contribute to the state's renewable energy portfolio while making up for the lost water supply revenues needed to continue serving the remaining water customers.

Unfortunately, there's not enough transmission currently planned for the Central Valley to capitalize on this opportunity. AB 2661 will give Westlands Water District the authority to build, own and operate transmission lines to connect this new generation to the grid.

This will help us achieve our climate goals while simultaneously provide an incredible opportunity for the disadvantaged communities in places like west Fresno County, where the need for skilled and well paying jobs are critical.

The projects that could be undertaken through the provisions of this bill will help these workers upskill and enter into the trades which will uplift these communities that are often left out of the conversation when it comes to investments.

With me here today to testify and support, we have Elizabeth Jonasson on behalf of Westlands Water District and Marc Joseph on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Workers.

Hi, good morning. Thank you Committee for the opportunity.

I just want to remind you you have two minutes.

Yes, I'll be brief for the opportunity to provide a testimony today. I'm Elizabeth Jonasson, deputy general manager for Westlands Water District. Westlands is a California water district serving 614,000 acres in western Fresno and Kings County.

AB 2661 would provide authorities to Westlands that are crucial for allowing our district to effectively plan and provide strategic oversight of land being transitioned out of agricultural use to solar within our district. The need to transition this land has been driven by water supply reliability problems in the delta.

Over the last decade, land following has varied between 120 to 220,000 acres, and now, with the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, our farmers will have less water available.

Solar development has emerged as a land repurposing approach that provides a productive use of the land, providing jobs and economic activity for our communities, while at the same time helping meet the state's renewable energy goals.

We have begun a CEQA programmatic environmental process for the long term but temporary conversion of 130,000 acres of solar generation with the hope that at the end of the project's useful life, approximately 30 years as appropriate, the land can be returned to irrigated agriculture.

Our oversight provided through this bill would allow Westlands to favor transition of lands that are marginal, drainage impaired, or which are ideal for dual uses such as floodwater recharge, agrivoltaics and the like.

It will also allow us to manage the lands consistent with our groundwater sustainability plan, the surrounded uses and community needs, and to better preserve the agricultural heritage of the district as it makes the significant transition for the next 30 years. We appreciate Assemblymember Soria's leadership on this bill and ask for this Committee's approval. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Marc Joseph. I'm testifying on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees. AB 2661 is an elegant solution to several well known problems. We need lots more electric transmission to deliver clean energy. We have to control electric rates.

We need to fix the major transmission constraint that is forcing lots of solar generation in Southern California to be curtailed because it can't reach Northern California, which is wasting lots of money.

And we need to create income for people whose farmland no longer has reliable water supply or is drainage impaired, and for the people working and living in these communities. And we need to do all of these things quickly.

This bill addresses all of these problems by giving the Westlands Water District the authority to build and own transmission lines in the district, along with solar and hydropower for sale into the wholesale electric market. As your analysis correctly identifies, there are lots of other types of districts that have similar authority.

This bill would plug a gap in the code so that the Westlands water district can plug a gap in our transmission system. Of course, this would create tens of thousands of good jobs building transmission and building solar generation. I want to stress that the bill does not hardwire any particular outcome.

Nothing would happen unless the California Public Utilities Commission finds that this would be a good deal for ratepayers. And then if, and only if it's cost effective for ratepayers, then the Commission would send the recommendation to the California independent system operator.

Then, if and only if the Cal ISO also selects the project in its annual transmission plan, the plan could proceed. I would also note that the Westlands Water District would not replace PG&E as the local electric utility. The Bill prohibits the district from selling electricity at retail.

It would just supply the generation and transmission into the wholesale market. Thank you, and we ask for your support for this bill.

Thank you. We have any more? Well, yeah, we need to open up to more witnesses or supporters of AB2661?

Madam Chair, Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, a cosponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Anthony Tannehill, California Special Districts Association, also in support.

Madam Chair, Hunter Stern with IBEW 1245 in strong support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Daniel Kim with Golden State Clean Energy, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Michael Boccadoro on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association, in strong support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters, in strong support.

Cody Boyles, on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? No, seeing none. Members, any questions or comments? When we're at the quorum, we'll move the bill. Do you have any closing remarks?

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2661. And as someone that represents the Central Valley, I know that this can be a game changer for our community, one we can help meet the climate goals of the state, but at the same time uplift the communities that have been left behind for generations.

So thank you for the opportunity, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. And I will be supporting it.

Okay, moving on to. Oh, Assembly Member Grayson, please. Thank you for being here. You will be presenting AB 3012. Okay, you can proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. First, I am accepting the Committee's proposed amendments, and I thank the Committee for their Diligent work on this Bill. AB 3012 will help provide greater clarity on development fees that must be paid during the development process and help strengthen existing requirements for impact fee transparency.

In order to promote transparency around impact fees, I authored AB 1483 back in 2019, which required jurisdictions to make information on impact fees more accessible. This included the online posting of information such as impact fee schedules, impact fee nexus studies, and other information that could inform a developer of that jurisdiction's impact fees.

While AB 1483 and other housing policies have made significant progress on impact fee transparency, recent reports from spur found that many jurisdictions may not be in full compliance with the Bill and that information on development impact fees may still be difficult to comprehend or inconsistent depending on the jurisdiction.

To address the inconsistencies, AB 3012 requires HCD to develop a fee schedule template and list of best practices that jurisdictions can utilize that will make it easier for builders to understand the potential fees and also the fees that they would encounter during the development process.

Additionally, AB 3012 will also require that jurisdictions provide a fee estimate calculator by 2032. This will help ensure that builders can arrive at a more accurate estimate for the fees that are required during the development process. This Bill will also ensure that impact fee information is accurate and easy to understand.

Do you have any witnesses with you today?

And I don't believe we have witnesses with us today. Okay, keep us.

All right, great. Anyone in support of AB 3012, please come up. And your name and organization? I'm sorry, we talk into it a little.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public affairs here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, Spur Eden Housing and Civic.

Well, thank you, Ralph Asannfeld with YIMBY Action in support.

Thank you.

Brooke Pritchard, On behalf of California YIMBY in support,

Stephen Sanzer with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank the author for his work on this issue.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Leading Age California in support.

Anyone else in support? See none. Anyone in opposition? Nobody. Nobody in opposition come to the dais. Any comments or questions? Yes, Senator Glazer.

Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Assembly Member Grayson for his, his real leadership in this space over many, many years. As he mentioned in his testimony, this has been a surprisingly challenging space to actually have just disclosure and transparency.

But it is so important in building housing to have an honest assessment of what things really are going to cost. And that's at the heart of what this measure continues to do.

And it's something I'm very pleased that you're continuing this leadership in this space, not giving up, not just doing incremental, but keeping going until you can get this work done completely. So thank you for that.

More questions or comments? Saying none. We will take it up when we have established a quorum. Thank you. Closing remarks? I'm sorry?

Oh, respectfully, ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate.

We will be supporting you next. I see that Assembly Member McCarty is here. We'll go back to AB 2427.

Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, this is a Bill focused on electric charging infrastructure in California. First, I want to thank the Committee and your team for working with us. And yes, I will be accepting the Committee amendments.

As you know, we need to greatly enhance our charging capacity to reach our, our goals for more EV's on the road, as well as our quest to focus on our climate issues and air quality issues throughout California. So many individuals, of course, charge at home. Some people charge at charging stations at the mall or retail establishments.

Some people live in apartments, they don't have a garage. It's not easy for them. And so more and more, we want to see opportunities for people to have curbside charging. And we have taken great steps to streamline efforts for charging stations through retail establishments, but we haven't focused on doing that on curbside charging.

So with us today is an opportunity to do just that. We've been working with local governments and the coalition support this, trying to find a fair and balanced approach that addresses issues. Bipartisan support. So far, no, no votes. Ask if you arrive with me today. Is Flo a supporter of the Bill? Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Dan Chaw with Omni government relations, representing Flow EV Charging in support. Founded in 2009, Flow is an EV charging station manufacturer and network operator. We have deployed over 100,000 residential, public and private EV charging stations across North America. We also specialize in curbside charging solutions.

We have the largest deployments on the continent with over 1000 in Quebec, 100 in New York City, and approximately 500 in the City of LA. Those us numbers aren't very large, 100 in New York City and a 500 in LA. It goes to show the huge potential that curbside has in in the state and nationally.

We can attest firsthand the three benefits of curbside chargers leveraging. By leveraging the public right of way, we can deploy in areas that have historically lacked access to charging infrastructure. These chargers can further drive EV adoption. Based on existing deployments, we have seen charging utilization steadily increase.

In fact, we have found that our level two curbside chargers have some of the highest utilization rates of our entire public charging network, in part because they're located in downtown coors or close to multifamily housing.

These level two chargers can also reduce drivers dependence on dc fast chargers, which are more expensive to develop, more expensive to charge on a per session basis. Curbside chargers can reduce driving costs for drivers, reduce cost disparities for those that don't have access to home charging.

And developers can also realize cost savings because if you install it on a light pole or a utility pole, you really minimize those development costs. So we want to maximize these benefits to California drivers. Unlike in other countries with relatively high ev penetration, this is the Low hanging fruit here in California.

We want to meet drivers where they park. I'll keep it short in light of the the amount of support and respectfully ask for your I vote just in time.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2427 please.

Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, Cal, etc. In support.

Megan Meckleberg in support on behalf of the EV Charging Association, Valley Clean Air now and Calstart.

Thank you.

Thank you

Alyssa Silhai. On behalf of the City of Foster City in support, thank you

Michelle Canales. On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments, Members? Yes, Senator Glazer.

I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this Bill forward and I'm happy to support supported today.

But I do think it's important when you have a private entity who's a sponsor of a Bill that could profit from the Bill, to make it clear that the marketplace is a wide open space, that this doesn't provide any unique pathway for one particular company versus others.

I just want to make sure that could be put on the record from the author.

Okay. Yeah, no, I totally agree. You know, the more the merrier doing this. There are some companies that stepped up and just like, you know, when you go to a shopping mall, electrify America, certainly Tesla, but others could come along the way, do the same. And same with, with curbside.

We need way more entities stepping up in the market if we're going to come anywhere close to reaching our goals. You know, the majority of people charge from home right now, and, you know, only one in, as analysis says, I think one in 31 in four individuals that are in apartments have that opportunity to do so.

So if, you know, those individuals start buying more Ev's, we need make it operable for them too, to do curbside. So thank you.

Yes, Senator.

So there are many companies involved in being able to provide the services in which your Bill would allow. That's just the question. I'll be clear. Okay, thank you. I'm happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. I just have just one question that occurred to me because there's so many other bills dealing with parking. What has been the experience of the impact on parking by making that, making the charger available a curbside? How does it, how has it impacted the decreasing number or decreasing space for parking?

I think there's a pilot in your area, Los Angeles, that we can, I can ask the witness to talk.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah, The City of LA has, in fact, partnered with us to deploy over, I think, 500 in the City of LA. And just as a side note to Senator Glaser's question, we don't own those charges. Actually, the city does. So there are business models that would include public entities in the spaces.

The addressable market is so huge in this space that, that, as the family Member said, we'll take any and all interest, including from the public sector. I don't know the specific answer to your question, Madam Chair. Certainly, we'll get back to you on that.

I believe the city does have time limitations on some of those chargers, the cost and capacity of the charger, how much they could get in a particular day, sort of our self limiters on how much you can actually, how much time you actually can place.

But let me get back to you on the actual impact on General parking availability.

Okay, great. Okay, thank you very much. You have any closing remarks, Assembly Mike?

No, thank you for working with us. And, you know, this is a tricky issue. We want to respect local control and local government and public safety, but if we're going to, you know, greatly enhance our, you know, EV rollout throughout California.

We need to have way more alternatives than we have now, and this is a piece of the puzzle, having appropriate curbside charging and respectfully ask for your I vote thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, and we'll take the vote later when we have our quorum. Next, we have--who's here? Oh. Assembly Member Haney, you ready? Okay. And you will be presenting AB 3068.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to thank the committee staff for their diligent work and will be accepting the committee's amendments today. AB 3068 is the Office-to-Housing Conversion Act, which will accelerate office-to-housing conversion products--projects.

This bill is a direct response to the crisis of California's empty downtown business districts and the need to convert underutilized office buildings within prime location to new housing. Downtowns are struggling as our work culture shifts toward remote and hybrid work policies.

With fewer employees working full time in the office, commercial buildings in downtowns across the state are experiencing the effects of high vacancy rates and low foot traffic. This shift has left downtowns in trouble and in desperate need of catalytic and innovative transformations that will create livable neighborhoods in our commercial districts.

To help our downtowns and build more housing, AB 3068 creates a pathway for by-right ministerial approval of office conversion products, ensuring more predictability and fewer barriers to an already difficult building process. It also provides flexibility needed to ensure that historic buildings are more economically feasible for conversion so that we can preserve our buildings for housing while making sure the downtown's diverse characteristics are kept intact. I again want to appreciate the work of the committee.

I know that there's some continuing conversations that are happening around the labor language in this bill, and I wanted to make sure the Chair knows that I'm fully committed to engaging all of the impacted folks and making sure as this bill moves forward that we address those needs and come together for a compromise. With me in support today is Rafa Sonnenfeld from YIMBY Action and Cindy Heitzman from the California Preservation Foundation.

Good morning, Chair and Members. YIMBY Action and our chapters fight for better housing policies because we want to reduce poverty and homelessness, eliminate racial segregation, create jobs, and stop climate change.

As Assembly Member Haney mentioned, we're seeing a generational shift in work culture with record high office vacancy rates, over 35 percent vacancy in Downtown San Francisco, nearly 30 percent vacancy in Greater Los Angeles.

Converting vacant commercial space into residential housing through adaptive reuse can reduce the number of underutilized and vacant buildings that have been decreasing in value, thereby helping to stabilize the commercial real estate market and filling those spaces with more valuable tax-generating uses. Adaptive reuse projects can also increase activity in foot traffic neighborhoods across the state, helping support local businesses, enhancing the cultural life of cities and towns.

Unfortunately, local discretionary approval processes and environmental reviews for housing can cause years-long delays, increase risk to developments, and make housing projects infeasible and contribute to the challenges in resolving the state's housing crisis. AB 3068, the Office-to-Housing Conversion Act, provides a streamline ministerial approval process for adaptive reuse of existing buildings into residential uses in infill areas in all zones.

The act facilitates the conversion of underutilized space in office and other commercial and industrial buildings into residential uses if at least 50 percent of the converted space is used for residential, while otherwise allowing those buildings to maintain their currently allowed uses without the need for risky, lengthy discretionary rezoning.

The act also protects historic properties, ensuring their adaptive reuse is done in accordance with national best practices for historic preservation, and it authorizes local municipalities to create a property tax rebate incentive program to encourage adaptive reuse projects. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Any other--do you have any other witnesses? Okay. Welcome. Good morning.

Thank you, and good morning, Chair Durazo and Committee Members. My name is Cindy Heitzman, and I'm the Executive Director at the California Preservation Foundation, a foundation committed to protecting California's rich, historic, and cultural heritage through advocacy and education.

Today, I'm here to seek your support for AB 3068, legislation authored by Assemblyman Matt Haney and co-sponsored by the California Preservation Foundation and YIMBY Action. What sets AB 3068 apart is its streamlined review of historic resources designed to convert commercial spaces into housing while preserving those portions or features that convey a building's historic, cultural, or architectural values. The review process considers factors like the age of the building, its landmark status, and utilization of federal or state historic tax credits.

Furthermore, it mandates compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties, ensuring that preservation standards are met. Why is this important? Because many of the buildings that are the best candidates for adaptive reuse are historic.

We've seen numerous success stories of adaptive reuse across California, from offices to hospitals, factories, and even funeral homes repurposed into housing. Most notably, the City of Los Angeles's Adaptive Reuse Ordinance has revitalized its historic city core, generating over 12,000 new units of housing since its adoption in 1999.

Adaptive reuse is part of the preservation's DNA. In Sacramento, buildings like Globe Mills, a former flour mill, now serves as senior housing. The Warehouse Artist Lofts, a former furniture warehouse, is now a mixed-use, transit-oriented community for Sacramento area artists, and the 1911 Capitol Park Hotel, one block from this Capitol, has been transformed into permanent housing for the homeless using federal historic tax credits.

If you could--

AB 3068 is a catalyst for economic revitalization, alleviating housing shortages, and safeguarding the character of our historic downtowns, and it is a blueprint for sustainable development, harmonizing economic growth with historic preservation. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 3068? Would you come up to the microphone? Your name and organization.

Hello. Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, Buckeye Properties, and CivicWell, in support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters, in strong support on this one. Thanks.

Bob Naylor with Fieldstead and Company, in support.

Kirsten Blod, on behalf of Streets For All, in support.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of LeadingAge California, in support.

Okay, seeing no more in support, anyone in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposed unless amended position. First, wanted to thank the author's office and the committee staff for the amendments. We think the bill is moving in the right direction, but we do still have concerns with the ministerial aspects of the bill being the concern that the development is occurring in areas that were not meant for residential use.

We're concerned about the ability of local governments to plan for that and do what is needed, and ministerial approval would exempt those and provide, you know, unintended consequences and harm a lot of our cities. So respectfully have an oppose unless amended position, but appreciate all the work and look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. We have an opposed also, regarding more of the impact fee issue and looking at the committee analysis, so I very encourage and look forward to sharing that with my organization and reporting back to the author and the committee.

Great. Thank you. All right. Members, any questions or comments? Yes, Senator Glazer?

Thank you. Assemblyman, your heart's in the right direction for the work you have been doing to try to improve the availability of housing in our state, and you're to be commended for that. I know that you know, and my colleague on my right knows my local control proclivities, but let me, you know, in your, in your testimony today, you talked about downtowns and downtowns, and I think he might have said it two or three times.

And while I understand that you probably have the votes to move this bill along, why not focus on the big downtown, San Francisco, San Jose, that really, where your bill really is focused and leave some of our suburban communities that don't apply--maybe could--out of this mix? Because I think that your concerns that you--I think at your heart are these big urban downtowns that aren't doing this, that create barriers.

And so that would be something that I, while I don't think you need the votes here, it would certainly make folks like me who see our suburban communities be picked on all the times a little less anxious about a bill like yours.

Okay. Any other--did you want to respond or--

I appreciate that. We did limit it in some ways to sort of commercial districts, and I'm sure there are many areas across the state that are technically suburban areas but have downtowns where there are these challenges and also these opportunities where you have commercial office buildings that have been vacant, where they do need some additional housing.

And so we have limited it in some ways, but I think that the, the opportunity does exist more than just in San Francisco and LA, and so we sort of try to define it in a way that reflects where the need is, but I appreciate what you're saying and take those comments and concerns.

Great. Well, we appreciate all the work that you're putting in with the committee staff and the amendments, and I note that one of those amendments has to do with, 'explicitly require projects to be consistent with local ordinances' so that partially, hopefully begins to address my colleague's concern. Final remarks?

Thank you, and to the folks who were concerned, I think we did, and I want to thank your committee staff for, I think, addressing at least some of those concerns, particularly around the fees and such. We will have one more Policy Committee here, and we'll continue to work on the issues that have been raised, and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Next, we have Assembly Member Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo. And Assembly Member Carrillo will be presenting AB 3177. Buenos diaz. Okay, which number is this? Assembly Member, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB 3177, which establishes guidelines on spot widening, a practice in which developers seed a portion of their land adjacent to the roadway to widen it without compensation.

I'm happy to say that our staffs were able to work together with your Committee consultants, and we will be accepting the Committee amendments today. Moving on.

This practice is done in a handful of jurisdictions throughout California, often resulting in roads that essentially zigzag parcel by parcel, failing to meet the intended purposes of traffic mitigation, and frequently inducing faster and oftentimes more dangerous driving.

Spot winding requirements significantly increase housing costs, adding somewhere between $10,000 to $50,000 per housing unit, amounting to hundreds of thousands per project. This additional cost translates directly into higher rents and undercutting housing affordability. Moreover, these requirements reduce the amount of land available for housing, lessening the number of feasible units on a property.

Likewise, the demands imposed by spot winding can make many potential housing developments in feasible, as was the case with a permanent supportive housing project in Los Angeles that fought for almost two years to receive a waiver.

This Bill limits the practice of spot and widening by prohibiting a local government from imposing a land dedication requirement for a roadway widening on a housing development in a transit priority area or for developments with street frontage of less than 500ft.

This Bill provides the local governments this Bill provides that local governments may still impose a land dedication requirement on housing developments for traffic safety features if the local government makes a finding specific to the housing development supported by substantial evidence that the land dedication requirement is necessary to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Substantial evidence is the lowest standard available. As such, this provision will provide local governments with flexibility where needed.

Additionally, AB 3177 replaces the reference to transits station with transit priority area within the mitigation Fee act, providing reduced mitigation fees for housing near bus stops and planned transit stops within one year of completion with the limited definition of transit station that is not used elsewhere and state law does not cover.

This provision of the Bill as well are well aligned with the state's goals and priorities to incentivize new housing development and climate smart areas. This Bill is sponsored by streets for all and supported by a coalition of housing organization that advocates for both market rate and affordable housing, as well as environmental street safety and street safety organizations.

Most importantly, the Bill has no opposition. And again, I'm grateful that our, your Committee staff and my team were able to and the sponsors were able to come up with well intended amendments that move the Bill forward.

And grateful for that opportunity to testify in support is Kristin Blatt, associate Director of state policy, and Mark Vuxovich, Director of state policy for streets for all.

Great, thank you. You may go ahead.

My name is Kirsten. I'm sorry, I just want to remind you of two minutes. Okay. My name is Kirsten Blodden. I'm the associate Director of state policy for Streets for All, the proud sponsor of this Bill.

Our Bill ends the practice of requiring a housing developer to give up potential housing land to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sole purpose of widening the road as a condition of approval for entitlements.

This practice, known as spot widening, takes private land without compensation from housing to public roads on a per project basis and does not achieve its often purported goal of traffic mitigation because the widening is limited to the roadway adjacent to the project, leading to senseless road configurations that expand and contract seemingly at random.

And if you look on page two of the orange handout we passed around, you can see what this looks like in practice in Los Angeles, spot widening is based on the antiquated and disproven idea that we can widen our way out of traffic congestion.

Through this futile attempt to reduce congestion, we are making our streets more dangerous and our cities less livable, even sacrificing the width of the sidewalk.

In some of these cases, spot winding typically achieves nothing more than an increased width of the existing travel lanes for a very short distance, which does nothing to mitigate congestion, but we do believe has the effect of facilitating collisions, as research from John Hopkins University on lane Wits found.

I want to also share what this is like on the housing side. One project in LA lost over 6000 land to road widening, which means they lost the ability to build over 30 additional dwelling units. And this project was on top of an LA metro station.

Another project consisting of 100% homeless housing by a nonprofit developer was delayed for almost two years after they appealed this requirement, as their project would not pencil otherwise. In the time it took for the developer to obtain a waiver, an additional 12,000 people fell into homelessness in California.

So in some good governance, folks support our Bill because our growing pavement maintenance backlog is bankrupting rural and suburban cities. Environmentalists support this Bill because spot winding rips up mature trees, induces more car trips, and worsens the urban heat island effect.

Market rate and affordable developers are supportive because this policy makes their projects cheaper to finance in pencil. Lastly, safe streets. Groups like us are the sponsors because this sort of widening just induces dangerous speeding wider lanes. Thank you. Thank you. That's all.

Thank you very much. Next.

Good morning, Committee. My name is Mark Fukza. It's Director of state policy. I've been told we have. It's okay in advance if I read Professor Michael Manville's testimony that he gave to Assembly local government Committee because he's not present today. He's at a wedding at the moment.

Just want to confirm that that's still okay as long as it's within two minutes. I'll do my best. I'll walk, I'll read fast. Hello, my name is not Professor Michael Manville. I'm a Professor of urban planning at UCLA and the Chairman of our UCLA's urban planning Department. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this Bill.

I've studied the origins and outcomes of this law that this Bill targets. I'm the author of the paper that has been distributed. So I guess I can say these regulations are among the most unusual and least efficient regulations I've ever encountered. They have very few benefits.

Their nominal goal is to reduce traffic congestion, which they do not do. And in many circumstances, they exacerbate congestion by creating bottlenecks and irregular street alignments. And they do exacerbate the housing crisis because the cost of these widenings removes land from housing development and makes our affordability crisis worse.

A further point is that these laws, once put into place, shows us that they are very difficult to reform or remove. And so I'll just quickly describe the problem with the law. The nominal goal here is to reduce congestion by widening the roads.

And decades of research overwhelmingly suggest that won't work, that the wider street does not make vehicles move faster at peak hours. But that's not even the problem with this rule.

The problem with this rule is that you actually never get a wider street, ever, because you're doing this on a piecemeal basis, incremental, parcel by parcel at a time. And what it does is it actually creates bottlenecks by giving sorts of these little incremental bump outs in the streets.

It creates these little bottlenecks, it creates safety problems, it creates drainage problems, it creates maintenance problems, and so on and so on. Adding road space incrementally does not reduce congestion. Taking space incrementally from land for housing does, though, impinge on affordability, because that space is actually very important to the feasibility of a market rate or affordable development.

So at best, many units that would. Sorry, excuse me. At best, the cost of this widening makes it so the developer cannot build as many units as it would prefer. And at worst, it makes the development, redevelopment of the parcel, completely impossible. And when the development is redevelopment, is impossible.

You not only lose housing, but it guarantees the law is actually never going to do what it's supposed to do, which is why the entire street. So even on its own terms, the law is self defeating. Thank you. I'm still here to answer questions on behalf of streets for all, not Michael Mandeville.

I'm glad you keep saying who you really are. Who you are. Okay, thank you. Any more witnesses in support of AB 3177, please come to the mic.

Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of leading age California,

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Kathryn Charles. On behalf of Housing Action coalition in support. Thank you.

Brooke Pritchard. On behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Thank you. Anyone see no more in support? Anyone in opposition to AB 3177? Seeing none. Questions? Comments? Colleagues?

Thank you, chair, for indulging me. You didn't want to have questions?

Make it more interesting.

Assembly Member, you know, I came into the hearing today now not really that excited about your Bill, because I'm a local control person and I think it does impinge on local control.

But after hearing the testimony and looking at the materials, I think you really have hit on something that is just an unfortunate bureaucracy, out of control kind of a situation where it just doesn't all compute.

And given the extent of the housing crisis we're facing in the state, to me, it's a place where I can certainly bend to be supportive of the work that you are advancing in this Bill. And with that, I'm happy to support it.

Thank you. Great. Well, I also will be supporting. And particularly because, even though, as you said many of the times, the use of this tool was not done in such a way that would help housing but actually hurt housing.

But I do think that in terms of local control, the issue of traffic safety should remain as a consideration by local government. So with that and other amendments, I appreciate working together with you. And do you have any final remarks?

I'll use your statements and that of Senator Glacier as my closet. Thank you so much. Respectfully request and I vote. Okay, great. We will take it up when we get our quorum.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Wilson, please come up. Welcome. Good to see you here. And let's see, we're taking up AB 3259.

Yes, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, please. I'm pleased to present AB 3259, a district Bill that would provide needed flexibility for residents in Solano County to vote on local revenue measures to protect essential services and improve critical transportation infrastructure.

Specifically, this Bill would raise the statutory transaction and use tax limit above the 2% cap to allow cities within Solano county to vote on measures that raise local revenue at a rate not to exceed 0.5%.

With the sunset in 2029, currently a citizen initiative put on the ballot by residents in the City of Benicia would, if approved by voters, put the city above the cap. Earlier this year, voters in the City of Benicia overwhelmingly approved a three quarter, center General purpose sales tax increase to support public safety and essential services.

At the same time, residents in Benicia had formed a coalition to draft the Citizens Initiative for the November ballot for the specific purpose of increasing revenue to improve road conditions.

However, with the recent sales tax initiative approved by the voters, if the November Citizens ballot initiative were to pass, it would then put the city above the 2% county cap. This Bill does not raise or enact any new taxes.

It simply empowers voters within Solano county by allowing them to decide whether to approve local revenue measures that would exceed the 2% cap until 2029. With that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Great. Thank you.

Do you have any support witnesses? Not today. Okay. Is there anyone who wants to speak in support of AB 3259? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition to AB 3259? Okay. Seeing none. Come on. Senator Glazer? Yes. No, it's okay.

Assembly Member, thank you for your leadership, for your county. You've been a champion, and they appreciate it, and we appreciate it, too. I'm happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Okay. All right. Any closing reminder. You did very good closing remarks.

I appreciate those comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the support of the staff who's worked on this Bill and provided feedback. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Great. I will be supporting, and we will vote when we have our quorum. Thank you. Speaking of which. Speaking of which.

We'll be taking a recess for a few minutes. We'll get back into session here. First we need to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

For the consent calendar so moved by Senator Dahle.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Then we'll start with the bill's first item, AB 930. Do we have a motion? So excited. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Glazer. Please vote.

[Roll Call]

Go on to item number two. AB 1889. Oh, motion is moved by Senator Wiener.

[Roll Call]

Move on to item number three. AB 2553.We have a motion moved by Senator Glazer.

[Roll Call]

Item four is AB 20712. Do I have a motion, Senator Glazer.

[Roll Call]

Next is item seven. No. zero, I thought we just did. zero, I thought we just did that. Okay, item five. AB 1820.

[Roll Call]