Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee and local government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. This for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Gov. The Senate welcomes the public in person and we are holding our Committee hearings in the O Street building.

I ask all Members of the Committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. First, one housekeeping file. One housekeeping item is item number 11. SB299 has been pulled. We will hear that Bill on our April 23 hearing. We have today's agenda.

We have 16 bills, six of which are on consent. And let me name them. Item number one, SB485. Item number six, SB627. Item number seven, SB740. Items 1415 and 16, SB735, SB736, and SB737 by the Committee on Local Government. We don't have. zero, we do. Okay. So before we hear the presentation on the bills, we establish a quorum. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. As the assistant notes, a quorum has been established.

Madam Chair, I would just move all six consent items.

That's very gentlemanly of you.

Yes. Well, nobody has voted for them yet, but I thought I'd move them.

Do we have seven or six? Did one get pulled off? Okay, which. Which one? Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for the notice. Noticing that with clarification, we have a motion to adopt the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to put the consent calendar on call. Right. All right, we start with. All right, we have Senator Richardson here. Please welcome, Senator. And you may present SB515. Good morning.

Good morning.

Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Well, I'm looking forward to the gentleman like ideas that Mr. Laird would have. And hopefully we do a quick pass on 2, 3 and 2, 3, 4 and 5 today. So I'll be pulling for you, Mr. Laird. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members.

First, I would like to start by thanking the Chair, Committee, staff and the sponsor of this bill, who is California for a Just and Equitable California CJEC, for working with my office to make the necessary changes to ensure the bill remains narrow in scope and of course, I will be accepting the committee amendments today.

Thank you.

SB 515 addresses a critical gap by improving how local government in California collects and reports demographic data. This bill recognizes that without accurate, consistent and complete information, the unique needs of historic, historically and marginalized communities, especially the descendants of enslaved persons, remain, remains invisible in our decision making processes.

As we continue working towards equity and public policy, it's essential that our data reflects the full diversity of our communities. With that, I'd like to highlight a few key points about this bill. Number one, SB 515 aims to enhance the accuracy, consistency and completeness of demographic data collected by local governments in California.

Number two, by allowing SB 515 to analyze this refined data, government agencies can develop targeted hiring initiatives and allocate resources more effectively and ensuring that the services address the unique challenges faced by many different populations in our great state. Number three, without specific data, the challenges and contributions of our community remains to be overlooked.

SB 515 ensures that all experiences are recognized and considered in policy discussions. Current data collection practices lump all African Americans or Blacks individuals into a single category, masking important distinctions between these different groups.

Similarly, the State of- the State Controller's Office and the Department of Human Resources provides more accurate data of other ethnic groups such as Asian, Pacific Islander and Hispanics, which is why this bill was originated.

By requiring all California cities and counties to collect this data, it ensures- ensures uniformity, preventing gaps in information that could also hinder policy effectiveness and delivery of services. SB 515 maintains that all data collections reflect state laws, privacy protections and data security standards.

Here with me today to speak in support of SB 515 is Chris Lodgson, a representative of California for a Just and Equitable California, CJEC. Did you want him to use that microphone outside the rail since this is your film? Okay.

Good morning. We'll be giving you two minutes, please.

Good morning. Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 515 today, a crucial piece of legislation that will require cities and counties across California to establish a category of data collection specifically for residents who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States, starting with city and county employees.

In 2022, through the enactment of Section 14 of SB 189, California became the first state to require state agencies to create a category of data collection for descendants of persons enslaved in the United States.

That law, which took effect on January 1st of 2024, updated state hiring forms to allow individuals who apply for and are hired to state jobs and who self identify as black or African American to also indicate whether or not they self identify as a descendant of a person enslaved in the United States.

The creation of a dedicated category of data collection for these residents is not a symbolic gesture.

It is a substantive step toward closing what I call the lineage data gap, which refers to the near complete absence of any state and public data whatsoever on which California residents who, like myself, are descendants of those brave and heroic Americans who were subjected to, and then later emancipated from the institution of chattel slavery.

The good news is, as the Senator mentioned, you've done something like this before. Over the past decade, the California Legislature has recognized the unique and distinct ethnic backgrounds of various AAPI populations and require state agencies to disaggregate the AAPI data category as well. That important work has led to increased attention and targeted support for specific AAPI subgroups.

We residents whose ancestors were enslaved and emancipated in this country need and deserve the same targeted attention and support. But to do that, you have to see our communities first. Members, it is for these reasons and more that I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 515, and I'll just note here quickly.

This bill is supported by ourselves, the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, as proud co sponsors, as well as the American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento, the American Redress Coalition of California, Bay Area, the Lineage Equity and Advancement Project and the California Black Lineage Society. Thank you, Senators.

Thank you, sir. Any other lead witnesses? No. No. Okay, so we will. Do we have any opposition lead witnesses? Nope. Okay. And if anybody would like to step up to give your comments with your name and position on the measure, whether you're supporting or in opposition, you can step up to the mic. Just name and organization.

Just keeping it. Making sure I got the right bill.

I thought you were pulling out your speech.

You know, I do teach that, but my name is Alexandra Void, and I'm here to support SB 515. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll go back to the members. Any comments, comments or questions, our members.

I would move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Alright, with that, we'd like to close.

I respectfully request an aye vote on SB 515 from local. From this local government committee. SB 515 will assist in the identification and address the specific needs of California by allowing for a more targeted, equitable and effective allocation of resources in education, health care, economic opportunity and social services. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Laird. Oh, here we go. Here we go. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

What is it? Okay, we're going to leave it on call. The vote was four. Four to one. Thank you. And we'll move on to the next. Is that SB 57? Yes. Okay. Senator Richardson, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Members of this Committee. I would first like to start by thanking the Committee Staff for working with my office and the sponsors of SB 611, and I will be accepting the Committee's Amendments that have been presented today.

As you are all too aware, California's housing crisis has reached a critical point, profoundly affecting the state's economic stability and well-being of its residents. SB 611 is crucial to ensuring that the legally approved development projects can move forward, as long as the community housing plans were in effect at the time of permitting.

SB 611 removes the risk of unnecessary delays to much needed Housing and Community Development projects. For example, in the largest county in the State of California alone, delays to community plans can prevent tens of thousands of housing units from being built.

In 2012, the Hollywood Community Plan was adopted, but litigation stalled critical projects—and setting these projects back several years. In response, the Legislature passed AB 1515 in 2019, with a unanimous bipartisan support, which provided certainty, by ensuring projects permitted under an adopted community plan would proceed, despite pending litigation.

Unfortunately, those protections expired on January 1st, 2025, which means we are, once again, facing uncertainty for vital development projects. So, to be clear, SB 611 is—is, in essence, to extend that timeline. SB 611 restores these provisions, ensuring that projects remain legally vested at the time of permitting, reducing unnecessary delays.

Here with me today to testify in support of this Bill is the sponsor of SB 611, Freddie Quintana, on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, the Council, and the City Planning Department.

Good morning, Mr. Quintana. Do you have any other lead witnesses that are going to be speaking, or is he your own?

He's the only one for this item.

Okay, great. You have two minutes, Mr. Quintana.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Freddie Quintana, and I serve as the Senior Director of State Affairs to Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass. I'm here because Mayor Bass is deeply committed to protecting housing projects that will address the housing and homelessness crisis in Los Angeles and throughout California.

As the Senator just mentioned, the Hollywood Community Plan in 2012 was challenged and, as a result of that challenge, was halted—plan-related permits—and created developer uncertainty and created a lot of housing construction delays. Ironically enough, earlier this year, after AB 1515 had sunset, we had adopted the Hollywood Community Plan again, after a 10-year update, which included a proposal of 30,000 new additional housing units.

The plan has again been challenged, and we are trying to create certainty to protect those permits that we're currently issuing in Los Angeles. SB 611 aims to restore the protections of AB 1515, and that passed in 2019 with bipartisan support.

We do not seek to stop environmental review of an individual housing project or development. Rather, we just want to prevent the CEQA Litigation Process from stalling or stopping all projects tied to a community plan.

In addition to the Hollywood Community Plan, we are currently in the process of updating 14 of our other community plans, including the Harbor Wilmington Plans, as well as Boyle Heights. This is why we need to pass SB 611 now.

And this Bill will provide much-needed clarity to local governments, residents, and developers, so that the critical housing development projects may proceed without unnecessary delays. With that, respectfully ask the Committee for their "Aye" vote.

Do we have any opposition lead witnesses? No. Seeing none. Okay. And if there are any—anybody in the public—that wants to speak up in support or in opposition, please come to the mic. Give your name and organization and position.

Madam Chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in strong support. Grateful for the author's leadership on this issue, and we respectfully request an "Aye" vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Will Abrams, representing a coalition of wildfire survivors, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else. We'll come to our Members. Any questions or comments, Members? Motion has been made by Senator Wiener. Seeing none. Go back to Senator Richardson, if you would like to close.

Yes, ma'am. By restoring legal protections, approved in AB 1515, originally authored by Mr. Friedman for community plans, this Bill ensures that critical housing projects are not delayed. SB 611 removes unnecessary—uncertainty, excuse me—for developers, accelerates construction, and aligns with the state's broader housing and environmental goals.

SB 611 is a commonsense balance approach prioritizing the urgent need for housing. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Okay. If we could do the roll call.

[Roll Call]

Senator Richardson, you have another one?

I do, and I have another one after that.

Oh, my goodness.

I'm your frequent flyer today.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Miss Seatmate.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of this very important committee, I'd like to start by again thanking the committee staff for working with my office to make technical changes to the language which I will be accepting the committee's amendments today.

Let me start by painting a picture, and I'd like to request permission to share with you some photos that I think paint that picture very well for all of us. In the third quarter of 2024, one of the largest cities in the State of California reported 32,145 dumpings. That's not items.

That's reporting locations that needed dumping, dumped items to be picked up. This is the highest quarterly count in the last three years and represents a 22% increase from the one prior to this one. More specifically, by district, the dumping reports led to a more intense cleanup program that resulted in over 26,103 tons of trash.

Again, 26,103 tons of trash, or 52.2 million pounds of trash, debris, and overgrown vegetation to be picked up as of May 29th of 2024.

SB 757 would authorize the legislative body of a city or county to establish a procedure to use a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment to collect abatement costs related to the administrative costs that the city or county incurs. Until January 1st, 2035. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make neighborhoods, streets, parks, and buildings safer.

One important strategy is to fine owners for allowing excessive trash and biological hazards on their properties over an extended period of time.

Despite municipal rules and notices, some property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines and citations imposed by local governments, thereby putting financial burden on local agencies to enforce these fines and collections through the courts after incurring significant costs.

Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the responsibility on the property owner to dispute the assessment.

Instead of requiring a local government to bear further costs by going to court when a property owner does not keep their property free from debris nor from the cost to clean the area itself. This change allows the nuisance abatement cost to be collected, which cleans up our streets and vacant lots from unnecessary debris and clutter and reimburses cities and counties from burdensome, unbudgeted cost.

SB 757 is a strategy and a toolbox that prioritizes health, cleanliness and safety for residents across California. Here today to speak in support of this bill is Nicolo De Luca. On behalf of contract cities, which includes Oakland and Compton. And this is my only witness on this item.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you. Honorable Chair Durazo, Vice Chair Seyarto and Committee Members, my name is Nicolo De Luca, as the Senator said, and very grateful for her leadership on this here on behalf of the cities of Oakland and Compton. Cities like Oakland and Compton we have some historically underserved neighborhoods. That's no secret.

You have two minutes.

They're low income neighborhoods and chronic nuisance properties pose a particular threat. These neglected properties and neighborhoods are not simply eyesores. They're active public health hazards that endanger residents, destabilize neighborhoods, and often reinforce cycles of disinvestment and decline.

Yet because many of these properties are held by absentee landlords or speculators, the civil penalties alone are not enough to bring these bad actors into compliance. They weigh the cost of fines against the revenue generated from neglected renting or illegal uses and in many cases simply absorb it as an administrative hit.

SB 757 offers a measured time limited and equity informed solution by allowing cities to recover unpaid administrative fines through nuisance abatement, liens or special assessments, but only for violations that present an immediate threat to public health or safety. We feel this bill balances enforcement power with meaningful protections.

It requires notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, mandates a hardship waiver process for those who are trying in good faith to comply, and ensures that any recovered funds are reinvested directly into housing code enforcement and support programs, including revolving loan funds, revolving loan funds for rehabbing substandard housing.

That last point is really is very important, especially in cities like Oakland and Compton, where many families live in older, aging housing stock and may lack the means to make necessary repairs without assistance. SB 757 creates a pathway not just for accountability, but for local governments to support remediation and preserve safe, affordable housing over the long term.

Back when I worked for the City of Oakland, I oversaw illegal dumping and nuisance abatement. And it is so disheartening for neighborhoods when you try to address a property and they get stalled in the courts and then you really have cities start losing faith in our actions.

So ask for your aye vote and very grateful and happy to answer any questions and very grateful for the Senator and her leadership on this important policy topic.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any lead opposition.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Hello. Good morning.

You have two minutes. You could sit.

My name is Detlef Ironfeld, and I'm here to tell- to tell you today about my experiences with code enforcement and why you should not allow local government to place liens on properties without court order judgment. I'm 75 years old. Around 40 years ago, I bought a property in rural Sonoma County.

My wife and I raised my kids there. We kept animals, enjoyed the beauty of Sonoma County, and lived a rural life. In the early 90s, the county informed me that I had allegedly some inoperable cars on my property. They never visited the property and violated the code.

I then stopped hearing from them about the situation and assumed that the issue had been resolved. I had a train wreck. In the meantime, I was in the hospital. Then in November 2023, over 25 years later, the county law enforcement flew over my property and wrote me a new citation for allegedly having inoperable cars on the property.

I haven't heard for them since the 80s, since the 90s. Now they claim I owe them $50,000 in fines for the cars because the penalty was like $5 a day for each of it. And it came to over $50,000. Last year, the county sued me, seeking a judgment and a lien on my property.

Luckily, because the county had to go to court to file the lien, I found help through a legal aid organization who are helping me to get time to get these alleged vehicles off the property, which I need because I have disability, the heart condition, and knee operation.

With their help, I'm getting enough time to resolve the concerns and also to keep my property. If the county had been allowed to place a lien on my property without going to court, they could have taken my property away by now, for which I work very hard. Code enforcement should not be.

Should be about cleaning up property, helping people and not collecting money, not leveraging hundreds and thousands of dollars on the property and just take it.

Thank you.

Without due process, please do not pass this.

I'm sorry. If you could wrap it up, please. Time is up. Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Mica Doctoroff, and I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. I'm here today on behalf of ACLU California Action in regretful opposition to SB 757.

Our primary concern with this bill is that it will remove a key due process protection for property owners, namely the protection of judicial review before the placement of liens for code enforcement fines. While we understand that it is far easier to place a lien on real property without the added step of civil litigation.

This step has been embedded and enshrined in our legal system for a reason and, and we would respectfully urge the committee to preserve it here. Property owners in code enforcement proceedings already have very few due process protections and these impacts will be heightened under the administrative process proposed here.

With no right to court appointed attorneys, many property owners will be unrepresented in these administrative proceedings and forced to navigate a complicated process on their own. Code enforcement actions often target low income property owners and racial minorities, so we are particularly concerned about the disproportionate impact SB 757 will have on these communities.

By way of example, in rural Siskiyou county, where the Board of Supervisors passed a separate local ordinance allowing administrative liens for cannabis code violations, over 80% of administrative liens were placed on properties owned by Asian Americans, despite the fact that Asian Americans made up less than 4% of the county's adult population.

Further compounding these issues, we fear SB 757 will also incentivize local code enforcement officers to bring more code violation cases and move more quickly because the fines and penalties recovered from these actions will be directed to supporting the work of local code enforcement officers.

Similar bills have been vetoed in the past by both Democratic and Republican governors because of due process current concerns and for these reasons, we would ask you to reject this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone in the public that wants to speak in support or opposed would like to come up and give your name and organization and position. Nobody. Okay. Seeing none. Come back here to our members. Questions or comments? Senator Vice Chair.

Yes, I have a question on this issue. My understanding is that the landowner typically there's a vacant land a lot in the city and that becomes a dumping site, is that correct?

That's the focus of this bill is regarding primarily vacant lots.

Yeah.

And we could specify that more clearly if the committee required.

So, unfortunately, the landowner, the lot owner may be absent like this gentleman's case. And sometimes they may not realize what's going on not living in the city, even if the person is living in the city. Unfortunately some people. I don't know why people dump in the vacant lots.

I guess many cases I've seen like large items, not household items that may fit in the trash cans, like recycled food, whatever landfill three trash cans. Typically residential homeowners do have, but like a couch or whatever large items which will cost for them to get rid of.

I think they are typically you know, try to violate without hiring or paying for legal removal or dumping those items that they just bring them over and dump it at night and the landowner is the victim as well. So I wonder whether this is government's responsibility to monitor and prohibit that kind of activities rather than the landowner.

Permission to respond. Okay, Senator Choi, you brought up very important questions. And actually I want to thank the witness and the representative here today because this is a very important issue.

First of all, cities have laws that require that if you own a piece of property, you're supposed to keep your property free and clear of trash and debris. That's whether a person has a residential home, whether they have a vacant lot. We have rules that if you own property, your property is supposed to be free and clear.

So this is not a surprise. This isn't something, you know, they weren't aware of. Second of all, code enforcement does not issue liens for a person who simply had a couch delivered on their vacant property once as I. And that's why we provided the pictures for you.

Code enforcement comes out when there's an excessive amount of trash and debris that is accumulated. Notices have been provided. It's not that code enforcement just suddenly says, oh, we're going to attach a lien and charge you $20,000. You actually receive notices of and given time to remove that trash and debris.

Then to the third point, are the property owners aware? Property owners are required when they pay taxes to actually have a proper address location for the property owner. And that's where the information is shared.

And then finally to the witness's point, if you heard in his testimony, he said that he was given notice, I think more than 10-20 years prior and then subsequently did remove those inoperable vehicles. So the issue wasn't that inoperable vehicles existed. Finally, to summarize, this bill does not remove due process.

It simply puts the due process on the owner, on the property owner.

Because right now, as all of us know, the tremendous amount of cost that sits, cities, counties and courts are incurring in order to receive, to get in line to, you know, to process the lien and go through that whole process, it does not prohibit the actual owner from going to court.

And to say, well, no, this lien is not appropriate. So just because the lien is assessed does not mean that the lien is in fact charged to that particular owner. Thank you very much for your question, sir.

Can I have a follow up question? Yes, go ahead, go ahead. Let me get down to a little bit more detail.

Like I said, that's against the landowners desire to have their lot become dumping site and against their will, when nobody knows, people bring the trash debris to their site and let's suppose that was me and I clean up with my own expenses and next day that happens again.

And the city has no responsibility for blocking that kind of continuous illegal dumping activities by untrustworthy citizens or people keep on doing and the responsibility is laid upon the landowner continuously rather than city shares the responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Choi, again for that question. The owner would have several options available to him or her. One would be to actually enclose the property with a fence, which is what most home. Which is what most property owners do, particularly if they have vacant lots. They secure that vacant lot so people can't dump.

The other option that a property owner has is to post that no illegal dumping is allowed. If in fact then the property owner posts that no illegal dumping is allowed and they have a camera and they view a vehicle that is dumping the couch, then they can seek legal regress for that. Thank you, Mr. Choi. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We recently had a related dispute in my district over a water district that was choosing to do bills through property tax. And the issue of liens was at the center of that debate.

And it was rejected because the belief that even though there was a payment plan over months and a different way of doing it, that lower income people were disadvantaged by that and more likely to have problems when liens were assessed. That seemed to be part of the concern of the ACLU.

I wondered if you'd speak to that and why that in your view is or isn't an issue here?

Because. Permission to respond.

Go ahead, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that question, Senator Laird, and your long history and knowledge. I feel it's kind of an honor for you to ask me a question and and me to answer one.

I'm fairly certain you're going to get over that.

Give me a little time. Give me a little time.

Sir, the answer to that question is again, as a property owner, a property owner is required to in the city, municipality and county, if they choose to be a property owner, regardless of their economic status, the law says that they have to keep their property free and clear of debris.

So to say that someone, well, they may not have the funds to pay the lien.

Well, then the other option is to clean the property themselves, put a fence around the property, report people who are doing illegal dumping and to, in most cases at least the cities that were referenced here by my witness, most cities do have a nuisance abatement program that if you call them actually property owners, you're included several free dumpings.

So you're allowed two dumpings or three dumpings that are allowed to pick up miscellaneous one time experiences. This is not, this bill is not related to, again, the person who had the one time couch that was dumped or tires that were dumped.

Cities have a process to realize that a property owner doesn't control if someone walks up and dumps three tires. And that's why cities have programs to pick up illegal items. This is for habitual failure to take responsibility of a person's property.

And in that sense, the question is the owner is responsible for that property, not the city, not the county. And so they're responsible to keep it clean. And to expect a city or a county to continue to pay beyond nominal pickups is beyond what our cities are able to bear.

And just to comment, I agree in the sense of the responsibility. In my ancient city service, we had large lots inside the city where people were required to clear all the excess brush after every rainy season. If they didn't, the city forced it and they had to pay. But they had the first option of, of doing that.

So I agree that on principle this is something that should work. I'm going to support the bill. I just hope over time you're sensitive to that, if there's actual evidence that comes up that, that it is going to be a problem with people that can't pay pay even though they have the responsibility.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Senator Arreguin.

Thank you.

Well, thank you very much for bringing this forward. I notice the City of Oakland is a sponsor, which I represent. I had to step out when you began your bill presentation, so just want to get clarification. Are you accepting the committee amendments?

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

And then I have dealt with these issues as a mayor in my city. And there was a very difficult and well publicized case where an elderly African American homeowner in South Berkeley got caught up in a very protracted nuisance abatement process.

And a court receiver was appointed to actually carry out the, the correction, the code violations at the property, the costs of the, of the work that the, that the receiver engaged in were so significant and the penalties that the court was at the point where they were ready to sell the property in order to recover those costs.

And we had to work with that property owner, the City of Berkeley, to proactively and the court to find a way to provide assistance so that we can ensure that that individual is able to retain ownership of the property as well as mitigate the nuisance.

So for low income elderly property owners, it's challenging, but people do have a responsibility to make sure that the properties are up to co compliance. So I'll just note that this does specifically apply to cases where electrical, plumbing or zoning or structural issues create an imminent danger to health and safety.

But I do wonder, and you can help address this or your witness, who I know very well, what the due process is for cities imposing these fines. Because right now, you know, they could appeal, then it goes, then it could go to a court.

Could you maybe elaborate on what the due process would be would be under this bill? Because I do think it's important that there'd be some due process because sometimes these things are in dispute.

Right.

And more often than not, you know, the city is right. But sometimes they may be imposing requirements that may be unreasonable.

You know, it's subjective. Is that the determination of that individual code enforcement officer or fire marshal? Sometimes these things are in dispute. So I'm curious if you can elaborate on what the due process would be.

Yes. Permission to respond, Madam Chair? Thank you. I am not aware of Madam Chair. Madam Chair, not knowing the amount of time that I'm allotted to do this, what I'd like to suggest, if the members are in supportive of voting aye on the bill.

What I would like to do, if you would like, is I'm more than welcome to work with committee staff to address two points that I've heard today.

One point is the latter of what you just mentioned that in the bill, maybe we should spell out what is the due process that would be required for a city and county to meet in order to apply a lien.

And I'd be more than happy to work with the committee staff to put that in the bill if it would be the will of the members. The second item that I heard that was mentioned here today by both Mr. Laird and Arreguin, and that is what do we do?

And actually, frankly, with the witness and the opposing representative here, what do we do in the case of a person who, you know, for whatever reason cannot afford, we can most certainly put a process, something into the bill that says if in the event the individual who has a lien assessed is deemed to be, you know, of low income, age, etc, the following process would need to be applied.

It seems like those are the two overarching items that were mentioned. And if the committee would afford me the ability to work with the committee staff, I would be willing to accept those amendments.

Okay.

Unless you want me to further answer the question, which I'm happy to do. But I'm also a believer in the reason why we're here is not just to pass legislation, but to help Californians. And if it seems amongst members that that would be helpful, I'm more than willing to do so.

Do you have another point?

Yeah, that would be very helpful. And I, you know, I apologize we didn't have a chance to discuss this before the hearing, but I appreciate your consideration of those points. I will definitely be supporting the bill today because I do think this provides more tools for local governments to hold people that are not in co compliance accountable.

And these. These conditions do create a imminent danger to adjacent property owners and the broader community. But there are, you know, edge cases where, you know, somebody's a senior, somebody's low income, somebody have a disability. And I just note that in various sections of the bill does talk about establishing a process for hardship waiver.

Maybe we can build on that. I really appreciate consideration of that, but I do appreciate you bringing this forward. This definitely addresses an issue in my community that I represent Oakland and look forward to further discussions with you and helping support the passage of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you also for bringing the bill forward. I also served where the mayor, the very recently recovered mayor's wing of the table.

And I mean, the process is extensive in part, both in the law and in practice, because you can't be a city government that is imposing liens and taking people's property away for very long without being replaced by a new city government. So there are also some protections in our fundamental democratic process for the overreach.

But this is a major issue in communities like mine and throughout my district, and I do represent Sonoma also often on weed abatement, which is really another word for fire, for protecting against fire hazards, where it's very clear what the threat is, and the threat is not contained to that property.

And the failure to abate it over weeks or months or years is significant and imminent threat to public health. And so we will abate, and then we will be ready to charge the property owners. But first they get notice that we need. That you need to abate. Okay, you haven't abated. Oh, here's your second notice.

You need to abate. You haven't. Here's your third one. Here's your fourth one that we are going to abate and then charge you. I still haven't. Okay, now we've done it. Now we're going to either impose a lien or a special assessment in order to accomplish that. And so here's the notion of that.

You haven't responded to that. So here, now we're going to do that. But you have the right to appeal because the law requires that. You know, we have an appeals board, we used to have a hearing officer. The courts ruled a couple years ago that these folks were entitled to a hearing before a board of their peers.

That board hears it. And that's just for the actual code enforcement determination. That's not the lien or the assessment itself at this point. That is just the determinant. That's simply to reach the point where you, you have been, you've received a code enforcement violation.

It is not a code enforcement officer just walking around willy nilly with, you know, violation notices everywhere. Then you have to consider the special assessment or in this case the, the lien which requires action of the city itself and its governing board.

And therefore that goes on the agenda with a long list of property own of property parcel numbers. And anyone that can come, depending on the nature of the, of the charge can come to the, to the hearing. And they sometimes do to say, hey, I'm, I'm in exactly the same situation. I've- I've. In 20 years,

I think one time somebody came and did not get their name taken off the list. Because nothing in this bill requires that every single person without, you know, with, with prejudice be subjected to a lien. It simply gives that authority.

And it gives that authority because in the list that I saw every single time was the same properties and it wasn't the same grandma, it was the same companies, it was the same out of state landlords who had determined that our annual regular process was just as you said, the cost of doing business.

And why bother paying us for the check when they could just have it on their property tax bill? Maybe they're claiming a deduction, I don't know.

So the lien is really an important way to focus the expense, not the average expense across the entire city through the assessment process, but the actual cost on that property owner and make it not an appropriate cost of doing business for the large property absent property owners who need to be paying attention to their property.

So I think that due process is really critical. But the law also already accommodates and provides for that your bills very, very carefully tailored in order to accomplish that.

And so I'm definitely in support of, I think, and I'm glad to hear that you're going to continue to work on the issues that Senator Arreguin has identified because we both have the scars from it, and it's. It's important that we get it right.

But you're definitely on a key issue here that is really critical for public safety and for holding especially large and out of city property owners accountable for the imminent threats to public safety that they're causing.

I just want. Was that a question?

Permission to respond?

Okay.

I just wanted to thank the Senator for very clearly describing the process, that was requested by some of the members, and we'll certainly incorporate that as we put it in the amendment. But the Senator spoke spot on to the normal process for cities.

Yeah, I just want to. I appreciate that we were reminded that there's already required a process for granting hardship waivers. Yes. And second, that this is about collecting costs is already in place as well. But I'd like to give ACLU, if you want, a minute or so, to respond to any one of these issues.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what I would just emphasize is that this bill is not a question as to whether a lien can be imposed. It is the process by which a lien would be imposed.

And it is our view that in order for a lien to be placed on somebody's property, somebody's home, that there should be a judge involved, that it should require civil litigation. And under- understanding that that takes longer and can be more costly. There are very important reasons for that.

This is sort of a fundamental principle of our legal system, of our Constitution. It is the bedrock of due process. And the problem with an administrative process for imposing liens is that property owners don't typically have the legal sophistication to represent themselves in what is sort of a quick process.

We've seen this also in the context of civil asset forfeiture, where people's property has been forfeited through administrative processes and they are rape for abuse and also put property owners at a really significant disadvantage.

And so it is our position that sort of setting aside the question of whether a lien can be imposed, it's just about the process by which a lien should be imposed. And we believe that that should remain, you know, as is- as is under current law, where you would have to.

Where code enforcement would have to go to court and have the involvement of a judge who would oversee the process as opposed to relegating it to an administrative process. So just wanted to point out that we're not arguing and want to make clear that this isn't a question as to whether or not

liens are an appropriate, you know, issue, but just the process by which they should be imposed.

Thank you very much. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Senator Seyarto.

So to sum it up, your bill is just trying to give teeth to the community's ability to get land, people who own lands to keep their land cleared of debris and nuisance stuff. And I think the best way for people not to get a lien is to take care of their property.

And when somebody becomes a property owner, whether it's a home or vacant land, it's their responsibility to follow the laws that are really meant to protect other people as well. Because if the neighbor's property is dilapidated, that means my property is worth a lot less. A lien does not mean you're losing your property.

A lien means when you sell your property, you have to pay off the lien. So there's nothing in here that I think is that damaging to a homeowner or landowner when what they're doing, they should have taken care of it themselves and they wouldn't be doing any of this process. And nobody has to worry about this.

This is a frustrating issue for a lot of communities, especially more rural communities, when you have land between homes and absentee ownership. A lot of these big lands are bought by entities that are hoping that someday growth will catch up. And their lot that they bought for 100 grand is going to be worth $2 million.

Well, that investment requires attention by the person that owns it. I like your bill, and I think I'm going to be supporting your bill today. I don't think it's too broad. I don't think it.

I think you have narrowed it to the issue at hand, which is how the heck do we make people keep their lands clean so that they don't affect other people? And so I appreciate that, and I appreciate your willingness to try to and, you know, to work with everybody's concerns.

But I think your bill is a great bill. Thank you.

Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, sir.

I'd like to ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And there is.

Move the bill.

Okay, wait. Senator. The motion has been moved by Senator Arreguin. Assistant, would you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. [ROLL CALL]

The bill we closed the roll and the vote was 7 to 0. I want to thank the witnesses for being here, please. Thank you very much. Okay, Senator Richardson, SB 777, you may proceed.

This is my last bill for the day for you.

Alright. I believe we're still at. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Senate Local Government Committee. I'm here to present SB 777, Abandoned Endowment Care Cemeteries, Local agency Possession and Responsibility. Let's start with some background information. There are. And permission to pass out.

What is being passed out to you is showing you what are the cemeteries by county so you can see what's in your particular districts. And we've also included some pictures to show you exactly why this bill is so necessary. There are 2,000 to 3,000 cemeteries in the State of California.

Cemeteries are owned and managed either publicly or privately. Public cemeteries. In the early years of the State of California, small cemeteries simply grew by the need of communities for burial grounds. By the turn of the century, however, many had fallen in disrepair and citizens became outraged over the gross neglect suffered by many unfunded cemeteries.

So in 1909, the enabling act creating public cemetery districts was adopted. The purpose was to assure a respectful and cost effective interment of human remains. Today, over 256 communities are served by public cemetery districts throughout California. Public cemetery districts are located primarily in remote rural areas where private cemeteries cannot operate profitably.

Public cemetery districts are publicly funded by property tax dollars which have experienced a decrease a reduction of over 34% since 1991. Despite the increase of burials and cremations being required since 1985, all public cemetery districts have been required to collect endowment contributions to fund long term maintenance.

However, there are insufficient funds to pay for the pre 1985 unfunded cemeteries and there isn't sufficient time to accumulate the amount of money necessary to cover the post 1985 cemeteries that go unfunded. The second part of operation of cemeteries are conducted by private cemeteries.

The private cemeteries act regulates the ownership, control and maintenance of private cemeteries in the state. The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau within the Department of Consumer affairs licenses and regulates private entities with a role in the cemetery and funeral industries.

Further, the bureau monitors licenses for compliance with its regulations and can suspend or revoke licenses in response to a violation. Since September 7th, 1955, state law requires any cemetery established after 1955 must be an endowment care cemetery. An endowment care cemetery is one in which funds are available for operations of the cemetery intended into perpetuity.

A cemetery is considered abandoned when a license no longer exists to operate. Last year, AB 651, sponsored by Assemblymember Gibson, was adopted to establish a process that allows the courts to appoint a temporary manager for an abandoned cemetery until a new manager may be hired.

When you consider the 187 private cemeteries in the State of California that are subject to abandonment due to the fact that they were built and operated prior to the 1955 Endowment Care Fund, SB 777 is necessary.

Currently, the bureau manages the Endowment Fund accounts of an abandoned cemetery and maintains the contracts for burial, but it is not responsible for the care and maintenance of the property itself, which is why you see the pictures that we've provided.

Abandoned endowment care cemeteries can become public nuisances and challenging or dismaying for family members that want to visit their loved ones. It also becomes an eyesore for the communities and will also depreciate the value of other properties in the respective cities and counties.

Environmentally, digging up bodies for conventional burials, particularly those involving caskets and embalming fluid, can have environmental impacts, including soil and water contamination, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions. Under current law, a court can appoint a temporary manager, as I stated, or a county can choose to take over maintenance.

But because it's optional, no county has done so, leaving the bureau to manage the funds and volunteers to try to keep the cemetery going. This issue is likely to get worse and frankly, it's unacceptable. Our loved ones that paid to be buried deserve the same dignity and death as they had in life.

SB 777 proposes to address this issue by requiring a local agency designated by LAFCO to take over the care and maintenance of an abandoned endowment cemetery. Under SB 777, if one year passes, the bureau must notify the applicable LAFCO that there is an abandoned endowment cemetery.

To summarize, as we spoke to many people with this whole process, the issue seemed to be that with the endowment, the biggest effort that we're making in SB 77, that potential cities or counties could then be responsible for these cemeteries had to do with liability, of course.

So the current process with the bureau is that the the principal of the Endowment Fund is held and then the interest is then used to do ongoing maintenance. The question is what happens if that is not sufficient? And so that has been the question.

So in SB 777 we now allow that some of the principal may be used to actual to cover the additional potential costs that are required because some of the cemeteries also have road issues, walkway issues, many, many issues, as you see in the pictures, that we provided.

So the intent of this bill is to ensure that one, endowment care facilities or endowment care cemeteries would have the use of both the interest and the principal.

The other issue is, is that this bill allows for public cemetery districts to now support those cities or counties, because, frankly, cities and counties do not have experience running a cemetery.

So the hope is, is that the public cemetery districts would provide the internment services, and then the city or county would provide the typical landscaping and public works service, which they typically provide for any park that's in their district. Would be an example of that. I will pause there.

And now I do have a witness here again, Mr. Nicolo De Luca. And also I have a resident, Aisha woods, who has helped with a Compton cemetery in my district, and they're prepared to provide testimony.

Welcome. Good morning. And each of you has two minutes to speak. Thank you. Who would like to speak?

Thank you. Chair Durazo, Vice Chair Troy and Members of the Committee. Nicolo DeLuca here on behalf of the City of Compton, really want to thank the Senator again for strong leadership on this. I will be brief. Just in Compton stands Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery.

This is a site that holds immense historic and emotional significance, not just for Compton, but for the whole region. The history is in 1934. Compton businesswoman Irene Morris was one that she founded the cemetery.

And this was one of the few burial grounds in Southern California where families from diverse backgrounds could lay their loved ones to rest with dignity during a time of systematic segregation and. And exclusion. Today, that sacred ground has been left in legal and financial limbo since the cemetery's license was surrendered in 2023.

The regulatory body has managed the trust, but no one's taking care of the actual maintenance. The grounds are deteriorating, grave sites have been vandalized. And again, I mean, we're talking about a cemetery. So it's heartbreaking to those families. So as the Senator said, SB777, it's a necessary and humane intervention.

It establishes a clear structured process to transfer ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these abandoned endowment care cemeteries to a local agency designated by the county's lafco. Just in closing, we understand and appreciate the concerns raised about long term maintenance obligations, liabilities and the strain these responsibilities, these responsibilities could place on local agencies, the City of Compton.

We're committed to continuing the conversation with all stakeholders, legislators, regulators and local government partners. So very grateful for the Senator's leadership on this important piece of legislation and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee. My name is Aisha Woods and I'm a community volunteer for Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery. I've been there for about a year and a half and had to deal a lot with the tremendous burden, burden of taking care of maintenance. It's a labor of love, but it's extremely hard.

My mother resides there and I've known of this cemetery all of my life and the one across the street. The main problem that I have that I know that this bill will support and I am in support of. I'm sorry, I'm extremely nervous. I'm.

I'm in support of this Bill because now it's a clear cut way of really the city and the county and legislation really understanding what can be done. It's clear. Unlike what has been happening where local government really didn't know how to apply AB651 or you know, deal with it properly with this bill.

I know that there will be a clear cut way of coming in and having support the support that we need. As stated, this cemetery was built in 1934. It was for. It was actually the first in LA Los Angeles County to be built in purpose of having non restrict restricted burials. And as he mentioned, Ms.

Irene Morris was the first female and businesswoman and black female businesswoman to be a manager over a cemetery. As well as that I've had to deal with. Well since I've been there on the grounds, the community and I have been cleaning up the. The cemetery. And not only that we had to deal with thief thieves.

So we've had pictures that you may see. Sorry, sorry. The p. Sorry. The pictures that you may see are of the mausoleum and even buffalo soldiers and other veterans whose headst been stolen. So yes, we would have. We. I've dealt with a lot for the past couple of years.

Thank you Ms. Woods. Appreciate you coming up, both of you. Mr. DeLuca, is there anyone else in support of SB 777 that would like to come up and give your name and add and. And position? No one. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Kayla Owens Woods and I support as a community member SB777.

Thank you very much for coming. Okay. Seeing no one else, is there Anyone opposed to SB777 as a lead witness? You want to come up? No. Go here if you.

Thank you.

Want to take the two minutes?

I'll be quicker than that, Senator. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Jean Hurst. Here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the association of the 14 largest counties in the state, here with my local government colleagues in respectful opposition to SB777.

We really want to first extend our appreciation to the and her staff for spending a great deal of time with us talking about this Bill and for her openness to our concerns. Also want to extend our appreciation to the Committee consultant for the excellent analysis that incorporates a number of our concerns about the Bill going forward.

And I want to reiterate that we are deeply sympathetic to the situations where private cemeteries have been abandoned and left vulnerable to vandalism and decay, especially for family Members whose loved ones are interred. However, for the vast majority of the local governments in the state, we currently do not provide cemetery services.

So this would be a new responsibility for us. And frankly, it's difficult to consider accepting this kind of responsibility from a private sector entity that has essentially abandoned its operation.

We understand that There are insufficient endowment funds in the state's Endowment Care Fund for these cemeteries to continue to be maintained and operated, which frankly raises the concern that the state is transferring its own liabilities to a local agency and perhaps even incentivizing a private entity to simply abandon its property and liabilities without consequence.

We understand that that is not the intent of this Bill, but believe that the current framework is insufficient to protect from those issues. Finally, it's really important to communicate that we all agree that this Bill is a new mandate for which the state should be providing resources.

And while we are asking for a no vote today, we are committed to continuing to work on this matter as the legislation moves through the process. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in opposition? Please come forward. Give your name, organization and where you stand.

Sarah Ket, on behalf of the , in respectful opposition, willing to work with the author to address our concerns. Thank you.

Eric Larry, speaking on behalf of the in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Johnny Pina with the in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Marcus Detwiler with the in opposition. Thank you.

Chair Members, not in opposition, but on an issue that was raised by the opposition. Brings me to the. To the table here. I'm Jerry Desmond with the . We're fine with the bill in its present form and appreciate the efforts of the author.

But on the issue of the legislation or current law providing an incentive for cemeteries to abandon, I feel obligated to mention that our Association supported the Gibson bill last year with the authority to appoint a manager and changes in the law.

For or against.

I'm here to point, to respond to a position in opposition and to.

Okay, we don't have that title or that position. Understood. Thank you. Thank you very much, though. Thank you for being here. You come back here to the Members, the Committee. Permission to respond. Hold on a second. Any Members? Questions? Comments? Okay. Seeing none. zero, wait. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thanks for bringing the bill forward. And I can tell there's a lot behind this, the story. I'm struggling with the statewide application here. As it turns out, my district office in Vallejo is owned by the Endowment Fund for the. For the Skyview Park.

It's a big issue in the community there, and Vallejo is far below its police staffing. It's unable to provide the local match for a variety of housing and homelessness programs. It's in tough financial Straits and I'm trying to imagine them being legally required to accept title and then responsibility for the costs.

And they don't and as has been said, they don't have any expertise in that area. The town of Sonora, which isn't in my district but it's nearby here and it is also in the Rural County category. The town is 5,000 people. They have very few of the departments that we would even think of to operate.

And so their, their capacity to manage this through this. They can't just add it as a new responsibility on their staff because they don't, they have very few staff to start with.

And so I want to be supportive of the solution of this problem in Compton and Carson and maybe elsewhere, but would really, I think it's worth a look and would certainly urge you to take that look because on the floor I'd have a hard time with a process that could lead to Vallejo or even Solano county having to take responsibility for that cemetery or Sonora or other places.

And so as you think, as you move this through, please think through the, the geographic parts and the impacts on some of the rural places where the capacity just isn't there. And we may need, we need a solution, but it may not be this one.

Thank you. Okay, Senator, wait, hold on. Senator Laird and then the Vice Chair.

Just a brief comment. I'll subscribe to those comments. And I think that we had a

bill in Judiciary that was designed to address a specific geographic problem and applied to the whole state and we gave the author the chance to go back and figure out how to make sure that the individual problem was addressed and allow the author to continue to work. And I would just say think about that as an option.

Senator Choi.

Thank you Chair. I can understand the issue on hand right now and we are trying to find some ways to address but the only issue seem to be local agencies who are not expertise as well as with no ongoing maintenance budget set aside and taking over that responsibility which was not the local government's responsibility to begin with.

So abandoned problem and lack of maintenance and eyesore property value impact nearby homes or villages or towns. And then also the, the people who may still visit the grave site for their ancestors burial may feel very unsafe and uncomfortable to visit such unsightly and unsafe not well managed sites.

It would be very unpleasant if that was the case for me. So I see the problem but as I hear by providing this kind of the way out with the lack of endowment Fund and eventually somebody else will take over. So I would have liked to See to prevent them from measures if not in this Bill.

But I think in the future we need to address separately or if you can add amendments in here the ways we can prevent the future this type of bankruptcy of the original owner or management company because original down payment requirement was to prevent this kind of situation.

So it's very difficult right now for me to find the best solution.

But as a former City Council Member and the mayor of City of Irvine, if my city was faced with that kind of a dilemma then probably citizens may not like it for city to take over the responsibility and ongoing maintenance and the rising costs obviously in the future.

So it's very difficult and which side to stand on this issue. I'm so struggling. And if you can address how we can prevent the future happenings, I'm sure there will be new cemetery site developers may come in as for investment purposes, for business purposes with a short sighted planning.

But we are now with the age of this cemetery, we are facing unexpected outcomes. So if you can address your thoughts on my concern, I would appreciate it.

Yes, sir, permission to respond? Yes, go ahead. Senator. I'm going to be the Solomon to help show the solution ideally to this. First of all, I want to bring out a couple points. There are only currently seven abandoned cemeteries. So we're not talking about 100, 200, 500, 2000, 3000 abandoned cemeteries. There are only currently seven.

So first to put that in perspective.

Second of all, I want to make sure and I tried hard in my notes to give you a lot of data and maybe it was too much, as I believe the gentleman of the Association was attempting to share is that actually since 1955 cemeteries have been required to have sufficient endowment funds.

In fact, the endowment funds of 186 cemeteries or owners that could have multiple cemeteries is an excess of $1.6 billion. So it's not that every cemetery and I would certainly not want to convey that that every cemetery out there is now going to.

You know, that's why they, that's why the state in its wisdom required the endowment funds. What we're talking about are the public and private cemeteries that exist that existed prior to the endowment Fund being required. So this is what I've learned and only about 12 weeks on the job.

So I want to thank the Members who've come forward actually in opposition because as you noticed, they stated they were willing to continue working with the author.

So I would respectfully request and I know committees, we really don't like to do it, but if you would support the Bill, my commitment is between now and appropriations to implement the following things. One, we need to make sure that the Bill clearly states that the public cemetery, LAFCO would receive the information from the Department. Right.

That this cemetery has become abandoned. LAFCO would then advise the city or county. The city or county says, as what has been presented, we don't know how to manage cemeteries.

So we need to be clear and prepare the public cemetery districts to be able to take on all responsibilities regarding cemetery services, internment services, which is what they do currently now for public cemeteries. So there already is a group that does it, that's able to do it. It just leads to your second point, Mr.

Choi, and that is, and also to you, sir, of how do we pay for it?

So how we pay for it is, again, this Bill was set up to say, as the person in opposition stated, the reason why we're now allowing to not only use the interest but a portion of the principal is to make sure there is sufficient funds to pay for the maintenance of the cemeteries.

Going forward, of course, the possibility that this may grow.

So my commitment to working with those in opposition and here in the Committee is we need to look at the existing fees that exist regarding providing a cemetery and potentially creating an endowment special assessment that would help to backfill any other additional funds that may not be covered by the endowment process.

So I, as the author, I remain committed to working with those in opposition to clearly check off the box on those two points.

One, to make sure that cities and counties are not responsible to provide internment services, which they're not prepared to do, and number two, to make sure that if then they are going to be responsible, that they're going to have the necessary funds to pay for it, which, zero, by the way, I believe it's SB90.

Cities and counties have the ability to issue a claim if they provide any services, and in fact, they incur those services and they have to be reimbursed. There actually is a state process for that, but we need to go further to make sure there's sufficient funds so cities and counties don't feel strained by assisting in this matter.

Finally, I would, finally, I would say, whether you like it or not, actually, unfortunately it does ultimately become the city and county because if someone walks away from a cemetery, and I showed you pictures of an example of one the city and county ultimately has to look at, how many years are we going to continue to allow it just to sit and to be vandalized and weeds and so on?

A process needs to be in place and that's what SB777 does.

Just a follow up question quickly. I hear that you are not allowed to use the principal. So when they start using the principal, it'll just run out of the Fund in short or long, whatever510 or 50 years later. So after that, what's going to happen? That's one concern.

And also secondary good news to hear is that the local agency will have a right to claim to the state for reimbursement for the cost. Is that right?

Yes. So what my commitment as the offer is to work with the Committee staff and to also work with the Department to look at what special Fund assessment could be applied because certainly the. There's a $750 annual fee for a licensee for any cemetery.

So if you take that amount, multiply it, you're talking about, you know, a budget they have approximately of 1.5 million. Clearly that's not. That only takes care of the role of the Department, their audits and all the work that they have to do.

So we will be working with the Committee, we'll work with those in opposition and with the Department to look at what other funding mechanisms could be created to make sure there are sufficient funds. Because yes, it would be difficult certainly for a city to cover that.

Yeah. To hear your very positive. And the flexibility to work with the Committee and then also opposition from my original position of opposition as a local government official formally I will support this Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I just want to quickly make a comment that currently there are no amendments in front of us, so we're voting on the Bill as, as it is. But I do appreciate that you're trying to tackle something out there that there's no clear cut solution for. And so I want to commend you for that.

We either do something, try something, or we walk away and what's left is these abandoned cemeteries. And nobody wants to take that on because it's not profitable. And so, you know, it's not, you know, glitzy, it's not a fun thing to do. It's taking on something that really is getting more and more difficult to solve.

So with that, I appreciate your willingness to take this on. And we will vote now unless you have a final, final comment.

My final final is I respectfully asked for a Nye vote. I look forward to working with the Committee to accept any amendments deemed necessary. And I want to thank our witness, Ms. Woods for coming.

They drove here from Los Angeles last night to get here to tell you the real world of what people are experiencing and what we want to avoid going forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Ms. Woods, on our behalf, for. For being an active participant in this democracy that we have. Thank you very much. Call the roll. zero, no. zero, I'm sorry. Motion. Do we have a motion? Okay. Senator Choi moves the Bill. The motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

And that's it for Richardson for today. Thank you for this.

The Bill is 5 - 1, and it's on call.

Senator Seyarto. Item Number 8, SB 74. You can proceed, Senator.

Thank you, honorable Chair, and I'm here to present SB 74. First, I would like to thank the Committee for working with my staff on this Bill, and I accept the Committee Amendments. From roads to buildings to the electrical grid, California continues to face chronic delays in vital infrastructure projects.

Additionally, California is notorious for its inability to adequately and timely fund vital infrastructure projects. And as a result, the State's infrastructure ranks below the national average, in 12 out of 13 highway categories. To address these delays, SB 74 will establish the Infrastructure Gap Fund, managed by the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.

The Gap Fund will grant cities and local agencies up to 20% of additional required funding costs that have accrued since the start of construction, on projects that have allocated a minimum of 45% in local tax revenue toward their original completion price.

The devastating fires across the state and, most recently, in Southern California, have shown vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. However, SB 74 will provide our local agencies and special districts with a resource to complete funding for critical infrastructure projects that have already started construction, can demonstrate financial challenges, and help meet state and local goals.

With me here today, to speak on behalf of SB 74, is Dave Williams, who is the Fire Chief of the Chino Valley Independent Fire District in San Bernardino. And I think he can kind of clearly outline what the issues are for local agencies all over the state.

Welcome, Mr. Williams.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Durazo and Members of the Committee. I am Dave Williams, Fire Chief of the Chino Valley Independent Fire District in San Bernardino County. Senator Seyarto has been a tremendous supporter of our Fire District, and it is an honor to be here to show support for Senator Seyarto's Senate Bill 74.

SB 74 addresses a growing challenge for public agencies. The funding gap between planning and construction critical infrastructure projects is critical. In recent years, the funding gap has worsened, and construction costs have escalated. We have faced longer times associated with permitting and environmental requirements, such as the California Environmental Quality Act.

Special districts, like ours, lack the same resources and tools, as cities and counties, to expedite these types of projects and raise additional revenue. Additionally, there is little to no grant funding or outside support for the construction or remodeling of fire stations, except for direct financing from the state. We rely predominantly on special assessments and property tax.

Therefore, we have limited funding sources to build essential infrastructure, such as fire stations, that keep our communities safe. In 2022, our District began the planning of our newest fire station, Station Number 68. At the time, the estimated cost was $13.2 million.

The number has now risen more than 57%, to $20.7 million, primarily due to construction costs jumping from $750/square foot to $1,250/square foot for critical infrastructure projects, in the last three years. While we secured $6.25 million from the state, we now face a $6.5 million shortfall, approximately 1/3 of the total project cost.

To proceed with our project, we will need to draw on our own reserves to cover the additional cost. SB 74 provides a practical, targeted solution, by offering gap funding to help agencies, like ours, feel more confident about moving forward with critical infrastructure projects.

I respectfully urge your support for SB 74 and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Thank you very much. Any other principal witnesses in support? No. Seeing none. We'd like to go to the public and anyone who is in support of SB 74, please come up. Give your name, organization, and obviously, where you stand.

Nicole Wertleman, on behalf of the City of Ontario, in support.

Thank you.

Eric Larry, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you.

Eric Will, with Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Thank you.

Morning. Johnny Pinion, with the League of California Cities, in strong support. Thank you.

Ophelia Szigeti, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, in support.

Thank you very much. We move on now to opposition. Is there anybody who wants to be a witness in opposition? No? Anybody in the public want to identify yourself as an opposition? No. Seeing none. We'll come up to our Committee. Questions, comments?

What's left of the Committee.

Okay. Seeing none. I guess it's move the Bill. Okay.

Bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. Would you like to close?

I simply ask for an "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Okay. Easier than you thought, huh? Okay.

I don't want to make it more tough—tougher—than it is.

Okay. So, this is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations Assistant. Please do the roll call.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so we'll leave it on call. The vote is 3 - 0. Thank you very much for coming today.

Thank you, Chief, and thank you for not retiring while you were waiting over there. I was afraid I was going to lose you—took so long.

Wait, hold on a second.

[Roll call]

Okay, we will continue to leave that Bill on call and move on Senator Seyarto item nine. SB255. You may proceed.

All right, thank you. Honorable Chair, I'm here to present SB255. So I'll begin by thanking again, thanking the Committee staff for their assistance in working on the language of this Bill. SB255 seeks to notify homeowners of any changes to their property deed to limit title fraud.

While rare, title fraud can be extremely damaging, and title protection companies have done an extremely good job of advertising their product, which has frightened many homeowners into thinking their land or their title is going to get taken from them and their home will disappear. So currently, homeowners seeking to protect themselves from title fraud have a few options, but they are Limited.

They can, one, consistently check the listings themselves, two, pay a private company to monitor the public listings of housing documents and notify them of any change, or three, hope they live in one of the counties that already offers a title notification program.

At least eight counties in California already have a notification program for recording a change to a deed, quitclaim deed, or deed of trust. SB255 builds on the existing system by making it mandatory for every county and allowing recorders to charge a fee to recoup the cost of running the program.

This measure also adds mortgages to the list of documents that require notification. It authorizes electronic notification program and specifies the notification must be mailed prior to the recording of the document.

By 2027, Erie County will be required to establish a recorder notification program for recording a change in mortgage deed, quickclaim deed, or deed of trust against a property. I respectful asked for. I vote. And with me here today is Scott Kaufman on behalf of Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association to provide testimony and support and technical assistance.

Thank you for your time. I am Scott Kaufman, Legislative Director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The importance of this Bill was recently made clear to us in a call we received from a Member of our Association.

The Member called to tell us about a man that had attempted to add his new wife to his title, through the spousal exemption, but wrote the wrong parcel number, got it wrong by one number. And while he failed to add his new spouse to his property, he somehow managed to add himself to our Members property.

To make matters worse, our Member was unaware of the issue until she started to receive junk mail in the man's name. Ironically enough, some of these title lock groups were sending mail in his name. Ultimately, she worked with the assessor's office and everything was corrected. Although the man was unresponsive until contacted by an attorney.

It is alarming to hear that someone could accidentally add themselves to another person's title. It's even more concerning when considering that the purposeful title theft is a crime on the rise. That's why SB255 is so necessary. It would give property owners peace of mind and protection from fraud.

I have six, but I think, I think I heard you say eight counties, both big and small, already offer this service either by mail or email. Mandating this program statewide can be done and it is important that it be done. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Any other support witnesses?

Okay. Anybody in the public in support of this Bill, please come forward. Let's see, none? Anybody in opposition? If you would like to take a two minutes. You need that much time? Okay. Thank you.

No.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Rob Grossglauser on behalf of the County Recorders Association of California. We have no position on the Bill currently. We did want to thank the Committee and the Senator for working with us on the new amendments to the measure.

We're still analyzing those to ensure that all 58 counties would be able to administer and implement. We're very supportive of the efforts to protect homeowners and combat fraud as evidenced by our sponsorship of the Bill in 2010 that made it optional.

We look forward to continuing to work on it and happy to answer any questions that the Committee has. Those. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for coming. Anyone else in support? Opposed? In between? [No] Seeing none. Members, questions? No? Motion. Okay. We have a motion by Senor Senator Arreguin. So we'll take the call, roll call.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Arreguin?.Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon? Laird? Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Wiener?

Okay 30 on call. Thank you very much for coming. Appreciate it. We will now proceed to SB239 item 10. Senator and I just want to let us know that we have to be out of this room at 12 o'clock otherwise we have to come back sometime later this afternoon. Time to be determined.

So just keep in mind the timing here. Okay. Senator Arreguin, if you would proceed.

Well, thank you Madam Chair and fellow Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 239 which will provide local and regional non voting advisory bodies with the flexibility to conduct meetings remotely if the bodies still provide a staffed meeting room for the public to participate in person.

I want to note that I will be accepting the Committee amendments which are technical in nature and thank the consultant for their work on this Bill and those amendments are described on page seven of the Committee analysis. Just briefly highlight.

I think the most substantive change is adding a sunset clause that if this Bill were to pass and be signed by Governor Newsom that these provisions would be in effect until January 12030 and that's aligned with other laws that we passed in recent years to amend the Brown Act.

In addition, the other Committee amendment would require that the physical meeting location be staffed by either staffed by the subsidiary body or the legislative body because some subsidiary bodies don't may not have their own staff and would would also allow the subsidiary body to make the specific findings to enable this these specific provisions by 2/3 vote.

But back to the Bill and the purposes of the Bill. The COVID 19 pandemic showed us all that meeting remotely can improve efficiency and accessibility for everything from routine work meetings to public meetings subject to the Brown Act.

However, at the end of the pandemic era, remote meeting flexibility has caused many community Members to resign from local advisory bodies due to conflicts with work, caregiving disabilities or long driving distances needed to attend meetings in person. Participation in our democratic processes is a key way of building trust in our institutions.

Yet limited options for engagement make it difficult for many to have their voices heard. Many local governments create advisory bodies to ensure that citizen input is received for varying issues prior to enacting ordinances or taking final actions by the legislative body.

Local governments have struggled to attract Members and to achieve a quorum of the public to serve on these advisory bodies due to the requirement that these bodies meet physically in person. Qualified Members of the public who would be an important voice for diverse issues, have reasonable concerns about time constraints that leaves them unable to participate.

The Ralph M. Brown act, established in 1953 ensures that the public has adequate access to participate in government decision making processes. This essential democratic right remains just as relevant today. However, the conditions of our society have changed, necessitating updates to this critical law.

As specifically we discussed at that informational hearing, we had at the beginning of this Committee's work this session. While remote meeting is possible under current law, Members must post the address of the remote location and open it to the public. Often the most convenient and accessible location to participate in a meeting is from someone's home.

This reality is exacerbated by those who live in rural locations where there are simply fewer public locations willing to accommodate somebody participating in a meeting who may be joined by Members of the public.

As the Mayor of the City of Berkeley during the COVID 19 pandemic, I saw firsthand how teleconferencing allowed more participation on advisory bodies and more robust participation from the public. This flexibility makes sense in today's modern world.

Senate Bill 239 would allow Members of the public who serve on bodies that are simply advisory in nature, meaning no decision making powers, final decision making powers, to meet remotely without needing to post their home address or open their home to the public.

The Bill requires that the authorizing legislative body or subsidiary body approve the teleconferencing capability by two thirds vote and make findings and declarations about the need for remote participation. Members of the advisory body are statutorily required under this Bill to appear on camera and announce if there are any other adults in the room at their remote location.

They may only turn off their camera in the event of an Internet connectivity issue, which they also must announce. Additionally, this Bill does not allow advisory bodies that have jurisdiction over more sensitive matters, namely police oversight, elections, or budgets, to use this remote teleconferencing capability.

Elected officials serving on advisory bodies may also not use the flexibility provided if they serve on an advisory body as well. Any recommendations made by that advisory body would be subject to approval by the parent legislative body that created it.

SB239 would also improve meeting accessibility for the public at large, ensuring that the public can also view and participate in remote meetings, while also ensuring that there's at least one staffed in person meeting location to attend and participate in a meeting.

These provisions will ensure that the fundamental functions of our local governments reflect the true diversity of our communities and provide open access to the public.

While I understand and agree with the opposition's concern about public access to all governmental meetings, I believe that Senate Bill 239 strikes a reasonable balance to bring our government into the digital age while providing meaningful opportunities for public participation, and I look forward to ongoing discussions with all stakeholders as this Bill moves forward, if it moves out of Committee today.

With me to testify today is Katie Latish, who serves on Yolo County's in Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, as well as Michael Baladini from Napa County. I'll just note that our second witness, Gabriella Orantes, a Member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Policy Advisory Council, actually had to leave for caregiving responsibilities.

So she did have to go home, which I think clearly illustrates the need for this Bill.

But she wanted me to express her strong support for this Bill and the support of her fellow Advisory Committee Members and how it has allowed her and others who are parents who have caregiving responsibilities to participate in these advisory bodies more fully. So thank you, Madam Chair. Let our witnesses proceed.

Thank you. I don't know who wants to go first. Yes. Okay. Mr.

Madam Chair. Senators, my name is Michael Baldini, and again, I represent Napa County, one of two appointees to the Metropolitan Transportation Policy Advisory Council. And further, the Senator's comments. I'm actually the number three. So our chair of the board couldn't make it and then Gabriella had to leave early.

So I'm number three, a former Vice Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Commission Policy Advisory Council.

So I just want to remind. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I just want to remind you. Each of you have two minutes.

Yes. All right. Very good. Thank you. So I'm speaking on behalf of Gabriela Orontes. MTC, a co sponsor of Senate Bill 239, is a transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine counties. San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In that role, MTC prioritizes, distributes billions of transportation dollars each year.

The mission of the 27 Member policy advisory Council is to advise the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on transportation policies in the Bay Area. I was. Gabrielle was appointed to represent the people of color community in Sonoma County. Her colleagues, including myself, represent people with disabilities, underserved communities from around the region, the environment and the business community.

Council Members come from all nine Bay Area counties covering a region that spans nearly 7,000 square miles. For many of us, attending in person means traveling several hours each way without remote options. Serving on the council can become a super commute, a significant barrier to serving again. Gabriella, a perfect example.

The COVID 19 Emergency Brown act provisions make it possible for a more diverse and representative cross section of the Bay Area public to serve on Policy Advisory Council by removing commuting as a condition of participation.

Since those provisions sunset, MTC has lost the perspective of Policy Advisory Council Members who have resigned because it doesn't work for them and their schedules and cannot precipitate. Excuse me. Participate under current law's rigid open meeting requirements. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Ms. Leidish.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. By law and in the spirit of the disability rights principle of Nothing about Us without us in home Supportive Services Advisory committees are consumer majority bodies, meaning most people have disabilities. Other seats are for care providers and interested community Members. This composition really highlights the barriers to in person only meetings.

Before the pandemic, the Yolo County IHSS Committee had to cancel about one third of our meetings each year because not enough Members could get to the meeting location. In contrast, we didn't have to cancel any meetings during the three years of meeting. Virtually, we gained Members and were particularly productive.

The switch back to in person has brought substantial challenges. I've had to decline numerous appointments because I couldn't attend those meetings in person. Travel is difficult for me.

It costs about $200 to get an accessible taxi here from Yolo County and even on good days, traveling within my county and attending meetings in person creates significant fatigue and pain and creates flare ups including bouts of incomplete quadriplegia.

When meetings were remote in 2020, I used Zoom to attend an IHSS meeting from the hospital while hooked up to two banks of machines the day after life saving surgery due to medical conditions.

Throughout 2021 and 2022, I was unable to ride in a car long enough to get to IHSS meetings and sometimes couldn't leave my apartment so couldn't even get the half mile to the City of Winters Natural Resources Commission meetings. If virtual meetings hadn't been allowed, I I would have had to leave both of those advisory bodies.

Instead, with teleconferencing, I could continue serving my community. Some modernization opponents have spoken to their desire for Members of the public to stand up and look officials in the eye. This framework is based on an ableist assumption that all can stand and all can see.

It negates the lived experience of the millions of Californians who have disabilities and those of us who believe that the content of our minds and hearts and the value of our lived experiences are more fundamental to serving our communities than our ability to be in a physical meeting room.

Yolo IHSS would not support requiring a quorum to be in person or that the chair be at an in person location as this would negate the purpose of the Bill.

We also would not support treating people with disabilities differently than other Committee Members for quorum as that would make people with disabilities a separate class and would open people up to having to basically out themselves and become subject to discrimination. So I respectfully request your support for SB239. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the public who wants to please come forward in support. Would you give your name and organization.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governance Governments. Excuse me. As well as the California Transit Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive Services, co-sponsor of the bill requesting your aye vote. And on behalf of the disability and older adult community as well, who couldn't be here today.

Thank you.

Nicolo DeLuca here on behalf of the Cities of Oakland and Cities of San Pablo, in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff Griffiths, President of the California State Association of Counties in support, thank you.

Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation in support, thank you.

Marky Sidra, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support, thank you.

Ethan Nageler on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California, proud co-sponsors. Also on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the Cities of Carlsbad and Corona and the town of Hillsborough, all in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Cuevas on behalf of Bay Area Rapid Transit in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ellen Brittingham with Full Moon Strategies here on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support, thank you.

I'm Charlotte Dorsey. On behalf of the California Senior Legislator, we offer totally our support for this bill.

Thank you.

Sarah De Cat on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Thank you.

Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support. Thank you.

Morning. Johnny Pinia with the League of California Cities, a co-sponsor of the bill in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the counties of Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt and Solano, all in support, thank you. Thank you.

Vincenzo Caparelli on behalf of the California Council of Governments in support, thank you.

Jeff Neal representing the counties of Contra Costa, Imperial and Yolo. All in support, thank you.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, the County Welfare Directors Association as well as the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside and support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

And Georgia Gan Dorman in support on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a co sponsor and the Association of Bay Area Governments, another co sponsor. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Seeing no more in support. We'd like to have our opposition witnesses come forward, please. And you each have two minutes. And I said this earlier, but I just want to remind everybody that we have to be out of this room at 12 o'clock and then sometime later this afternoon if we have to.

That's when we'll finish.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a legislative advocate with the ACLU, California Action, and with our coalition partners. We respectfully oppose SB239 and we do appreciate the author for the many conversations that we've had on this issue.

Our opposition is because it would weaken the Brown act by removing some critical transparency protections and remove long standing requirements that public meetings be held in public places where the public can petition their leaders and other government officials face to face.

SB239 gives appointees who are choosing to perform public service by sitting on advisory bodies the ability to participate in government meetings from undisclosed remote locations, potentially off camera and without justification. This Bill prioritizes the convenience desired by public officials over the interests of the public being served by local government.

We are strongly in support of legislation that prioritizes increased options for remote participation and access for Members of the public. We would actually support Bagley Keen updates that would allow Members of the public to make public comment. So Gabriella could have made public comment here if. If we had that option with the Bagley Keen.

We also want to thank Kate for your consistent representation and discussions on this issue. We're very supportive of very narrow circumstances for ihss. We're very understanding of that. We also recognize the need of people with disabilities and other hardships to be able to participate remotely under certain circumstances.

We are supportive of the AG's recent Ada guidance on this issue. We oppose this Bill because it relaxes rules for public officials without tying the flexibility to a need. And we also appreciate that SB239 contains provisions that seek to address the concerns that we raised about legislation last year that failed to advance out of this Committee.

However, those are just a few of the subject matter areas that may touch on controversial or complex topics. As written, this Bill invites gamesmanship. There are no guardrails to prevent a city or county from establishing a body that meets the advisory body definition. A recent trend that we have seen are library review censorship bodies.

Appointees of these bodies established in highly politicized topics could simply turn down the volume rather than confront critical public comment. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California here in respectful opposition to SB239, and we align our comments with ACLU's. We absolutely support remote access for the public and strongly support flexibility to accommodate officials with specific documented needs.

At the same time, Californians deserve to look public officials in the eye, read their body language, engage their reactions to public comment, public testimony. These elements are vital, especially when communities are pushing back on policy ideas that affect their lives and liberties.

Research shows that a large percentage of communication is nonverbal, with body language and facial expressions playing critical roles in how we interpret meaning and intent. Meetings that are exclusively online strip away these cues, flow, flatten our interactions, and weaken the public's ability to evaluate the sincerity and responsiveness of public officials. And let's be real.

We all know what happens behind screens. People answer emails, they switch between windows. They aren't necessarily paying attention to what's happening in that meeting. And even if that's not happening, critically, people are going to think that it is. And that in and of itself erodes trust in government. And at a time that trust is already fragile.

SB 239 would make it routine for folks to enter a city hall or a community center, having rearranged their work shifts, arranged childcare, prepared testimony, and critically summoned the courage to speak, only to find an empty room and a flickering screen.

That alone conveys an unmistakable message of official indifference to the very notion of public comment, giving the whole affair the feeling of an empty, pointless formality. Imagine the disappointment and frustration of standing in that room speaking earnestly about an issue that affects your family, affects your community, and feeling like you're addressing a void.

Especially for our historically marginalized communities who often lack access to the halls of power, in person interaction is not a luxury. It's often a lifeline. The League of Women Voters urges a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. In addition, anyone who is here, please come forward. If you are in opposition, give your name and organization.

Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy and of Media alliance, we are in opposition to the bill unless it includes an in person quorum requirement.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members, respectfully in opposition. Danny Kando Kaiser, on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition, also by proxy, Society of Professional Journalists of Northern California, Pacific Media Workers Guild, Media Guild of the West, Radio Television, Digital News Association, National Press Photographers Association, Latino Journalists of California, Freedom of Press foundation and the Orange County Press Club.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the community, Brittany Barsati, on Behalf of the California News Publishers Association and opposition, as well as the California Broadcasters Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in opposition. Thank you.