Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us in this meeting. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our Committee hearings here in the Capitol Building. I ask all Members of the Committee. We're almost 100% here, be present in room 113 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 14 bills, agenda, four of which are on consent. File item three, SB322. File item four, SB482. File item 13, SB598, and file item 14, SB858, by the Committee on Local Government. And I want to do further housekeeping.

File item number one, SB SB92, and file item two, SB240, and file item eight, SB828 have been pulled at the request of the authors. So before we get presentation on the bills, let's establish a quorum. Assistant.

[Roll Call]

The assistant notes a quorum has been established. We will now proceed to adopt the consent calendar. Take up the consent calendars. Items 3413 and 14 on the agenda. Do I have a motion? Motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the roll. Senator Stirazzo? Here.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We will leave the consent calendar on call. Is Senator Perez. Is that our first? Mr. Cabaldon. Senator, I think we will start with you if you're ready.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you and good morning. I'm here to present SB5. And this is a Bill that is intended to catch a problem that's just in its infancy. And this deals with infrastructure financing districts. And I should note that the staff analysis notes that there are a range of tax increment financing districts.

And I don't know if the intention is to adopt amendments here or simply get our commitment that we will do them in the future, but either way, we agree. And our intention here is to deal with tax increment financing more generally. So if they are requested for now, I would accept them.

If they're commitment for later, that's fine, too. So SB5 is, has been driven by a phenomenon that we're just starting to see the potential of.

Enhanced infrastructure Financing districts, which are one of the more widely used of the tax increment financing districts were created to help communities make investments in themselves using the benefits of the increased assessed valuation that results from community investments and private sector investments in infrastructure and amenities.

However, we have a novel application that has drawn new light to these statutes, and that is that the Williamson Act has in some sense the opposite purpose.

The Williamson Act says if farmers agree to maintain their land in farming, that they will have access to a lower assessment, essentially assessment based on their farming revenues, not the market value of their property. That way they're not paying taxes on land that might be eligible for development someday in the future.

And therefore the private market has bid up to the value of that land, but instead they're paying taxes based on it being farm, being a farm and contributing to agriculture and open space. It has been an effective program.

It's costly to the local government in particular, who are giving up what otherwise would have been the normal property taxes from that property. These two issues have never intersected before. I've worked on both of them.

I represent a district with lots and lots of Williamson Act properties, and my own city was one of the major sponsors of the EIFD, the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District legislation by Senator Atkins.

What we have seen as a result of a ballot measure in Solano County that was ultimately withdrawn was a financial proposal that was based largely on an EIFD capturing the tax increment not from the market value to the new market value based on the creation of a new city or a new community, but based on that artificially depressed value that had been created by the county essentially giving up its property tax revenue during that period.

It isn't appropriate for the private developer essentially to capture the value of what the public has done in terms of that artificially low level.

So what SB5 does very simply is to simply is to say you can still do an infrastructure financing or other tax increment district on a piece of property that was in the Williamson act as part of a development project. But the baseline for the calculation of that tax increment isn't the artificially depressed county subsidized assessed valuation.

It is the market valuation as done by the assessor after the rezoning of that parcel to residential, mixed use, industrial, commercial or some other non agricultural use. So that's the Bill in a nutshell.

It's come to light as a result of this project, but of course it is applicable statewide to projects in the Williamson act as we're seeing more and more pressure for the conversion of those properties to other uses.

I do. And so with me today is Jordan with the Greenbelt Alliance, which is one of the key advocacy groups in the Bay Area and beyond on this issue. Been working very hard on the Solano County project in particular.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jordan Grimes, and I'm the state and regional Resilience Manager for Greenbelt Alliance.

We are an environmental nonprofit that has, for the last 67 years, worked to conserve and protect the natural and working lands of the nine county Bay Area, advocating to ensure that the growth we know our communities need occurs sustainably.

SB5 is, at its core, a good governance reform that embodies the principles Greenbelt Alliance has championed for decades now.

Our organization was among the earliest supporters of the Williamson Act when it was enacted in 1965, and in our view, it remains one of California's most effective tools for protecting agricultural lands and open space while helping to direct new development where it belongs within our existing urban fabric.

Today, as rents and home prices have exploded due to an extreme shortage of new infill housing, regions across the state face mounting proposals, including the Solano County proposal, as the Senator mentioned, on agricultural land for car-dependent greenfield developments.

Thus, while we work to ensure we meet our housing needs in infill areas, it is also critical that we align our public financing tools with sustainable climate smart growth policies, not sprawl.

SB5 provides a straightforward fix to a loophole that puts conserved lands at risk by exempting agricultural parcels under Williamson Act contracts from tax increment financing until those contracts are legally terminated.

SB5 strengthens land conservation efforts and ensures that enhanced infrastructure financing districts are used to invest in the communities that need it most, those already connected to jobs, connected to transit, and connected to infrastructure. The Williamson Act reduces property taxes to preserve farmland. EIFDs, conversely, are meant to capture rising property tax revenues to fund infrastructure.

When EIFD financing is applied to Williamson Act lands, it leverages those artificially low tax values created by conservation incentives to subsidize development. That's not sound policy. It's essentially a misuse of public funds in our view.

SB5 ensures that development pays its fair share, protects taxpayer dollars, and upholds California's climate and land use priorities all at the same time. It is smart, effective public policy, and we urge your aye vote today. Thank you so much for your time.

No more principal witnesses. Okay, we'll move on to the public if we want anybody who is in support of SB5, please come up. Name and organization Seeing none. Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition to SB5? Please come up and you will have two minutes if you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We're opposed, but we want to offer our apologies to the author and the Committee for not getting a letter in on time.

We were actually anticipating a pretty robust set of amendments and we were kind of keeping our powder dry until we saw those and make a determination on what position.

So given the lateness, just wanted to come and say we are concerned with the Bill, but we anticipate and hope and look forward to working with the author as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Anyone else in opposition to SB5? Okay. Seeing none. We'll come to the dais. Members, questions? Comments? Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. This is a continuation of the drama from redevelopment agency being extinct and what has come into place that allows communities to try to build up areas that are kind of unbuildable. And, you know, one of the things with this particular Bill is it's not quite done yet. It's hard for me to vote on something that I don't know because this is a local government committee.

And I think every person on here has been a part of local government and understands that, you know, for me, the purpose of our Committee is to ensure that local governments aren't being intruded upon by us, by the, by the state government and that they retain the control that they need to build the communities in the way that their citizens expect their communities to be built.

And this financing using the increment needs to remain, to me, it needs to remain in their domain. I don't want to put restrictions on it. Because these type of restrictions are also restrictions that are creating barriers to housing. Because now we're going to let somebody else determine where we're going to build and where you're not going to build and where you're going to conserve land and where you're not going to.

As a former republic, or a former city official, I can tell you we were perfectly capable of making those decisions. And while I didn't enjoy some of the getting yelled at, that was our job.

And so, you know, the government that is closest to the people that can come in and express their anger, frustration, or delight in whatever you're doing, to me, that's kind of where I always go towards. So I'm going to be laying off this Bill until I see the whole pie.

And because I think there's some areas of it I. I'm okay with, but then there's some areas that I am a little bit leery of, and I want to see what that is before I commit to voting for it.

Any other Members or questions on SB5? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I also want to emphasize, both from the opposition witness and others, there has been a lot of discussion about other potential changes to the Bill. They are not coming. We had our flash of sound and fury, and this is the Bill.

So I want to assure folks that this is not a vehicle for something much, you know, much larger, touching on a bunch of other stuff. So this is the version of the Bill. And also to emphasize the purpose here is not to make it impossible to build on Williamson Act parcels.

I mean, I come from an area where the Williams Act's very popular and most people would prefer that we don't. But that's not what this Bill does.

This Bill recognizes there are a lot of other competing needs and priorities, but under current law, because of this Williamson Act subsidy, we basically are planting a flag on Williamson Act parcels to large property speculators.

Say, buy this one because it will create this tax increment that's artificial because the county has been giving up its tax revenues and you'll be able to earn much more on a Williamson Act parcel than you would have on a parcel right next door to it that is also agriculture but isn't in the Williamson Act.

And so it isn't intended to. It's not intended to stop any development in farmland, but it is intended to make the Williamson Act not stand out as an exceptional development opportunity when that's exactly the opposite of both why the Legislature enacted those laws, but also why the county has agreed to give up its tax revenue.

I could not agree more about the importance of local control in this regard to Senator Seyarto's comments. As indicated, we and I as mayor, were one of the principal drivers behind the creation of the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District instrument. I'm a big believer in it and the ability of local communities to figure out investment tools that work.

This doesn't mitigate that in any way. A county could still use other mechanisms with the revenue that it gets from the tax increment. It has many, many other ways if it chooses, to deploy that revenue in support of a development project to investment infrastructure.

This simply says that that decision has to remain in the hands of the agency, in this case and in most cases, the county, that had been giving up the tax revenue. And now they would essentially be made whole point that the project exits the Williamson Act. And with that as for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Senator. We have. Do we have a motion? The motion is do passes amended to the Senate Floor. And you have agreed to the amendments? Right. Okay.

Assistant, will you roll call, please?

[ROLL CALL]

Okay. Okay. Vote is 4 to 1 and we'll leave it on call. All right, Senator Cabaldon, we have next Bill is SB299. If you want to make your presentation, please.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So, imagine it's a Tuesday evening and you're heading home on the bus from work, and you're thinking about going to the City Council meeting that night. You don't want to. Tonight is the night that your daughter is hoping that you'll be home to study for her algebra exam tomorrow.

Your partner is working his second job and doesn't get home until 11:00. But there's a proposal to rezone a light industrial zone next to your neighborhood into multifamily housing right next door. Your daughter's older brother is ending his tour with the Air Force in two years, and he wants to come home.

And you want him to come home, too. This process has taught you all about this thing called CEQA. You've poured over site assessments and all kinds of environmental analyses. And once you were convinced, you went to all the meetings and the hearings to convince the City Council to change the land from light industrial to multifamily. It hurt.

You had to take time off of work, be away from your family. They're all talking about something called White Lotus, which you've never had a chance to see because you've been in public hearings every night. You attended eight workshops, first readings, scoping sessions, community meetings, and third readings. And you won. Mostly.

The council voted to change the General plan from light industrial to multifamily for that project. And you'd celebrate it. So you're asking yourself as you're driving towards City Hall that night, your disappointed daughter waving to you from the driveway, why am I going back for a repeat of the same exact process all over again?

Well, tonight's a zoning ordinance, and under current law, the zoning ordinance amendment, to do exactly the same thing, to change that parcel from light industrial to residential requires the same process be repeated over again.

Imagine separately that you've organized 100 neighbors to come out to a different City Council to speak out about a development agreement that's under consideration, which under state law, development ordinances, development agreement is an ordinance.

It's for a mixed use project in your neighborhood and it's applying for state funds in order to make it happen from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, the deadline for which is this month. All you want is change the hours that the bar is going to be open in this mixed use project.

So instead of closing at 1am you want them to close at 10pm so that you can get a good night's sleep. Seems to go well. You go to the council meeting, you and your hundred neighbors provide your testimony and the council seems to be nodding in approval and agreement.

And then at the end the council says, look, I would have wanted to change this to 11pm. Hearing the testimony and all the public participation. Thanks everybody for coming out. However, if we were to change it to 11pm we would have to republish the proposal and come to you in two weeks and we will miss the deadline.

You leave the meeting thinking, I just spent my entire night providing public participation in a process that could not legally couldn't take my participation without killing the entire project. The point is that the quality of public participation, the authenticity of public participation is just as important as the quantity of hearings.

It's just as important as the as the amount of public participation that we experience. That trust and voting in all the research are not very highly correlated with transparency, public hearings or even policy agreement. The number one thing that drives citizen support and trust in government is this question: "Does government do what it says it's going to do?" And so it is essential that local governments have the capacity to act.

SB299 is simply taking many of the tools that the Legislature has imposed on local governments, in order to advance housing projects particular but others as well, and giving local governments the tools themselves in limited circumstances with the right guardrails in order to use those tools to accelerate their own processes and streamline in a modest way at the local level.

And so it does so by allowing for a zoning ordinance amendment that conforms to a general plan amendment which is required by law and must occur to be done in a ministerial way.

And second to allow, since no one hears about an ordinance the first time by be sitting and listening to the city clerk read the title, they hear about an ordinance by seeing it on the Internet, maybe in the back of the local newspaper, that the publication of the ordinance counts as the introduction of the ordinance in terms of the state processing time so that you can continue to move, that you can hear the ordinance at the meeting at which you publish the agenda for and not a full period after.

It's especially important in rural and suburban communities like the ones that I represent, where the City Council and the Board of Supervisors don't meet every Tuesday and Thursday or even every Wednesday, but they might meet every other week or once a month.

And so requirements that it takes three meetings to process an ordinance have real consequences in terms of those communities ability to compete for grants to deal with real and present issues and opportunities in their communities that they can't currently do.

And so that's the intention of SB299, is to give local governments the tools that a couple of additional tools that they don't currently have to achieve the same level of streamlining that we both have imposed on them, but also that we expect just this week we've been, I know I've been voting on many bills that say local government, you have 90 days to do this, 45 days to do that, 15 days to do that.

And this Bill is intended to allow local give local governments what they need to comply with so many of the shot clocks that we have been imposing in order to assure that together the state and local governments are able to achieve our mutual policy goals.

And so I asked for an aye vote and we do have witnesses today. I'd like to, excuse me one moment, make sure I get everybody's pronunciations right. First is Aaron Eckhouse, the local Regional Policy Program Director for California YIMBY. And then from my own district, David Gassaway, who's the City Manager of the City of Fairfield.

Good morning. Welcome. And who will be speaking first?

Hello. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Aaron Eckhouse. I'm the local and Regional Policy Program Director for California YIMBY, here to speak in support of SB299. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work and raise a family for all Californians.

SB299 updates the outdated reading requirements for local governments, which can lead to weeks or even months of delays in adopting local pro housing policies.

These delays stall sincere efforts by cities and counties to meet their housing needs and create roadblocks at every stage, from updating zoning to finalizing development agreements. From adopting a general plan to making the dozens of follow up decisions, we repeatedly ask local elected officials to take courageous votes and each time we make them do it twice.

And when a city or county needs to amend an ordinance to reflect community feedback. We make them take the item up twice again. When local governments adopt their general plans and RHNA approved housing elements, the public outlines a citywide vision for the community.

Yet when it comes time to implement that decision, whether through with housing, parking, or complete streets, that conversation happens at council in a way divorced from those community priorities and values that inform the general plan.

Moreover, despite state law requiring cities and counties to bring their zoning ordinance into compliance with the general plan, they are forced to treat it like a brand new planning process. Community input is an essential part of the policy making process.

We believe it can be accomplished without obstructing local government's ability to take action, especially in the face of a challenge as immense and immediate as our housing shortage and affordability crisis. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your support of SB299. Thank you.

Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is David Gassaway. I am the City Manager for the City of Fairfield down in Solano County. I am here today to express our City's support for SB299. Local governments have increasingly been called on to address urgent issues such as housing shortages and infrastructure development.

SB299 is a timely and essential reform that empowers local jurisdictions to act quickly and efficiently in response to our community's needs. The Bill addresses the outdated five day waiting period for ordinance passage after introduction, replacing it with a more practical approach.

When a local government publishes an ordinance before a council or board meeting, the body should be able to take action upon that item, especially when the measure is timely and the council or board has heard or resolved concerns through workshops or commissions and meetings. Stakeholder engagement meetings.

This Bill doesn't require the city or county to adopt an ordinance on first reading and allows for continued discussion whenever a council or board determines that further conversation is needed. Moreover, SB299 proposes to modernize the process for adopting zoning ordinance amendments.

It allows counties and cities to align their zoning with updated General plans through a streamlined ministerial process. For example, our city under our sixth cycle housing element as well as just in end of 2024, we updated comprehensively. Our general plan identifies sites throughout the city that now need to be rezoned to support residential development.

To implement that vision, our team at the city at City Hall needs to go through a it'll take us about a year just because of staffing constraints process to review all of our zoning ordinance and maps for review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council for that update process.

If there's a project that comes in that would be in compliance otherwise with that housing element or our general plan, realistically, that process would take three to five months reactively, as opposed to proactively. So ministerial approval of these amendments would significantly improve our ability to implement our long term vision and efficiently meet our community's needs.

I'm sorry, could you wrap up? It's past the two minutes.

You got it. So this Bill makes it easier for entrepreneurial cities like Fairfield, a prohousing designated city, to meet our local housing target.

Thank you. You already spoke. Okay. Anyone who wants to speak in support of SB299, please come forward and give your name, organization and confirm you're in support.

Bob Naylor representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. an Orange County pro-housing entrepreneur. Thanks.

Jordan Grimes, on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance. In support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Bennett Housing, Los Angeles SPUR and California YIMBY. And support.

Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to SB299? Yeah. Okay.

Yes. No. It's a little awkward, this room, huh? Hi.

We're not coordinating, so.

No, no.

Would you like to go first, please?

I'm still sitting now.

Perfect.

Catching my breath. I already went. You go first. I'm catching my breath.

Good enough. All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tracy Rosenberg. I'm the Advocacy Director for Oakland Privacy. We are a statewide coalition that focuses on guardrails to protect the right to privacy. I'm here today because of the ongoing work that we have done with local governments around the state regarding surveillance deployments and military equipment.

Most of that work, which includes transparency and policy requirements, takes the form of local ordinances. The changes proposed in SB299 would make it extremely difficult for any community or advocacy group to mobilize to demand changes or amendments to proposed ordinances.

For example, the Committee analysis points out that a local government could publish a summary of an ordinance that they are introducing, commend it to do something completely different, and adopt it at a single hearing. That is not really a democratic process. We aren't here to take sides in housing zoning battles, not our fight.

But just to point out that the local government ordinance process is not just about housing and that ordinance, and that proposals like this fail to consider all the possible ramifications across a variety of subject areas where community debate and discussion, sometimes somewhat prolonged, is absolutely necessary and vital. And appropriate.

So we would need to see this Bill, at a minimum, substantially narrowed and targeted, and we ask you not to advance it in its current form.

Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in opposition. We are here today to oppose SB299, which effectively eliminates public notice of proposed local laws and allows local governments to eliminate review of whether such laws are appropriate appropriate for its citizens.

It fails to ensure that such laws are consistent with general plans, provides no mechanism to ensure general plans contain any details necessary to enable future ministerial approval of implementing laws, allows unelected staff to draft laws with no transparency and allows laws governing land use in addition to actual industrial or other development projects to avoid public health and environmental review.

The Bill eliminates a requirement that ordinances be read to the public, are made available online and in print at the meeting before the law is passed, which effectively eliminates the ability of citizens to participate in the local legislative process establishing laws on a wide range of issues within a jurisdiction.

Secondly, it allows local governments to eliminate elected official and public review of certain laws and standards. By making such decisions ministerial, the laws and standards need to be consistent with the general plan, but by allowing them to be ministerial or approved, there will be no process for ensuring such consistency.

Third, by allowing local governments to eliminate elected local official and public review of certain laws and standards, the Bill allows unelected staff to draft laws with no transparency to the citizens and no review process because the laws will be approved ministerially. SB299 would also eliminate environmental review of laws permitting major land use development.

Fourth, by allowing unelected government staff to draft laws and by requiring approval of such laws to be approved ministerially and exempt from CEQA, SB299 would exempt development projects, including large industrial facilities, chemical plants, warehouse projects and more from environmental review.

Fifth, SB299 would also divert housing projects from using existing streamlining processes that require affordable housing, resulting in less affordable housing to be the needs of all income levels of California.

Finally, the fact that existing law already allows buy right ministerial, no rezoning and no seca review of housing highlights that SB299 would enable ministerial approval of industrial and commercial projects requiring a rezone. For those reasons we are opposed to and urgent no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone, you can stay there if you like. If there anyone else who is opposed to SB299, please come forward.

And give your name and #MeToos.

On behalf of the center on Race Poverty Environment, the Center for Biological Diversity and Communities for a Better Environment. And opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Clayborn with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Also here on behalf of California Coastal Protection Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. In opposition, specifically to the part about ministerial approval of zoning ordinances. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? Okay. Seeing none. We'll come to dais. Yes, Senator Laird.

Right. Any. Senator Arreguin.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I wanted to start with a question of the author because there were just a lot of statements made about ministerial approval.

And as I understood it, and I want to clarify, you basically have an instance where as an ordinance, you're adopting a general plan and then you have to adopt a zoning ordinance for the exact same thing. And so there would have been a public process and it would have been adopted.

And ministerially, you're trying to save the second step of having to go through the whole ordinance process to adopt what's already been adopted in a complete public process. That's the way I read it. Did I misread that somehow?

No, that's exactly correct. And I'll also add, and it only applies to the zoning ordinance changes. And so I know the testimony was that it would allow all the, all sorts of laws to be adopted ministerially. And it is true that a zoning ordinance is a law, but it's only in that space.

But I also want to add, although we weren't able to reach an agreement, the process of back and forth with the experts here at the Committee have also helped us think about how to continue to refine that definition to be even tighter around accomplishing the way that, the way that you described it, so that we wouldn't allow changes to the underlying zones themselves.

So you couldn't say, yeah, we're going to rezone it to residential, but residential. We're also going to allow factories in the residential zone. That does not count. You have to be sticking just with land use map changes that preserve the underlying ordinance as it is.

If you want to change what's the definition and the standards in New York.

The inference was if you did ministerial things, you just go on a tangent in a new place, and you're saying that's not the goal.

That's not, that's not, that's, that's not the current bill. But I think we can we will continue to work with the Committee and the opponents to keep tightening it up, but that's definitely what we're trying to accomplish because even CEQA would have already been done on the general plan amendment itself.

And then on the other half of the bill, the one about sort of the number of times things is heard and the time I know the goal of the bill is, and I'll explain in a second, for those of us that have really small jurisdictions in our district that might meet monthly, that turns into a minimum of a two month process to accomplish a change.

So in doing this, does this apply to every jurisdiction in the universe or is there some limit to those that might be monthly or this might have a whole different impact.

I can't speak for the rest of the universe. It does. It would have.

Well, you're clearly not from Santa Cruz.

We speak for the rest of the, under this Committee. So yes, it is a broader, broad application, I know, but the intent, the main intent, because you know, in the County of LA, if the board is meeting twice a week, it's less of an impact.

It really is in these smaller places where the meetings, even if it's every two weeks and you are driving towards something that has a deadline, either a development agreement or a state application. And these twin factors arise. One, you have to do multiple hearings, but also if you change anything, you have to restart it all over again.

And, and that requires either that you don't improve on the proposals or you don't listen to the public input. And so in those jurisdictions, you're right, you either cannot complete the process at all or you have to do less than the project that you and the public have said that you want to do.

I think what I was trying to do, I'm looking around the dais and the chairs from Los Angeles and we have the East Bay, we have San Francisco, we have Irvine, and I have a couple of jurisdictions in my district that I represent the area of Parkfield. And Parkfield is the earthquake capital of the universe.

And it's in Monterey County, but it's closer to the Central Valley and you can only get there through San Luis Obispo County. And when I visited the school, there were nine students in the K through 8 school. The teacher lived in a sponsored house. The President of the school board was the librarian.

The bus driver was the daughter of the school board President and drove people into San Luis Obispo County. And when we went to the one cafe, our waitress was the teacher's daughter.

Now it seems to me that if they want to make a change in school board policy, having it have to take two months because they meet monthly. And everybody knows everybody, and you are trying to get at a genuine problem. And the other one is, I represent this Pacific Valley School District in Big Sur with 17 students.

And when I spoke to the school board, I said if the Los Angeles School district had the same number, a ratio of students to school board members, they'd have 780,000 school board Members. And yet they had issues with the state because the state wanted to discontinue their high school. And they had to do emergency actions.

If they had to do that over two months, they couldn't have met it. And it's like it might be that limiting this to people that have monthly meetings or something that targets where the problem genuinely exists might be something to think about. But I'm amazed this has turned into a big controversy.

Cause it seems to me there are those two things you're trying to do, which is don't repeat when it's been adopted in the general plan. And the exact same thing has to be adopted in a zoning ordinance. Don't repeat. And if you have small districts that can't adopt anything in two months, finally.

And so to me, the assistance to you needs to be to meet those goals and to try to just figure out what it would take to do it. So I'm willing to give you the chance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon, for bringing this bill forward. I'm reading there are two issues. One is the timeline for action after introduction.

And I support the amendments that you're proposing to streamline that process to make sure that we don't have to have the bill introduced and then wait an entire two weeks to take action. But after the publication of the ordinance, we can take more immediate action.

And the second part is allowing for the approval of zoning amendments to ensure consistency with the general plan ministerially, which would also exempt them from the California Environmental Quality Act. You and I have talked. I will be supporting your bill today. And I know you're committed to continuing to work on this.

And I want to make sure that that particular provision gets more narrowly tailored. Because if you are adopting zoning amendments to implement a general plan, general plans are very broad policy documents. But when you're actually developing zoning ordinance amendments, doing objective standards, it's much more detailed, it's much more prescriptive.

And I just want to make sure that in the cases as you described, you know, making sure that you know, we're amending the zoning ordinance to ensure consistency with the underlying uses. That makes sense. But there are some instances in the Committee analysis that staff have talked about where there may be unintended consequences.

And so I know that you're continuing to work on this and on that basis, I will be voting for this bill today. Thank you.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you. Yeah. I want to associate myself with the remarks Senator Laird and Senator Arreguin, and I'm going to support the bill today. The two things and as the author knows, I actually have this morning have a bill in an EQ Committee with a different version of this housing element rezoning issue.

It is completely absurd that we have housing elements that go through CEQA and then a city is simply trying to implement the housing element via a state. You have to do a rezoning. It's required under state law or you'll default. Your housing element will become non compliant.

And so it's already been CEQA cleared and you're just implementing it and you have to go through CEQA again and then you give, you know, Nimby's another bite at the apple in terms of filing lawsuits. So this is a different version of what I'm. Mine is a CEQA exemption, yours is ministerial.

But I think it's a really important issue as we see housing elements finally have meaning in California. They finally are, have teeth. We've, we've really made sure that they're strong now. So we, we need to make sure that cities are not being hindered and actually implementing what the state is requiring them to do.

And in terms of the other, I coming from a when I from San Francisco Board of Supervisors where we met every week and in our for us the second reading, some of these issues because weekly were not that big a deal.

But I know that for smaller cities and city councils that aren't meeting as regularly as you described, it can be hugely problematic. In terms of government being able to function, we want to have open government. We also want government to be able to function and we need to find the right balance to, to make that happen.

I think this Bill is a first Committee. I suspect this bill will get refined over time and I want to give you the opportunity to do that. So I'll be voting in favor of it.

Thank you. I want to align my comments with nobody. So. So the way I see this is we're looking at two good things. Quick and efficient and inclusive and transparent. Unfortunately, we're weighing them against each other and the government likes quick and efficient well, they think they do, but the public likes transparency and an opportunity to participate.

And yeah, sometimes they're not paying as much attention. The way this is structured, it was for a purpose. And that's for, hey, if you miss it the first time, we're giving you a second time to be wary of something that may affect you. And so when we're looking at these ordinances, yes, they get their first reading.

That's usually the one where everybody attends and gives you their opinion on it. And then the second reading is usually on consent calendar, unless somebody comes in and pulls it and says, hey, we want to talk about this some more.

And that's fine because some people may go out of that first meeting and that's the one that gets in the paper and that's where people find out or whatever medium you look at. And that's the one that they go, whoa, wait, wait a minute here.

And so they go in and then they want to pull that from the consent calendar. And then, yeah, it happens again. And that isn't efficient. And I understand, you know, the state has made mandates that have timelines and fines attached to them. You know, what needs to be adjusted is the mandates that have timelines and fines.

Because if we're going to do that in lieu of allowing as many people to participate in this process, then I think we're not falling on the right side of the scale because this is, we are here to serve public.

And if we are not giving them that opportunity and we're more worried about our process, then I think we're falling short. I am excited to hear my good colleague from San Francisco promoting CEQA reform, because I've been calling that for four years. We need it.

And all of the reasons that we're going through all of these bills this year and bringing up the obstruction that is ceqa, it just needs to be fixed. It doesn't need to be eliminated. It just needs to be fixed.

So it works in today's modern world to accomplish what we want to accomplish, and yet we won't fix it. And we keep using it. We keep trying to exclude ceqa. Well, obviously it needs fixed. So that's something I think we should be looking at. I want to clarify something. So this is eliminating the five day thing, correct?

Yeah.

So if you have a meeting on Tuesday night, and I'm using my old experience, you pass your ordinance, your zoning ordinance, because as my colleague from the Berkeley had said, when you're doing the General plan amendment, it's pretty broad and they're kind of not as in tune to what is exactly happening to their property when you're doing the zoning part of it.

Oh yeah, they're paying attention now and maybe they are, but their neighbors didn't. But now they hear them talking. Now their neighbors want to jump in on that. So the five day thing, obviously you go and it's usually calendar, not calendar, working days. So you go Wednesday, Tuesday, Wednesday.

You have plenty of time to get it on for the next hearing for most people. Most cities are every couple of weeks. Yes, they have some cities or some of the small rural areas that do monthly.

And if that's going to happen, they can set up a process to deal specifically with this so that they can do those Shorter time periods with special meetings. So there's a way of doing it without excluding the public.

And that's my concern is this has the appearance of somebody in an office approving something with some people in the public who look at that and said, I didn't hear about this. How come I'm not getting a say in it? And so I have to land on the side of making sure that the process is more thorough.

And if that takes a little bit longer, that's fine. We're not talking as far as the timeline for making approvals happen and the delays in building and all of that. This is a very, very minor part of that.

And so for me it's, I have to land on the side of the inclusive and transparent for the public as opposed to quick and efficient. And the perception that we're trying to get things done without them knowing.

And even though we all understand we're trying everything we can to let them know, if we start eliminating part of the process of that, then we have nothing to fall back on when we say, hey, we had three meetings to give you the opportunity to weigh in and you didn't. So now it's too late.

We've already done it. So I don't want them to miss that opportunity. I don't want Governor saddled with that responsibility of or the perception that they're trying to narrow that. So anyway, yeah, that's kind of where I fall on this bill. And my apologies, but that's where I'm going to be on it. Thanks.

Thank you, Senator. Yes, Senator.

Okay, let me just weigh in. Even though I understand the intent of the but in essence I see as efficiency, government efficiency versus public participation and transparency, this is in sacrifice of the more proper opportunity for the public to participate. That's a very important General plan.

And zoning change, those the changes ordinances are very, very important for the public need to participate and then have ample opportunity if they do miss one. So government efficiency is just a fast at the cost of that. The value that we always advocate for the public participation and an ample time for the public to have.

And more people will know about this, what is going to happen in their local jurisdiction in changing the general plan and local zoning. So I regrettably will have to oppose on this bill.

Thank you. I just want to ask Mr. Smith, if you can. Yeah. Can you give a specific example of where and how you think the impact of either one of these two parts of the bill, why you consider that so important?

Well, I think I've said this many times and I don't mean that snarky towards you. I would just say that generally this process affords everybody a chance to have their voice heard and it's where our local leaders can show up and advocate for their members on a proposed project. I think it was said.

I can't remember who said it, but a general plan is a general plan. The rezoning under a general plan is usually that's happening because there's a project proposed. I don't want to say usually that can be happening because there's a project proposed for the rezone. Well, what is the project?

What's going to be built and how is that going to affect the community? And how's that going to affect the workers who might be employed? How are those workers going to be paid? Are they going to be paid the minimum wage? What kind of developer is this? What kind of project is this? What's it going to entail?

So I, I didn't come prepared with a specific example. I think just it doesn't take, it's not a stretch to say that if SB299 were to pass and be signed, there's gonna be things that are built in communities to Mr. Seattle's point that people aren't going to know about until they start being built.

And sure, CEQA was done under the General plan, but now we have to do we have to look at a project that is now going to be on a space piece of land. What's it going to do to the environment?

And that space not only allows our local leaders to show up for their Members who live in the, in the community, but also for those folks who might be working on a project. I hope that answers your question. I'm sorry if it didn't, but apologize.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, Senator, thank you. I just, I want to know, like, just in terms of that answer. And I know this because my own city, like other cities going through this right now, it's not about a specific project. It's about a broad rezoning. And you may have.

It's been in the press in San Francisco, the mayor put out a broad rezoning to implement our approved housing element. It's not about a project, it's about literally rezoning big swaths of San Francisco. Each of those projects under that rezoning will come forward with a project application, whether it's under the normal process or a state streamlining process.

But this is about broad rezoning maps, not about individual projects. I just wanted to clarify that.

Anyone else? Any other Members? No. Okay. I just want to say a few things. The. The two parts that concern me the most and I've communicated to the Senator are eliminating the requirement to pass ordinances at two separate meetings. And I think some of my colleagues have talked about.

Is that a question of convenience or is that a question of how seriously we're going to allow our communities to participate? That's the part that, that's what this is all about. The second part is allowing a ministerial process for rezoning. Ministerial.

That means staff can make these kinds of decisions and just because they have the right to do it. The policy problems that this creates are that it creates really big loopholes for some local governments.

I'm not accusing everyone, but there are some local governments that will see this as a way to ram through changes that have a big impact on people's lives. And with no time for people to respond, that's something that should concern all of us, literally. This could include any type of ordinance that a government, local government might adopt.

Fees regulating, street vending, sanctuary state policies. There are a number, number of policies in case of ministerial rezoning that would happen without a public hearing and be decided completely by staff. This could include rezoning to change areas, to allow warehouses, to allow a landfill, to allow a battery plant or other uses.

That raises major issues for due process, public notice, transparency, environmental and public health protections, since it wouldn't be subject to CEQA or referendum. Although CEQA occurs for general plans, the study is less detailed because there aren't details in general plans about what might actually get built. So the impacts aren't fully analyzed until the rezoning.

Additionally, although the bill is optional, that means that it will only be used for problematic changes that local governments want to hide. Local governments that want to do the right thing will take Actions out in the open.

All of these changes have community organizations, environmental justice groups, public transparency groups, Harvard Jarvis, Howard Jarvis, Housing Equity Trades, all opposed the amendments so far. The ideas for amendments because Senator Arreguin referred to amendments. There are no amendments now. Any ideas have not resolved the issues.

And I also want to say that I took, and our consultants, our staff took a lot of time over the last several weeks. Twice we were going to have this two weeks ago.

We put it off because we wanted to give it most time and really put in a lot of effort asking for actual amendments raising our issues. And there was not the response that I expected to be able to make amendments that truly address these issues that many of us are raising.

So with that I will be voting no against this bill. Against bill. Okay, close.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Yes, you get your shot.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Committee for the Robust discussion and the questions on the bill. And I want to first recommit to, as Senator Arreguin said, to substantially narrowing the scope of what's possible in the ministerial portion of the bill.

This bill does not by any means invent the concept of ministerial approvals. This is not the big breakthrough moment.

In fact, this Committee has passed many pieces of bills of legislation mandating ministerial actions that take away any decision making power by the council and give it and put it at the staff level and so have jurisdictions themselves in areas that they currently have the authority to do so.

Ministerial is not a brand new breakthrough in the bill and we're committed to continue to work with, with all the parties to narrow and refine because what we are talking about is changes to the land.

What we're intending to work on is changes to the land use designation for a parcel without changing the underlying standards or what is permitted in that. So you can't add battery storage at the last second, but only in that instance. We're also committed to address the issues that the opposition has raised because they're legit.

We do not want to create a path in the first part of the bill where you could publish an ordinance that is about banning the sale of flavored cigarettes to minors. And then when you arrive that night, it's a bill installing surveillance cameras all over the city. That's a perfectly legitimate point.

So we've been working on language to try to make sure that we're keeping the scope of what has been published out there. The bill does not in any way interfere with the publication requirements.

In fact, it recognizes that given today's technology and the way in which citizens interact, at least the ones outside of Parkfield, that they are not getting their notice of the ordinance because the city Clerk reads the title of it out loud at a meeting. They're getting their notice of the ordinance because they are online, they are connected.

The full text of the ordinance is published in advance, and in many cities they will have signed up. Please automatically email me any ordinance or zoning action that affects the following topic areas or within 500ft of my property. Many of the procedures that we have in place are designed for horse and buggy pre Internet era.

And the deadlines and the timelines that we have imposed don't account for the ways that citizens actually interact. Finally, I want to say to this tension that actually when I first came up with the bill, it wasn't about making this process more efficient.

It was the result of 20 years of sitting at that seat as a mayor and watching folks in the audience that were coming, that were stepping away from their daughter from algebra that night, or who was attending farm workers attending the ninth public hearing.

Even though they'd said everything they wanted to say at the first public hearing, they knew that the opponents on the other side would keep showing up, and so they had to too. And we have always think, well, if one public hearing is great, wouldn't five be better? And if five is great, why not nine?

But for the participants, we've created a sense of pointless theater where at the end of the hearing, the council says, I agree with you, you make great points, but we've already voted on this three times. The state mandates it, it's in the housing element.

Or we will fail to be able to submit our application on time unless we keep it as it is absolutely essential that public participation be not just magnified in terms of its number, but also that it be treated with respect and that the citizens who take the time to participate are actually heard and that the process accounts for that.

And so with that, Madam Chair, I asked for an Aye vote.

Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is due you pass to the.

Oh, we don't have a motion. Okay, let's move on. Motion made by Senator Wiener.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Madam Chair.

Next we'll be moving on to item nine, SB 282. Senator Wiener.

I want to make sure we're being super clear about what we're accepting and not accepting.

So it's with these three in here.

I know, but I just say I'm okay. Sorry about that. Madam Chair, may I begin?

Okay. Chair is out for her Committee presentation, so I will preside over. And this time we'll hear Item number 30. Item number 9, SB282 by Senator Winner, when you are ready. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. So, colleagues, I'm here to present SB282, the heat pump Access act, which will make cost saving heat pump, water heater and HVAC installations faster, simpler and more affordable by streamlining the permitting process.

I want to thank the Committee for working with us in this bill and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments as outlined in paragraph 5 of the Analysis.

The paragraph entitled let's be clear to clarify the timeline for the CEC's two page checklist, conforming it with the APA timeline and clarifying that the Bill only applies to residential HPWH and heat pump HVAC installations.

Heat pumps are a highly efficient zero pollution option for H Vac systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer and more affordable. Because heat pumps are so energy efficient, they reduce electricity use for heating by up to 75%, meaning that customers will have the same or likely lower energy bills after installation.

Many customers across the state will experience significantly significant savings. Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump eliminates harmful pollutants that those systems release into homes and therefore improves people's health. It also slashes climate emissions. Excuse me, carbon emissions.

Californians need relief from sky high energy costs from air pollution and climate change driven extreme temperature changes. Heat pumps are part of the solution. The Governor has set a goal of 6 million heat pumps by 2030 and we are just under 2 million.

So we have a long ways to go and one of the ways that we can accelerate heat pump adoption is by streamlining the permit process. And we think it will help the current permitting process for heat pumps. It's very fragmented, it varies dramatically by city.

There are some cities where it's very fast and easy and some cities where it is very slow and clunky. And so this Bill will create a streamlined, simplified process and make it faster, easier to install these heat pumps and we will get more heat pumps as a result. So I respectfully ask for your.

I vote with me today to testify as Sam Fishman with spur, a co sponsor of the Bill, and Mitch Bailey, a heat pump contractor from Modesto.

Okay, witnesses. So if you're ready, go ahead. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Sam Fishman and I work with SPUR, a nonprofit in the Bay Area known for its nonpartisan public policy research.

We work on decarbonizing the region's buildings and we're co sponsoring SB282 to help Californians smoothly and affordably replace health harming, climate warming gas appliances with high efficiency heat pumps. Unfortunately, permitting and inspecting heat pumps in California is often time consuming and a costly process for contractors and homeowners. Spur's work has identified widespread issues.

California's municipalities impose widely varying requirements on heat pump installers. Even within a single municipality, contractors sometimes discover contradictory requirements that can lead to costly back and forths with city staff. Local aesthetic and noise requirements often restrict where a homeowner can place a heat pump and can lead to costly equipment relocations.

Local an installer may also have to seek multiple permits for a single heat pump, multiplying the costs and complexity complexities. Permitting applications can require contractors to provide planning documents like site plans, which sometimes cost installers thousands of dollars in architectural subcontracting, and these requirements can lead to long delays before a contractor can proceed with work.

Most heat pumps are installed when old equipment fails and where delays cause residents to go without essentials like hot water and heating. SB282 addresses these challenges by standardizing permit requirements, streamlining permitting processes and provid needed consistency for installers and consumers. State action on permitting for home energy and electrification is not new.

The California Legislature has already passed permit streamlining legislation on solar PV and EV charging stations, but to date no state action has been taken to guide permitting for heat pumps, despite their centrality to the clean energy transition.

SB282 would take that action and ensure California is ready to permit and install heat pumps quickly and without imposing additional costs on consumers. Thank you for your time.

Second Witness.

Good morning Chair and Members My name is Mitch Bailey. I am a licensed contractor with 49 years in the heating and air industry and President of Bailey's Heating and Air in Modesto, California. I also serve as an instructor and the Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for Ihacky Industries of Heating and Air Conditioning Industries Incorporated.

They're a leading HVAC Contractor Association and they provide training for California investor owned utilities. I teach over 70 classes a year on heat pump installations and work with contractors statewide. From our experience, permitting has become a major cost driver. In many jurisdictions across California, the permitting process varies drastically from city to city with no consistent standards.

In a few jurisdictions, you can do everything online. While most building departments require forms filled out in person with plan check review and delays the projects, in many cases contractors aren't told up front what is required for the permit. This leads to delays, miscommunication and higher soft costs for our customers.

Sometimes building inspectors impose different requirements than the plan check office, forcing rework due to lack of transparency. Permit fees are often unknown until the permit is pulled, ranging from under $200 in some jurisdictions to 800 in others, creating uncertainty for us and the homeowners.

In some cities, excessive noise restrictions and setback requirements, sometimes over 8ft, can prevent homeowners from installing a heat pump altogether. SB 282 would help solve many of these issues, making it faster and more affordable to install heat pumps and water heaters across the state. I urge your Aye vote for SB282. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And any public support. The witnesses don't identify yourself and support or oppose.

HI, Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Stop Waste and support.

Sylvio Ferrar, on behalf of Rewire and American Support.

Vin Segrew, on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Alan Abbs for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District co sponsor SB282 in support.

Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice and support.

Kai Cooper on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a proud co sponsor of the bill and strong support. I'm also here on behalf of NRDC, California Enviro voters, US Building Council of California and several others on the submitted. Coalition letter in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay. If not any opposing key witnesses, any public in opposition. Okay. 1,2, 3. And now back to back to our Committee Members. Any questions or discussions? Okay. Motion has been made by Senator Arreguin. I have a question. Senator Seyarto you have a question.

So whenever I see the bill requires I get a little nervous because some communities can afford to do a permitting process and they can already do this. I know I think a couple or many of the cities I represent already have online permitting processes that go on. So I want to make sure that.

What about communities that are a little more rural that don't really have this capability to create a streamlined process? Is there some funding available to them from the state when we mandate that they do it?

Yeah. So by the way, I will start out by saying, apropos of what you were talking about earlier, Senator, with CEQA reform, this is a way of making permitting easier for homeowners, for contractors.

I mean, like one of the pieces of it, allowing the asynchronous approach to the contractor doesn't have to spend eight hours waiting for the inspector to show up. Allowing it. So it's that kind of good government, like efficiency work. The smallest cities are exempted from the bill. I believe it's under 5, under under 5,000. And so we.

And you know, what we're requiring here is not in any way onerous. And in fact, the automated permitting, a lot of it makes life easier for these cities.

And the automated permitting, there's free software available, the checklist from the California Energy Commission is designed to make it very standardized and say this is exactly what you have to do. What, you know, what's required for the permits. So I think this actually makes life easier for cities.

I don't think at the end of the permitting process is usually the inspection. Yes. By the city code enforcement officer. The building code guys come out and inspect. Does that preclude that or.

No, they'll still come out. But what. But now it allows the contractor, if they choose to be remote, so they can work on a different job and not have to wait around all day. So that's what the original version of the bill allowed. Self. Sort of a self certification by contractors with certain training.

We replaced it with this asynchronous. So the building inspectors still come out, but the contractor doesn't have to physically be there.

Yeah. Because that. The building inspector has to be a necessary part of the permitting.

Yes.

Because at the end of the day, sometimes people miss stuff and they don't. Hopefully.

Yeah. So that's still part of the process. That was an amendment that we made.

Yeah. I know a house that had a heat pump put in and the old plumbing for the gas was actually leaking into the house for months. And we discovered it on Christmas and we were like, something's going on. We wound up finding out that it was.

It was a joint that was knocked loose, you know, remote from where the heat pump was put in.

And so that those things concern me a little bit, but I'm also a little bit concerned about making communities that don't have the capability have to all of a sudden upgrade a bunch of their stuff so that they can do this. And under 5,000. Yeah, probably under 25,000 communities probably need that. So anyway, I appreciate that.

I just still out on it I appreciate that. I think people living in all communities should have efficient permitting. But I understand what you're saying.

Yeah. And the other thing is, I'd like to see this done for, you know, a lot of the equipment that goes in, whether it's environmentally efficient or not. You know, if you're putting in pool pumps and things like that, it'd be nice to speed up that process for. For people, because they have that same.

Exact same issue where you're trying to synchronize the developer versus the person that's coming to inspect, and then they miss each other, and then it's another three days. So that's very frustrating. I can see what you're trying to do here. Yeah. Can't solve it all in one bill.

Any of the Members seeing no.

Quick comment. Mr. Chair. Yes. So recently, the state implemented and expedited permitting process for solar installations. This is mirroring that for heat pump installations. And I think this is critical to accelerate our transition to electrification in California. And that's why I strongly support the bill.

Okay. Seeing none, I would like to make a comment to the author, Senator Wiener, before your closing remarks. If you accept all the amendments that I see here, Community amendments clarify that CEC must go through the Administrative Procedures act when adopting checklists for local governments to use and make other refinements to that process.

Secondly, clarify that the bill only applies to installations of single units that serve one home. And other clarifying amendments in comment number 5 allow local government to apply specified setback requirements and rich codes and finally make other technical and clarifying changes.

So, as I said at the beginning, I'm accepting the amendments that are listed in paragraph 5, entitled. Let's be clear. Are you saying something different than that?

Yeah. Can you.

Okay.

I'm accepting those amendments.

Yeah. I wanted to make it clear that that's the reason I read all the amendments. So to make sure that you understood. Yes. Okay. With the amendments accepted by the author and the motion has been made by Sen. Arrogant and. Clerk, please call the roll. I'm sorry. Final comment of the author, closing statement.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations, [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place it on call for absent Members. Thank you. And then we need to move on to now. Next one is file item 10 SB489 by Senator Arreguin. Okay. When people settle down, then. Yeah. Okay. We need to proceed. Senator Arreguin, when you are ready, go ahead.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, I appreciate the opportunity to present Senate Bill 489, which is part of the Fast Track housing package, which came out of the Permit Streamlining Working Group that the Assembly convened last year.

This Bill require all public agencies that have a role in approvals for housing developments to post approval requirements online and will include ministerial projects in some additional places in the Permit Streamlining Act. I'd like to begin by thanking the Chair and Committee for your thoughtful engagement on this important Bill.

Your input has helped improve the measure and I'm pleased to accept the Committee amendments that we've worked together as author amendments. SB489 is at its heart, a good government transparency Bill that helps to ensure California's housing development processes are accessible, predictable and efficient.

Many of us here today have served at the local government level, so we know firsthand that there is arguably no more challenging task in California than developing, building and delivering housing for our residents. From financing and community outreach to environmental review and final inspection, the path is long and often needlessly complicated.

That's why decades ago, in 1977, the Legislature enacted the Permit Streamlining Act, a law born out of the recognition that unnecessary delays in red tape were stalling the delivery of urgently needed housing.

The PSA was designed to bring clarity, transparency, and timelines to the permitting process by requiring agencies to define application requirements and act within reasonable time frames. But that law has not kept the pace with the realities of housing development and our housing crisis in California today.

While the PSA rightly requires cities and counties to post online the specific information needed to determine whether a housing application is complete, including the criteria and documentation required, it does not extend that same obligation to the many other public agencies that play a critical role in improving or conditioning housing developments. SB49 seeks to fix that.

It simply requires that public agencies involved in housing development publish online the information necessary for a housing application to be deemed complete. That's all it does. This empowers applicants to prepare better submissions, improves coordination, and reduces costly delays.

This Bill also includes a separate but related provision requiring local agency formation commissions, or LAFCOs, to publish their information online while respecting the preference to not be incorporated into the permit streamlining framework, I want to clarify.

We did receive some letters from Lafcos expressing opposition to the Bill because the original language included them in the actual text of the psa. The author amendments, which have been published, take them out and just simply require that they have to one promulgate the rules that they're already required to promulgate and posted information.

Many of them already do that. Some aren't. We're trying to make sure that there's consistency in application of the law. That's the point of this Bill.

If we have any hope of tackling the housing crisis, we must ensure that public agencies across all levels of government issue permits in a way that is timely, transparent, consistent and outcomes oriented. SB489 is a simple but impactful step in that direction. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

With me today to testify and support the Bill is Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association.

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members. Again, Sylvia Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsor of this Bill. I'd be remiss to not also extend a sincere appreciation to the Committee staff for the very thoughtful and outstanding work at the end of the day on this Bill.

So we think all the amendments that the author has accepted continue to stick to the spirit of the Bill and what we're trying to achieve. So thank you again for that. And as the author said, you guys hear it regularly.

There really is no more difficult task or business in the State of California than trying to build homes and take homes from inception to completion.

That process is also made significantly more difficult when we have a myriad of state and local agencies, commissions, boards and others that all have some amount of role and impact on that, our desire to create those desperately needed housing. And and as you guys know, the more cooks that we have in the kitchen, the more difficult it can be and the more delay that can easily occur.

And when we see delay to projects, I think it is always worthwhile to share that $1,000 increase in the price of a home can price out over 9,000 individuals from the market. I mean that is a tremendous impact per $1000 increase. So delays are costly. They stall much needed housing and they also impact significant purchasing power.

So you can see just how quickly we can lose the potential home buyers that are just trying to, number one, get into first time move up and others. So we believe this is a modest Bill. It's an important Bill and as the author said, it is a good government transparency Bill. So we would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public support comments.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus Lighthouse Public Affairs in support today of this Bill. On behalf of, excuse me, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Fieldstead & CO, Spur and Circulate San Diego, thank you.

Any other, if not any Opposition witness. Public opposition. Okay. Seeing none. I would like to ask our Committee Members for comments or questions. Okay. Motion has been made by Senator Laird.

And now this Bill is to add ministerial housing projects to the permit Streamlining act and requires local agency formation commissions to post their application packets for changes of organization on their websites. So with this motion has been made and please make a closing comment. Okay. Clerk Cordero.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place it on call for absent Members. Next bill is another one by Senator Arreguín, item number 11, SB 786. When you are ready, you can begin.

Thank you, once again, Mr. Chair and fellow Committee Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present Senate Bill 786, which would resolve several ambiguities in state housing element law that have arosen in litigation and seeks to provide clarity for local governments, project applicants, and the courts.

This bill is part of the Fast Track Housing Permit Streamlining Package. I'm also carrying this bill on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. I will be accepting the Committee amendments, which help clarify the intent of the bill, which is to ensure that the most recently adopted element approved by HCD is the controlling document for quantifiable metrics if there are discrepancies between the housing element and other local planning documents.

The amendments provide a list of quantifiable standards that would be clearly controlled by the most recently adopted element. The standards illustrated in the Committee amendments are a site's maximum density, height limits, setbacks, maximum or minimum unit size, lot coverage or floor area ratio.

If a city received a complaint a compliant housing element status from State Department of Housing Community Development that indicates what these standards should be, they should not be able to make a claim that a previously adopted standard that is still in the code should take legal precedence over the adopted housing element, as has been argued in some cases.

Additionally, the amendments indicate that if a local agency fails to amend a local ordinance within the prescribed timelines indicated in their adopted and improved housing element, HCD will begin the process of compliance review that is codified in state housing element statute.

Finally, the amendments strike the piece about voter approval and leaves that issue to the courts to resolve through litigation. There are a number of other provisions in the bill that are focused on clarifying and speeding up lengthy court processes that can have the effect of stalling housing development.

These provisions are within the Judiciary Committee's purview and are being looked at and potentially amended with the Committee and Chair Umberg. The Legislature has applied significant weight and enforcement capacity to the housing element process over the last few years to ensure that localities are planning to meet their region's fair share of housing development.

And as the former President of the Association of Bay Area Governments who developed our regional housing plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, I'm certainly aware that the state has strengthened housing element law and put in place some very clear timelines and obligations and penalties if there's not compliance.

However, planning for housing and actually constructing housing are two different things, and we desperately need to make sure that the letter of the law translates into tangible housing projects. This bill will help ensure that housing being planned for and approved by HCD to meet statewide housing targets actually gets built.

By clearly stating that the housing element controls in quantifiable areas, SB 786 will ensure clarity in the law so that there is no discrepancy about the standards the local government is imposing on development projects. With me to testify in support the bill today is Jana Staniford with the State Attorney General's Office, alongside with Alex Fisch, who's here for technical support if there are any Committee questions, and Anya Lawler representing the Public Interest Law Project.

Okay, she will have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate for Attorney General Rob Bonta. I want to start by thanking, on behalf of the AG, Senator Arreguín for authoring this important bill, which the AG is proud to sponsor.

AG Bonta is very concerned about cost of living, and we know that housing cost is a major contributor to this problem and that Californians are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our Housing Justice Team to advance housing access, equity, and affordability in California. Our team developed this bill in response to actual local disputes and litigation.

SB 786 would resolve these local disputes before they happen by codifying bright line sensible rules for resolving conflicts and inconsistencies between local planning documents. First, when there are conflicting development standards in the housing element and another general plan element, the most recently adopted element would control.

Second, when local governments commit to removing constraints on housing development by a specific deadline, this bill would clarify the consequences for failing to meet that deadline by directing the Department of Housing and Community Development to review the housing element for potential decertification.

This will encourage local governments to keep their promises to remove housing constraints that muddy the rules and development standards for builders. Setting clear rules benefits all parties and avoids litigation because when builders and local governments know the answers to these questions as they arise, they don't need a court to tell to answer them for them.

And we know that litigation delay can kill projects altogether, drives up the cost of building housing, and especially hurts small builders and small projects that can't support the cost of litigation. And we need all builders on deck to address the housing crisis. The Attorney General is proud to sponsor SB 786 to provide clarity in the law, avoid costly litigation and delay, and remove barriers to building homes for hard working California families. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Anya Lawler here today on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project. Happy to be in support of the bill with the Committee amendments. The Public Interest Law Project is a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to advance racial and economic justice for low income communities and communities of color. In the organization's nearly 30 year history, they have litigated upwards of 100 cases to compel compliance with housing element law.

And SB 786 is directly responsive to some of the challenges they have faced in their litigation against the most reticent jurisdictions who simply refuse time and time again to adopt a compliant housing element to ensure that that jurisdiction is actually working to advance the housing needs of all economic segments of their community. So we really appreciate Senator Arreguín bringing this bill forward and the Attorney General sponsoring it and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any support witnesses in the public? Identify yourself and oppose or support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus at Lighthouse Public Affairs in support today on behalf of Sand Hill Properties, SummerHill Homes, Buckeye Properties, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, SPUR, Circulate San Diego, and Fieldstead and Company. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other? If not, any major opposition key witnesses? Seeing none. How about the public opposition? Seeing none. And then I want to ask our Committee Members for questions or comments. Senator Seyarto.

Okay, so I am all for trying to make clarity, especially between HCD and our jurisdictions that are trying to get or have been trying to get their housing elements done. This type of approach is a hammer on local governments, assuming that local governments are the only reason we're having a housing problem, and they are not the only reason we're having a housing problem.

The streamlining that we were talking about, and this is frustrating to me, it needs to be done at the state level where our because it's our regulatory environment that is creating problems with how much things cost and all of the things related to actually the part where you get to where you're building... Cities don't build houses.

People have... I mean, businesses have to build houses. Housing builders have to build houses. And this is not... Trying to make it so that it's easier for them to get fines against communities who push back and say, wait, what you want us to do does not fit in our general plan. It imbalances our general plan.

And in order for us to do this, we're going to have to go back and undo our general plan, which costs millions of dollars, and redo the general plan. And if it doesn't fit in that timeline that the state wants, they want to be able to come and fine them a little bit earlier.

So when we start imposing on cities, because this is local government, we're supposed to be looking out for local government and making sure that our state government doesn't intrude too much into their space. To me, this looks more like we're trying to generate funds from the local government so we can continue to do state agency business.

And I don't think that's fair. This looks like solutions to this issue of HCD versus local governments that HCD came up with. And this streamlining government thing that we had, you said, the author was talking about. I've never heard of it. I've been here four years now. I've never even heard of that.

So if they had a Committee that went and did streamlining, they kind of left some people out of it that actually know a little bit about some of the issues out there related to housing and local government. So I'm not going to be supporting this bill. And that's the reason I'm not. I think it's imbalanced.

I don't need more. I don't want to support more fines being imposed on our local governments for processes that are built upon our regulatory environment that just makes everything cost more and impossible to achieve with their mandates, their timelines, and all of those things. So that's why I'm going to be not supporting it.

I would like to see some balance in some of this so that it's not just the state hammering local governments, but it's actually the local governments being able to have input into what these things are, what laws like this happen or how these happen. So those are my comments. My apologies again, but I will not be supporting.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Anyone else? Is there any motion?

I will move the bill, but I'll make a comment as well.

Okay. Motion has been made by Senator Laird. You can go ahead and make a comment.

Thank you. You're trying to just navigate a very difficult situation. And I appreciate what you're trying to do and the challenge we have. If I had my way, every city would be building an adequate amount of housing, and we would be going down the path of trying to figure out if they demonstrate over two or three years that they're meeting their housing requirements, how we give them back whatever zoning control has been come to the state so that the overall goal is being met.

But then people do have... I have not been a mayor in 35 years, and we had complete control and did 700 units of affordable housing in nine years, and it wasn't enough. We thought we were accomplishing great things. And so the streamlining is important.

And we had problems because the voters adopted things and then state HCD wouldn't approve the plans afterwards, and we were stuck between the voters and the plans. And so I just think you are trying to address these issues. And so I'm going to be pleased to support the motion.

Okay. Motion. Motion has been made now. With that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Senator Laird's comments because I agree that so much of the focus in recent years has been, as I can speak to this as a former recovering local government official. It's a great job. That so much of the focus in recent years has been about sticks.

We don't have enough carrots, and we're not... And whether it's funding, whether it's trying to provide more flexibility for local control in cases of cities that are actually doing the right thing, I think that's a legitimate point. That's why the state established the Prohousing Designation Program, so that those cities are actually demonstrating that they're complying with state laws and are actually producing housing, that they're getting rewarded by the state. What this bill really tries to do is provide clear rules and development standards.

So local governments and builders on the same page when planning and reviewing applications. To address conflicts in the law that have arisen in the application of state housing element law. And really it's to intend to ensure compliance. The reason we have state housing elements, the reason we have housing element law, is that local governments are actually planning for housing needs and are creating conditions to allow for housing to be produced. I think we can all agree we have an affordability crisis in California. We need homes produced now. We do need to streamline.

We do need to ensure that we make it easier for homes to be built, and so that's really what this bill's about. These are technical changes that have arisen as a result of legal conflicts and implementation issues. And I think they'll go a long way to make the process easier and to honor the will of the Legislature when we adopted these laws to have requirements for compliant housing elements. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Before conduct roll call, unfortunately, the... To me, the bill undermines the local autonomy and community planning and also increases litigation risks and despite expedited court processes. So I won't be able to support the bill. And the Clerk, please call the roll. Go ahead.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call] Two to two.

Okay. Has the consent calendar been already voted on? And any other bills or open bills, would you like to call the role open for absent Members previously? Any previous absent Members on the bills open?

[Roll Call]

Okay, all done. Now, next Bill is our Chairwoman, Senator Durazo's turn, but she's absent right now, so we'll have to recess temporarily. Before we recess, can we open the Call on SB5 or SB5? You can? Yeah. I gave you a chance to call that SB5.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Now, the Committee will be temporarily in recess until Chairman returns.

[Background]

All right, the Senate. Senate Committee on Local Government will reconvene. And up. Now we have our first and our second to last Bill. It'll be SB598 by Senator Durazo. Oh, SB21, my bad. 528 is on. Oh, maybe I should put on my glasses. That might be the problem. Ms. Durazo, you make noise.

That's a big compliment.

There we go. All right, this is SB21, item number 12. Senator Durazo, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB21amends the Housing Crisis act of 2019 to allow up to a 25% reduction in units when converting deed restricted affordable housing, single room occupancy, SRO buildings into larger units with affordable rents, private amenities, and supportive services space.

SB21 updates eligibility at the Department of Housing and Community Development to deem SRO tenants, quote, unquote, homeless for relocation purposes. Waiving. Waiving referral, and homeless documentation requirements. This will help tenants relocate to other supportive housing with ease.

We have been working on tenants protections in the Bill, which include right of first refusal to return rent, guardrails, and a replacement housing plan. SRO buildings are a critical housing resource in my district and throughout California. Many of these buildings are aging and increasingly unsustainable to operate.

Lacking private bathrooms, kitchenettes, and supportive service space, these properties struggle with high vacancy rates, low rent, and insufficient revenue to Fund maintenance or upgrades. SB21 preserves the role of SROs in providing the stability of a home while enabling their long term viability in our communities.

I am grateful for the technical assistance of tenant advocates, and I look forward to adding authors, amendments to the Bill and Senate appropriations. I appreciate the opportunity to bring SB21 before a Committee. My witnesses today are Tiffany Spring and Holly Benson.

Tiffany is with the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, and Holly is an officer with Abode Communities. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Each of you may talk as long as you want, because we're trying to kill time while we get another person in here to be able to get a motion on this Bill. So have at it. Either one of you can go first.

I'll go first. Thank you so much. I'm Tiffany Spring. I'm with the Southern California Association of NonProfit Housing, or SCAMP for short. In early 2023, a long standing nonprofit developer in Los Angeles, the Skid Row Housing Trust, announced it could no longer sustain operations at its 29 building portfolio.

Scampf stepped in to find a path forward for the most distressed of those properties. The buildings were mostly single room occupancy. These SROs, these are permanent homes that have just that one room. Kitchens and bathrooms are provided in a shared configuration, kind of like a dorm or hostel. These buildings were upside down.

They're expensive to operate, don't bring much in rent, and have really high turnover and vacancies. This isn't unique to the Trust. Nonprofits across the state are struggling to keep SROs afloat.

Of 40 SRO buildings owned by a group of nonprofits statewide, only two are breaking even, which means that the rest are losing money, forcing organizations to divert organizational resources just to keep the lights on. We need to act now to prevent more failures like the Trust. A clear solution emerged.

Allow owners to redevelop these buildings to make them more livable and appealing, adding kitchens and bathrooms while keeping them permanently affordable. But current state law makes it nearly impossible to do that if it means reducing even the even slightly the number of units at the building. So that's what Sb21 fixes. I am a housing advocate.

I never thought that I would be here in support of reducing the number of units. But I saw firsthand what happened when these buildings failed. The City of Los Angeles had to spend nearly $40 million just to keep to temporarily operate the buildings. And that's money that could have been used to to build more housing.

So we wrote this Bill with that in mind and tenant advocates at the table. It only applies to affordable SROs. It requires new affordability covenants. It ensures thoughtful planning for residents during and after construction. And it puts safeguards in place so that the policy isn't abused. And we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next Speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Holly Benson and I am the President and CEO for Abode Communities. We are a nonprofit organization located in Los Angeles that is 57 years young and we have a really rich history of having done deeply mission oriented work early in our existence and continue to do so today.

Unfortunately, the good deeds of that deep, deep mission work is now coming home to roost. So I'm going to take Tiffany's testimony and now provide a case study or case example of a special specific project that happens to be in the Senator's district. So the, the project I'm speaking of is called the Mary Andrews Clark residence.

And we have owned this property since the early 90s. It's an historic YWCA. It's a beautiful, gorgeous building that we acquired back in the 90s. With tax credits and we converted it into permanent housing. And for this 30 years, 40 years, it has been a wonderful asset.

However, as Tiffany alluded to, and as we all saw, with the implosion of the Skid Row Housing Trust, this type of asset, which does have shared bathrooms and shared kitchens and more like a dorm style bedrooms for the occupants, has become antiquated and very expensive to operate. So we got thinking, let's get creative.

Let's figure out a way to preserve this housing. Because it's our mission to preserve housing. And that's exactly what we see this Bill as being. SB21 is a preservation Bill. In the case of the Clark, the plan we've come up with takes the existing 150 units and reduces it down to just over 100 units.

And from going from that dorm style, common kitchen, common bathroom scenario into fully inclusive units, studio units with bathrooms and kitchens included, we've had a lot of success so far. Having received a $25 million grant from the State Housing Community Development Department as well as some vouchers and our.

We're about to apply for low income housing tax credits for this particular project. But we can't do this unless SB21 is approved. And it's very critical because right now state law does not us to do any reduction in units.

Through the good work of Tiffany and the organization she represents, we work closely with tenants rights advocates to make sure that this was in line with existing local law that's in place. So we're really mirroring something that's already allowed locally.

I'll just end by saying if we do not, if this Bill does not pass, the only recourse of bode communities has is to dispose of the property. And they do have covenants that will run out fairly soon. It's very, you know, opposite of our mission.

But to date we have invested over $2 million of our organizational coffers just to keep the lights on. So we're not looking to make a profit, but we are looking to preserve this housing and align with our mission. So thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much for your testimony this morning and taking your time. But now that we have another person, no more. If you would like to express your support for the Bill, please come to the mic. State your name, the organization you represent and your support for the Bill. Thank you.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Public Interest. Law Project and the Legal Aid foundation of Los Angeles really appreciate all the. Work, working out the details of this. Bill and we're pleased to be in support.

Okay, thank you very much. And at this time, we'll take any opposition witnesses who want to speak as a primary witness. Are you going to be speaking as a primary witness or. Because that means you get two minutes or a little more. Okay, sir.

Thank you, sir. So my name is Frank Hsu. I'm with Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. This is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the cause of equality and merit. I'm here to speak against SB21, which would direct equity workforce development based on race and gender.

SP21 is focused on the controversial ideology of equity and antithetical to the true civil rights spirit of equality in the name of equity. SB21 targets, quote, individual with employment barriers, quote, end quote, to include, quote, Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, end quote.

And quote, transgender and gender non conforming individuals, end quote, in a state funded job creation program if passed. SB21.

Sir, I hate to interrupt you here, but I feel like we're not talking about the same Bill. The one that's, that's here today.

I quoted the same. The words in the BL.

Oh, the SB21 original version. Oh, okay. So the original version was this a gut and amend. Is that what you're saying? Okay. It's all. So let me. Yeah, let me explain. Sometimes what happens to a Bill is somebody doesn't. They want to.

They put some information in a Bill because they think they're going to run that Bill, but then they find out that there's no support for it whatsoever. And so because it's too late, they take all that information out and then they put in a new attempt at a Bill. And this is the new attempt at a Bill, which is really good.

Thank you for taking that out. And I rescind my opposition for now.

Yeah, it took us a little bit while we were looking through to see if you caught some. We didn't teach classes. All right, so is there anybody else who dare oppose the great Bill by Senator Durazo? No. All right. We're going to bring this back to the Committee of two.

And we have a motion to move the Bill. Would you like to close?

Senator Durazo, just thank you very much for your comments and everyone's comments. I appreciate all the hard work that's gone into it. Urge I vote.

Thank you very much. Go ahead and call roll. Thank you.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Housing. Senator Durazo. Durazo, aye. Choi Arreguin. Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon. Laird, aye. Wiener, 30.

All right, we'll keep that Bill on call. And now we're going to have another recess while we wait for the last author of the last Bill that we'll be hearing before we go on recess. We're going to lift the call so that you can vote on a couple of the bills.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 4-0. Remains on call.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 4:1. It will remain on call.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 3-2 and will remain on call. Local gov. Committee will recess until further notice.

Well, resume. We are now ready to HEAR Item number five, SB 634. Welcome, Senator Perez.

Yeah, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. It's Good afternoon. That's right, the unhoused crisis is among the most pressing humanitarian issues that facing this state. With the unhoused count at 180,000 Californians on any given night.

Addressing the unhoused crisis in California effectively requires proven responses efforts focused on housing, basic services and financial support for unhoused individuals with programs such as the Bringing Family Home, Bringing Families Home and Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant programs.

Despite state investments in supportive service programs, there's a troubling trend developing of administering punitive fines and J time towards someone solely for being unhoused. Examples include $1000 fines administered against unhoused Californians solely for sleeping or sitting in a public space.

Others have targeted those staff and volunteers who provide support services to unhoused individuals by charging them with aiding and abetting the unhoused instead of relying on evidence based intervention.

These punitive policies burden unhoused individuals with debt and penalties, penalties they cannot afford, pushing them further into poverty rather than helping them escape it and further exacerbating an already significant and complex problem by contributing to unhoused Californians losing touch with case managers, family and friends missing work and losing needed income missing critical health care appointments losing key property including identification, birth certificates and other documents needed to access subsidized housing, essential services and public benefits and financial penalties which can increase debt, damage credit and result in bench warrants that result in additional jail time.

Separately, criminalization of community based service providers hinders the responsiveness of both publicly funded and other community based responses to end homelessness. Studies show that these approaches not only fail to reduce homelessness, but they actively make it worse, with one study showing that fines in jail stays can prolong homelessness for two years.

I introduced the original SB 634 as an initial effort to curb a troubling trend of localities adopting ordinances that immediately apply punitive punishments toward unhoused peoples for existing and those that assist them for helping them survive that are only proving to disproportionately negatively affect these people and not meaningfully address the unhoused crisis we are now witnessing.

Government officials provide disturbing ideas publicly about how they would seek to address this crisis. Just last week we saw reports of a individual in Southern California who's an elected official suggest providing free fentanyl to those that are unhoused. The situation has gotten out of control.

These words and actions further exacerbate the dehumanization of our unhoused population by people in positions of power who see the unhoused as a problem that needs to be pushed to another loc out of sight and out of mind. I'm deeply troubled by that and we should all be moving forward.

We can and must strike a balance humanitarian approach to assisting the unhoused while also promoting clean communities and safe communities, and I think that that's achievable. While I believe we need parameters around the use of unproven response efforts, I have heard from local cities and stakeholders about their concerns.

At this time I will be making the difficult decision to amend this legislation based on these concerns raised about its potential interpretation and also simply because we do not have enough time to figure out some of the amendments we'd like to make here. I want to take this opportunity to outline the amendments here. For the record.

I want to narrow the scope of this Bill to prohibit local jurisdictions from banning and criminalizing efforts to people experiencing homelessness with essential activities such as eating, drinking or possessing blankets and other life sustaining materials, so protecting those service providers that are providing services to those that are unhoused.

Additionally, local jurisdictions would be barred from passing ordinances and regulations that target organizations serving those that are experiencing homelessness and serve as de facto bans on providing services by placing burdens and requirements on these agencies that are not applied on other social service agencies operating their jurisdiction.

And finally, local jurisdictions would not be allowed to enact outright prohibitions on supportive housing and shelter within their communities to ensure essential services remain available. I'm asking to move this Bill forward in its current form as amendments cannot be made at this stage in the Committee process.

However, I want to clearly state for the record that I am seeking an aye vote with these amendments and the commitment that I will introduce amendments at the next available opportunity to reflect that change which will be heading into Senate Judiciary should this Bill move forward.

The amendments I am providing shift the focus of this Bill on banning ordinances that apply fines and jail stays to people assisting anyone who is in house from providing basic survival assistance to homeless individuals and their families.

SB 634 reaffirms California's commitment to addressing the unhoused crisis through a common sense and humanitarian based approach by protecting people who are providing assistance for basic survival to those that are unhoused and not punishing them for their ministry and service. Now with me today I have two individuals to testify and support and help answer questions.

One is Council Member Jed Liano from the City of Claremont, which is in my district. And Sean Pleasant's a lived experience advocate. Now, today, you know, we made these amendments obviously under a very short time period.

So they'll be speaking a little bit to the impact and the experience of criminalization policies, which, you know, I do think is very helpful for the rest of the Committee Members to hear. But I do just want to highlight that, that, that we have made amendments here. I've also printed out those amendments.

And so we're going to go ahead and hand those out to the Committee Members as well.

Thank you. Senator. If you would like your two witnesses to come forward to the table, welcome. And we would ask you to speak for two minutes each. Thank you.

First of all, thank you for letting me speak with you today on this issue. My name is Sean Pleasance. I'm a resident of Los Angeles. I was a valedictorian of my high school. I graduated from Yale, I worked on Wall street, and I own my own home and business.

Yet I was homeless on the streets of Los Angeles for over 10 years. I found myself there after a failure of my business and the loss of my mother to cancer. These things sent me into a deep depression. Within months, my world had changed.

I had been living out of my Ford Explorer for nearly a year before I realized that I was homeless. No, things apparently weren't going to turn around tomorrow, as I once thought. I found myself in a very challenging and dangerous situation. Not that anyone is, but I certainly was not one of those.

I certainly was one of the least prepared for what I was yet to face. During that time, I felt completely helpless until I found my voice. I started speaking about the different conditions and situations that the homeless went through. Eventually, I started to get interviewed by various media outlets such as Los Angeles Times, Spectrum News, kcal, CNN.

That CNN interview allowed me to speak out and set in motion the things that got me housed. Today, I chair many homeless board advisory boards, consult and do speaking engagements as part of my role as a homelessness advocate. For the first half of my homelessness, I was blessed to have a vehicle to sleep in it.

It became impounded and on the very first night that I slept on the sidewalk, I was fined and arrested for three days. During that time, I lost all the belongings, my important papers, food, clothes, medications, laptop, and all my personal things. I was glad to be released from jail.

I didn't even really mind that I had to walk all the way from downtown Los Angeles to Koreatown until it. It really hit me that everything of mine was gone. I was so devastated, it was like someone had ripped a hole through my stomach. I just wanted to close my eyes and disappear.

Recovery from this was a long and slow road. With no resources or trust in the system, it was devastating and challenging to obtain the things that I needed to replace. This also affected my State of mind. I was now considered a criminal just for existing.

I became more depressed, lost all self esteem and could no longer see the point of even trying. I went through a range of crippling emotions that from that point on colored my entire outlook. Guilt, shame, anger, sadness, embarrassment and the lack of self worth. A A noticeable piece of the fight to survive was forever missing.

I eventually was able to put most of this behind me. So I thought this had occurred in 2016. Yet when I finally was able to get housed in 2020, the apartment manager told me that I had something on my record and that if I didn't get it cleared, I would lose my apartment.

Fortunately, the management was patient as it took until 2021 to finally resolve a charge that was issued in 20165 years earlier. It took the help of two lawyers from Inner City law and a judge who ultimately dismissed the charge and waived what had become a $900 fine at the time.

If we are to be serious about holding our local jurisdictions accountable on homelessness, that means requiring them to follow the evidence on what works, which is leading with services and connections to housing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Go ahead. If you could keep it below two minutes, please. Of course.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, it's a pleasure to join you today. My name is Jed Leano. I'm a senior policy advisor for the Inner City Law Center. We're proud to be Bill sponsors on 634 here in support of Senator Perez. But I'm here today to speak to you as a Council Member for the City of Claremont.

I was elected in 2018. I'm now in my second term. And from 2019 to 2021, our city saw a 41% reduction in our homelessness count in a two year period. I'm here to give you testimony about what worked in that period where we saw a drastic reduction. Our city is only 36,000 people, 14 square miles.

We only have about, at the time, 30 unhoused residents. We know their names, they went to our high school. We know their parents personally. They are our neighbors. And every single person who we moved from street homelessness into housing had a different story with different barriers.

Some of them needed domestic violence support, some of them needed substantial substance abuse treatment. Some of them needed mental health supports. Some of them had ongoing trauma from being unhoused and something prior to being unhoused. But what we know is that the only thing that worked for us was creating several pathways out of homelessness.

And that's because no one single case is alike. Now, we have also seen a small uptick since we since we saw that reduction. And that's because we're not doing enough to prevent homelessness. While we're housing about 35 people in a three year period, more people are becoming homeless than we can house in that time.

I could give you hours of testimony on the playbook about what's working in my town and what's not working. Nowhere in that analysis are fines levied on people who have no place to sleep. Sleep.

And so this will only be solved if local governments like mine and committees like yours work together, share best practices information and come together to try to find solutions. I hope this testimony is helpful in doing that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can assure you your testimony was worthwhile. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you to both of your witnesses. Anyone wants to speak in support, you can come up, give your name and organization and we'll call you. Me toos.

Alex Visotzky, National Alliance to End Homelessness, proud to support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU California Action. Greatly appreciate your leadership here. Proud co sponsors even.

Good afternoon. Victoria Lorette with the Bukola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon chair and Committee Members Deannie Choiselat on the behalf of California Coalition for Youth in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Divya Shiv with Housing California in support and also speaking on behalf of the Corporation for Support of Housing.

Also in support support Cathleen Williams from the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee the San Francisco Street Sheet Newspaper services not sweeps in Sacramento, Louisiana can a host of organizations. We support the full Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair Members Angie Minetti here on behalf of the Steinberg Institute and support.

Madam Chair Members Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're co sponsors Madam Chair and Members.

My name is Ishvaku Vashishtha from Inner City Law Center proudly in support.

Thank you.

Brandon Greene, Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are co sponsors of course of the original Bill still processing but and support.

Thank you.

Robert Copeland, Member of ACE in Sacramento. Strong support.

Hi, my name is Samuel. I am an unhoused person and I am in full support of this Bill as it stands without any amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Electria Gregory. I am another homeless person here and I'm supportive. Bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mary Krusek. No affiliation in full support of the Bill. Thank you very much. No more in support. Anyone in opposition, please come forward. Could we ask just your witnesses? You should stay here. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chairmembers. Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities, I'm really encouraged about the direction that the Bill is headed in and appreciate working with the author's office and the sponsors on this Bill.