Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. I would like to remind the public that testimony will be in person for this and future hearings. As we no longer use a moderated telephone service, we also accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. Protesters have appeared at some point of our legislative hearings. Some of these people have yelled from the audience and issued threats of potential violence.

These actions actually disrupted the legislative hearing and the person who caused the disruption were removed from the hearing. As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. And the rules for today's hearings include not talking loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to your removal or other enforcement actions. Today we have 17 bills on our agenda. Three of these are proposed for the consent calendar. Item 10, AB 726 by Assemblymember Abilafarias.

Item 14, AB 1141 by Assemblymember Lee. Item 17, AB 1479. Again, AB 1479 by Assemblymember Tangipa. All other file will be heard in file order. All other bills. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each Bill.

These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization and their position on the Bill. Looks like we have a quorum. Secretary. Please Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair. And with that, we'll start with item number one on the agenda AB 39 by Assembly Member Zbur, when you're ready Assembly Member.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair Members. So first of all, I'd like to thank so many Members first year staff as well as so many Members of the Committee who I spent some time with last evening and wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the dialogue.

I'm proud to present AB39 which will require and empower local governments to engage in the planning that's necessary to develop strategies for our clean energy future. Before I begin, I want to say that we've worked hard with the various stakeholders, including the Hydrogen Coalition, and have crafted amendments that we've shared with your staff.

These changes will be reflected as we move through the next Committee and with them, the Bill has no opposition. California has committed to ambitious climate and energy goals that envision conversions to electric vehicles and electric appliances and equipment in homes and businesses which will necessitate critical infrastructure upgrades throughout our communities.

Across the state, we will need roughly 1 million vehicle chargers to support the 8 million passenger electric vehicles that are anticipated to be on the road by 2030 and even more will be necessary to meet the state's 2035 electric vehicle mandate. In the building sector,

while many jurisdictions have enacted ordinances to support electrification in new construction, a greater effort must be made to help people convert to electric appliances and equipment in their homes and businesses. One of the barriers to convert to electric vehicles is the lack of vehicle charging infrastructure in our communities.

Renters and those who live in multifamily housing do not always have the option or access to install charging or to make the necessary upgrades themselves.

While more people who live in single family homes can afford to install electric vehicle chargers, we must plan ahead and assure that people who live in apartments and other multi unit housing who may have to park on the street are able to charge their vehicles.

In order for us to meet these targets, we must ensure our local partners are developing and implementing solutions that advance California and support our most vulnerable communities. AB39 aims to address this by requiring cities and counties with populations of over 75,000 people or more to create and adopt a plan to meet their electrification goals.

This legislation recognizes the leadership of some of our local governments are undertaking in their planning processes and allows them to build on existing plans rather than developing new ones.

Additionally, AB39 provides guidelines to ensure that plans adopted as a result of this policy focus on the needs of disadvantaged communities, low income households, and small businesses for equitable and prioritized investments in zero emission technologies that directly benefit these groups.

Lastly, we have worked with the Hydrogen Coalition again to craft amendments that address their concerns for a more energy neutral policy. These changes will be reflected as we move through the next Committee. These local jurisdictions are essential partners in meeting our climate goals with the proper planning and strategies across the state.

We ensure all Committee Members have the resources need needed to participate in this transition. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

With me today in support of the Bill are Brandon Wong, who's representing CalStart and the Building Decarbonization Coalition, both sponsors of the Bill, and Scott Wetch with the Coalition of California Utility Employees, another sponsor of the Bill.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, Members. Brandon Wong on behalf of both the Building Decarbonization Coalition and CalStart, fellow co sponsors AB39 and both committed to decarbonizing California's building and transportation sectors respectively. As the Assembly Member noted, AB39 is designed to help cities and counties set local goals that will ultimately support the state's efforts to achieve climate neutrality by 2045.

Between powering our cars and moving our goods around to something as simple as heating the water for a nice hot shower at the end of the day, California's building and transportation sectors collectively generate up to 75% of our state's annual greenhouse gas emissions. To address this, as Zbur noted, the state will need to deploy an additional 6.5 million EVs and 6 million electric heat pumps over just the next five years.

When it comes to the transportation side, we know that, like Zbur mentioned, that EV charging continues to be one of the biggest barriers to access, particularly for folks who are lower income or people of color who are more likely to live in multifamily buildings and are more reliant on public charging in order to meet their mobility needs.

On the building side, while initiatives like the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program are set to help low income households afford and install zero emission space and water heating appliances like heat pumps, widespread consumer adoption will require government at every level to make it easier to navigate the permitting process for installing these appliances.

At the end of the day, local jurisdictions are essential partners in helping to make the places where we live, work, play and learn, safer, healthier and more climate resilient. Their support in identifying and resolving local permitting, planning, and zoning barriers, whether for charging stations or for heat pumps alike, will be critical in making climate neutrality possible.

That is why we are grateful to the Zbur Member for introducing AB39 and for working on this policy over the last couple of years, and we urge you for your support. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers. We've sponsored many EV charging and electrification bills over the last decade.

About seven years ago, we sponsored legislation that created a pilot program for the investor owned utilities to go out using ratepayer money and build electric charging stations.

Following that pilot program, the NRDC conducted a seminal study that came back which was accepted by the PUC, which found that ratepayers were actually making money because the way the program work is worked was all of the revenue from the charging stations had to be returned to ratepayers in the form of rate rebates and that they were actually not just paying for themselves, but they were actually earning a return for ratepayers.

So, the PUC expanded that program. But one of the challenges that we found in deploying that program was that the utilities were not the best equipped at identifying the optimal places to place those charging stations and that a lot of the local governments had not put a lot of thought into it either.

So it was sort of a shotgun approach and so I think that's really where AB39 will play a crucial role, is really, you know, scientifically and strategically identifying the best places for charging stations. And then I think the other key component of the Bill is regarding prioritizing disadvantaged communities.

We sponsored legislation by Autumn Burke that did similar had similar provisions. Anybody with an electric vehicle knows that there are certain communities where you have to drive and circle around searching and searching and searching for a charging station, and those typically are disadvantaged communities. So with that, we're proudly supporting AB39. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience wants to add on in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Thank you. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in support.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Israel Solis with San Diego Gas and Electric Company in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chairs and Members. Theresa Cook from the California Hydrogen Coalition. I want to say thank you for all the work that went into making sure this Bill is technology neutral. We appreciate it.

Good afternoon. Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists and support.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sean Bellach with the California Association of Realtors. We're actually a support if amended as reflected in the letter and in our discussions with Assemblyman Zbur. Would like to thank him for those conversations and a shout out to his staff Member, Cole. We're confident that the amendments will get us to a full support.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Mandi Strella on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, the Advanced Energy United, Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, Sierra Club of California and Vault Solar in support.

John Kennedy with the rural counties. We don't have an official position today, but we were supportive last year and appreciate your work on the framework that's included in this Bill, so just wanted to say that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? How about anybody else that wants to just add name and no, see no one. I'll take it back to Committee Members for question. Assembly Member Rubio, first and second.

First, I want to thank the Assembly Member for his willingness to engage in the space. I really appreciate you hearing my concerns, our concerns, and really appreciate the hard work.

And I really love that you're in this space because I know that you're very thoughtful and willing to work with all of us to make sure that we have the best outcomes for our community. So thank you for that.

Thank you very much.

Any other Committee Member, seeing none. I just want to say thank you for bringing this legislation forward that addresses those residents that live in apartment units. I know some that want to buy an electric vehicle, but the challenge having to have where to plug them in. So thank you for that. I. Yes, yes.

Thank you for bringing this legislation in front of us. You'd like to close?

No. Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for your engagement on this Bill as well, and the rest of your staff as well as the Members of the Committee. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I will be supporting it today and appreciate your commitment to address the hydrogen fuel and infrastructure moving forward. Please keep the Committee informed about the amendments as you work up those with stakeholders. We do have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo Aye. Ta. Aye. Ta Aye. Hoover. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco Aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos Aye. Ransom. Rubio. Aye. Rubio Aye. Stefani. Aye. Stefani Aye. Ward. Aye. Ward. Aye. Wilson.

As of now, it's 7-0. The Bill is set and we leave the roll open for the Members.

Thank you, everyone. Bye bye.

Thank you. With that, we move on to item number two on the agenda. That's AB 76 by Assembly Member Alvarez. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee Members, good afternoon to all of you. It's great to be before this Committee I want to thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 76 today and want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the chair and staff, Ms. Rios, the Committee consultant, for the work on the Bill.

Let me just give you a tiny little bit of background of why this is important to me, and you may hear about this more than once from here until my tenure ends at the Legislature.

Over 30 years ago, the City of Chula Vista, one of the cities that I represent, right in the center of my district, began the process of bringing a University to the region with its General Development plan.

Since then, IT has procured 383 acres of land and codified these efforts through its Sectional Planning Area Plan, which outlines the creation of the University Innovation District within this area, a University presence in the South County, the part of San Diego that I represent, would be a key player within the regional economy, producing the graduates that we need to occupy regional jobs and contributing to the region and state economy.

Chula Vista is the only city in the State of California, the only city with a population greater than 200,000 residents that does not have a non profit or state University within its city limits. The South Bay communities of San Diego County are home to well over half a million people beyond my district.

Half a million people whose educational attainment is necessary to sustain our regional growth and meeting the future workforce needs. So of course there are concerns about how this, which is publicly held land under the Surplus Lands act, would interplay with this long plan for vision of a University.

So a couple of years ago we had a Bill which ensured that the City of Chula Vista would be exempted from the Surplus Lands act so that the land that has been acquired for University gets utilized for University purposes. The Bill mandated that this piece of land would be only used for a specific purpose.

Like I said, along with requiring that significant housing development includes affordable housing as part of that overall development of the University.

So this Bill, Assembly Bill 76, clarifies that the affordable housing requirement does not extend to the units designated specifically for students, for faculty or University employees, staff, due to restrictions that exist by and that are imposed by the Federal Government.

More importantly, AB 76 does not reduce the total housing that is expected to be built in this district, but it enables the city to better align its housing development with with the University plans. A city that has been building a lot of housing and if you know me, I'm very focused on building housing in the state.

The legislative adjustment is essential to support Chili, Wis. Effort to establish the four year University in the south county and in this part of San Diego while simultaneously addressing the housing needs for the entire community, including the University community.

So with that I'd like to turn it over to Adrianna Ralph who is with the City of Chula Vista, the legislation Legislative Manager.

Good afternoon Chair Carrillo and Members. My name is Adrianna Ralph. I am the Legislative Manager for the City of Chula Vista and I am here today to urge you to support AB 76 which will allow the city to continue implementing its 30 year vision to develop a binational, multi institutional University Innovation District.

The City is located at the center of one of the richest cultural, economic and environmentally diverse zones the country. It is the second largest city in San Diego County and home to over 280,000 residents. The city has many hard earned accolades, among them being a leader in addressing climate change and a top producer of diverse quality housing.

In fact, we have so much housing that it has created a job to housing imbalance that leads to over 80% of our population leaving the city every morning and commuting to job centers in Northern San Diego. Building economic sustainability is a priority for the City.

For this reason, from 2001 to 2014, the city worked hard to assemble and acquire 383 acres of land through a combination of land offer agreements, land exchanges and agreements with developers for the University innovation district. In 2018, the sectional planning Area and Environmental Impact Report were adopted which completed the entitlements for the city owned land.

In addition to entitling the land prior to January 1st of 2019 when the SLA was amended, the land was acquired subject to privately imposed covenants that required it to be used for a specific purpose, therefore limiting other uses.

In 2022, we sought an exemption to protect the land that the City does not consider surplus and to allow us to continue working with University and development partners. We are here today seeking to clarify requirements of that exemption after it was determined that the language does not reflect the entitlements or the agreed upon affordable housing.

The language before you reaffirms the City's intent to develop the University Innovation District in a matter consistent with existing land use entitlements for the project and ensuring production of affordable housing. Student housing is an important component of our project. However, as was stated, due to federal requirements, it does not qualify for affordable housing designation.

AB 76 seeks to allow the City to continue its vision and bring this much needed amenity to Chula Vista and the South Bay region. For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on AB76. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on as in support? See no one. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? See none. I'll take it to the Committee Members for questions or comments. Assembly Member Ward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for continuing to work on this issue that is critically important to his city, his district.

But I'd also argue our region, something that has been long visioned for a while that you're trying to be able to look for, I think you had a legislative improvement is the coin that term that you use today. And I like that. I'm going to reuse that sometime because it's exactly what it is.

You're finding new areas of code fix necessary to actually fulfill the vision that you want to see happen. And so to some extent, you know, it's interesting when we start to talk about student housing conversations and how that intersects with our code, with rhna, with other parameters that we have.

And there is a distinction not just through HUD, but also how we sometimes think about that. And ultimately if you want to have an area that is supporting the necessary housing for students, staff, faculty and other school community Members, you'd want that as close to the school as possible. Possible.

And so to any extent, if you know, money notwithstanding, you were able to really intensify and build out that that Committee, I think it's a win win for the community because you're keeping people close to where they need to be rather than having to commute in from long places.

And so I think by, you know, focusing this effort here, you know, sort of you had to retro engineer any of our existing campuses here today. If you imagine UCSD or sdsu. Right.

Had to go through this process here that we have today and we're able to, you know, we're getting stuck in this issue about having to have market rate affordable housing when we're trying to do is trying to build dormitories. Right. That's that. That's something that I want to see for the vision for the site that you're championing.

And I'm happy to move the Bill here today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Committee Member questions? Comments? Seeing none. You made a motion. Is there a second? Second by Assemblymember Rubio. Would you like to close Assembly again?

Just. Thank you. This is a long, long time planning project that's important for the region and we want to build the housing, we want to build the affordable housing. This allows us to do that going forward. Thank You.

Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez, and your team for working diligently with the Committee. Thank you for doing that. I will be supporting your Bill. While this Bill would reduce the required amount of affordable housing to be built in the exemption, I understand that the road to attract and build a University has been a long one.

If it wasn't already, a new college or University would make the City of Chula Vista, true to its name, a beautiful city. Thank you for accepting the Committee amendments and encourage you to continue working with the Committee as the Bill moves forward. The motion is due. Passes amended to the Housing and Community Development Committee.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Carrillo aye. Ta. Ta no. Hoover. Pacheco. Pacheco aye. Ramos. Ramos aye. Ransom. Ruby. Rubio. Rubio aye. Stephanie. Stephanie aye. Ward. Ward aye. Wilson.

The voters is now 6:1. The measure is out. Thank you and we'll leave it open for the Members to. Thank you very much. Thank you. That leads us to item number three on the agenda, AB259 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB259 relating to the Brown act teleconferencing provisions. I would like to begin by accepting the proposed commitment amendments and thank the Committee staff for their diligent work. This Bill would extend the sunset on provisions added to the Brown act by Assembly Bill.

Assembly Bill 2449, which I authored in 2022 until 2030. AB 2449 provided additional flexibility for Brown act meeting procedures, allowing board Members to participate remotely in the event of an absence due to a just cause or emergence, emergency circumstances.

Several special districts and other local agencies have utilized the procedures established by AB 2449, successfully facilitating remote participation for the legislative policymakers that would otherwise have been encumbered by illness, official travel or medical emergencies.

By extending the sunset, AB259 preserves the additional flexibility for individual board Members of local agencies to meet remotely and continue providing the public with essential services. With me here today to testify is Marcus Ditwillerweiler on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, and Jody Roberto, on behalf of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, csda. CSDA represents all types of special districts in the state, including fire districts, water districts, resource conservation districts, cemetery districts, mosquito and vector control districts and more. We are proud sponsors of this Bill, AB259.

It merely extends a sunset associated with AB 2449, a Bill that added procedures to the Brown act back in 2022. The procedures added by AB 2449 included the just Cause and Emergency Circumstances framework mentioned earlier and this particular legislation. AB 2449 was the product of negotiations between civil society society groups and local government stakeholders.

Importantly, AB 2449 differs from a lot of the other Brown act bills that are being discussed in that it applies its provisions to individual board Members rather than the entire agency and it requires an in person quorum.

It requires an in person quorum, something that is distinct and often discussed in a lot of these conversations about public access. AB 2449 has been used by local agencies throughout the state and has been relied upon to increase participation and enhance attendance at public meetings while also preserving quality public access.

However, absent any legislative intervention, AB 2449 would sunset at the end of this year. This Bill before you AB259 would preserve the flexibilities enacted by AB 2449 and allow agencies to continue to rely upon the well worn and proven provisions of AB 2449 to continue continue to serve their communities effectively. And for those reasons we would respectfully encourage your aye vote.

Hello, my name is Jody Roberto and I'm a board Member at Three Valleys Municipal Water District and during the years that AB 2449 has been in effect, agencies have reported an uptick in public participation during meetings and consistent participation by board Members who would otherwise not been able to participate without teleconferencing allowance.

AB259 will simply allow current law to continue beyond the pending sunset date of January 12026.

Importantly, it will continue to allow for remote locations that do not require open access to the public, satisfying concerns over privacy and safety and I have a personal story which makes this Bill very important to not only me, but public officials, especially women.

Soon after joining the Three Valleys board in 2020, I received a letter from a man in jail professing his love for me and asking for money and help. It was very scary and made me question whether having an elected position was worth jeopardizing my safety. I was surprised.

The original Brown act adopted many years ago mandated that if you participate in a remote meeting away from the District, you must disclose your location and make it accessible to the public. The thought of letting a stranger into my home or hotel room if I was traveling for district business is very horrifying to me.

The original Brown act, adopted when mostly men held elected positions could potentially be very dangerous. AB259 allows flexibility as well as safety for elected officials. For these reasons, Three Valley's Municipal Water District is in strong support of AB259 and respect. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Only Mr.

Chair and Members. Beth Olhasso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marky Siege on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson and Smith on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Rancho California Water District in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities and strong support. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Roxy Ortiz with the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support.

Good afternoon. Kaitlyn Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Travel Association in support. Thank you.

Kasia Hunt with Nosman here on behalf of Monterey County Board of Supervisors Levenheim Municipal Water District, Padre Dam Municipal Water District and Santa Valley Santa Clara Valley Water Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Goleta in support.

Thank you.

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

Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts and support.

Charles Watson on behalf of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District in support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Eric Lawyer On behalf of the California State Association Of Counties in strong support.

Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the California Municipal Clerks Association, the cities of Carlsbad, Corona and Foster City and The town of Hillsborough all in support.

Good afternoon. Matt Robinson with Chagatar, Antwees, Schmelzer and Lang on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rosie Thompson with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Mandy Strella on behalf of RethinkWaste, The Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the East Bay Regional Park District in support.

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

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none. Taking it back to the Committee Members. Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. I want to thank you, the author, for bringing this forward today. I think she might recall when she brought forward AB 24:49 I had some deep reservations at the time about the, I'll just characterize potential, maybe overextension or abuse of this allowance.

I do think that it's important, especially in the context of your Bill where you're talking about Members of the legislative body as opposed to others that may be getting into something that's a little, little bit more of a community based organization or something more citizen, you know, kind of oriented that, you know, whether they are probably largely elected officials, if not, you know, important appointed positions as well.

There's some chemistry and there's a really good, you know, ability to have that discussion when you're able to be physically present.

And I fully remember as well the Brown act, you know, when you're able to use teleconferencing locations that I always understood it to be something that you would still want to maybe try to get something at a public location, say a public library or public facility that of course, you know, could be noticed.

And it was the best that we could do when somebody had to kind of be remotely put in, you know.

And since that time, since it has been enacted, even though it wasn't supportive of the time, I, you know, mindful to hear that you've got some limitations within the Bill that can only be used for, for example, two meetings a year if that body meets once a month. I like that.

I'm curious in the last couple of years if you or, or any of your supporters have any evidence of how it's gone. You know, is this something that has really exploded in use or in kind of like what, in what frequency of circumstance has this new allowance occurred?

I know Jody has some comments, but I will comment it as well.

Well, I know with our board we've had some medical issues where they've had to be remote.

And we've had a lot of our districts in our area who have told us, have thanked us for this Bill and have thanked Assembly woman Rubio for this Bill because it has allowed, you know, more participation by board Members because in some circumstances they would not have been able to to remote in before.

As well as I know in our district we used to have people come from the desert. We had a controversial issue at our district for a while and it had to do with in the desert. And so the people would come in and they had to come to physically to our location in Claremont.

And now this allows their participation from home, they're able to do that. So I know the Bill is specifically for that, but it has opened it up to the public as well, thank.

You for that question. It was really important. I'm a strong believer that we know what we sign up for. If you run for elected office, you know, that you're expected to attend meetings, even some appointed offices. So I'm very, you know, adamant about that.

And that was part of the negotiation we had in 22 about what is reasonable. And I think the best outcome for me was that you still have to have physical quorum in the location so that. That the public has access. But it has allowed folks that have medical issues back.

You know, when I was a school board Member, if I wasn't there, I just, you know, wouldn't show up. And then I. Somebody had to catch me up on what happened or whatever it was. And now with this, you're able to still participate, regardless of, you know, if it's an illness or whatever the reason may be.

And it's, in my opinion, and, you know, from the districts around me, they appreciate it because now they don't feel stressed about it. And so it's being used at the same rate that, you know, you as an elected official, there's only a certain amount of meetings you can miss before you declare your position vacant.

So it hasn't been overused, it's just been used differently. You still are not physically there, but you're able to call in, which is, I think the pandemic brought that, you know, the zoom lines. Right. And so this gives them just the ability to be able to not feel stressed about not attending, because now they can attend.

And I haven't seen any abuse of it, have not heard any reports about it being abused. But again, the biggest provision for me was that you still have to have a physical quorum right at the location, because what we do is for public access and for public participation. So.

Right, absolutely. Even with all those provisions, which I think are like, very important safeguards to meet the intent of what we're trying to do in public discussions. Where I'm going is that I've grown to change position as you can in this job based on some of that evidence.

I'd like to learn more about that evidence, about how it's going, you know, even with the teleconferencing options, and we're all well familiar with zoom. Let's all be honest with each other. You don't like it. You turn your screen off and everything, and you may not really be paying attention.

You want people to be really involved at the truly in attendance at a meeting. They're actively participating in that. And so I hope that we are still operating in a space where we are with. Even with this allowance. It is sort of implied that, you know, your, your, your, your. Your physical or real particip.

Better participation is still the standard that we're trying to.

Actually, it's in the Bill that you have to have your screen on the whole entire time. Got it. Okay. So we were very detailed in that aspect because. Because I was worried about the same thing. Like what's the point of turning your screen off if you know that is no participation.

So we were very explicit in the Bill that you have to have your screen on if you're participating.

Excellent. Well, I have evolved a little bit in this and I appreciate, you know, some of the evidence out there. I want to continue to be able to look forward that make sure that this doesn't go awry over time. But I'll be happy to support your Bill here today. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Any other Committee Member questions or comments? See None. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you for the comments. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I will get you any data that we have available.

Assembly Member, I appreciate your work over the years to provide increased flexibility for local governing bodies to attend the meetings remotely. I will be supporting Bill today. I thank you for accepting the Committee amendments to provide a built in mechanism for legislative review in the future of all Brown act bills. We are reauthorizing this year with amendments.

I will vote. Voting aye. The motion is to pass. A cemented secretary. Please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. We need to get a motion motion by seminar. Pacheco. Second by Stephanie and also by Ramos. Please call the roll.

Carrillo aye. Ta. Ta aye. Hoover. Pacheco. Pacheco aye. Ramos. Ramos aye. Ransom. Rubio. Rubio aye. Stefani. Stefani aye. Ward. Ward aye. Wilson.

It's 70. The Bill is up, but we'll leave it open for the Members to. Adam. Thank you.

Thank you.

No, it's perfect.

And moving on to the next item on the agenda Dr. Rambolla, but before we do that, we need to make clarification on agenda item number one, AB 39, the motion was do pass to the Utilities and Energy Committee. We already called the roll again just for clarification.

I want to make sure that the motion is do pass Utilities and Energy Committee. And I also want to acknowledge someone in the audience, Jay Spencer from the District from the City of Adelanto and the office is here with us. Thank you for being here. Appreciate you being here. Dr. Rambolla. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Before I begin, I want to thank the Committee staff for the recommended amendments which I will be accepting within higher education, students should be able to participate in their student body associations without threat to safety, privacy or accessibility. AB 409 will modernize the Brown act for community college student body associations.

AB 409 protects access and allows an eligible legislative body of a student organization to to use alternate teleconferencing provisions if approved by the Board of Trustees and adopted by the eligible body. It is time for us to modernize the Brown act to reflect the new challenges which are faced by our students.

Testifying in support of AB 409 is Alicia Nagpal, who is the Regional Affairs Director and a full time student at Los Rios Community College.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alicia Nagpal and I'm here on behalf of the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges representing the voices of 2.1 million students across the state.

Last year, Assembly member Arambula's AB 1855 was a landmark piece of legislation to help break down significant barriers to participation in student government meetings. Many of my peers shared deeply personal stories during hearings, stories that highlighted the real consequences of being required to publicly disclose their home addresses.

We heard from disabled students without reliable accessible transportation, from student parents juggling child care, from survivors of domestic violence, and military affiliated students restricted from sharing personal information. These testimonies only scratch the surface of the challenges students face when trying to engage in public Service.

Thanks to AB Fit AB 1855, we have already seen the impact this past weekend at our largest student conference of the year with over 800 attendees, the gratitude and enthusiasm was palpable. Students shared how this legislation made them feel safer and more empowered to participate. Our student governments are dynamic, diverse and rooted in advocacy.

AB 1855 didn't just improve access, it amplified the student voice. It welcomed more students to the table and ensured that no one had to choose between Personal safety and civic engagement. Today I urge you to support AB 409.

Let's ensure that our student governments remain inclusive and accessible for students for all walks of life for years to come. Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. Motion, Anybody in the audience that wants to add on any support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Afternoon Chair members. Dani Mae Santiago on behalf of the Online Community College District or Calbright College in support.

Chair Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the California Community Colleges Association for Occupational Education in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Taking it back to Committee Members. Any questions, comments from Committee Members? We do have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Assembly Member, thank you for the opportunity to present and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assembly member, I appreciate your work to provide increased flexibility for college students, body associations and student run organizations to attend meetings remotely. I thank you for accepting the Committee amendments to provide a built in mechanism for legislative review of all the Brown act bills we are reauthorizing this year.

Due to deadlines the amendment will need to be adopted in Higher Education Committee with the amendments that will be voting aye. The motion is do pass to vary the Higher Education Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 7 0. The Bill is up. We'll leave it open for other Members to add on. Moving on to item number seven. Assembly Member Fong.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Assembly Bill 467 extends the sunset date of the authorization of the LA Neighborhood Councils to meet via teleconference if they also comply with certain public notification and participation requirements. I accept the Committee's amendment to reduce the sunset date extension from five years to four years.

The Los Angeles Neighbor Councils were established in 1999 to ensure that city government remains responsive to LA's many diverse communities. They are the closest form of government to the people of Los Angeles, serving as advisory bodies who represent their local communities to city government. Los Angeles has 99 neighborhood councils, each serving about 40,000 people.

Neighbor Council Members are city officials who are elected by their local communities, but also donate their time as volunteers and help organize various community events. Current law allows neighboring councils to utilize teleconferencing provisions providing reasonable accommodations like exempting council Members from posting their teleconference locations.

It also requires dial in and Internet based options for real time public participation. Extending the sunset allows access to representation in every councils for members of the public who are unavailable to participate due to family care obligations, inflexible work schedules, physical limitations and sometimes lack of transportation. Thank you.

You do not have any primary witnesses? No. Anybody in the audience that want to add on in support? How about any primary witnesses in opposition or opposition Period. Seeing none. I take it to the Committee Members. Any questions? Comments?

Second.

We have a first and a second. Would you like to close Assembly member Fong?

As a prior staff Member for the LA Department of Neighbor Empowerment, I've always been a champion of civic engagement. This is another way we can continue to increased participation in our local government. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for accepting the Committee amendments to provide a building mechanism for legislative review of these and other Brown act deals. We are reauthorizing this year with amendments that will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is sat. We'll leave it open for the Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair. Members.

Not any. Any other Members other than Members on the Committee. Assemblymember Ruby, would you like to go with your next Bill? And that's item number five. AB428.

It's ping pong day today. Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members for giving me the opportunity to present AB 428. AB 428 will permit water corporations to participate in joint powers authorities or JPAs for pooled insurance purposes. AB 428 is a reintroduction of legislation I carried last year. AB 2735.

This year's version addresses concerns raised by the governor's veto message by including language that would require reinsurance and liability coverage when a water corporation joins a JPA. The amendments clarify that a water corporation's membership in the JPA must benefit customers by either reducing rates or improving services.

They also require demonstrations of these costs savings through membership of the JPA. This Bill remains fundamentally important in a time when our estate is facing an insurance crisis across the state. AB 428 protects customers from increasing water rates by reducing insurance costs where available.

These savings are especially important in areas comprised of low income individuals and families and for those on fixed incomes. With me today in support are Susan Allen with California Association of Mutual Water Companies and Jennifer Capitolo, Executive Director of the California Water Association.

Good afternoon Chair Members. Jennifer Capitolo, California Water Association We're a statewide Association representing water utilities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. I'm just going to give you a quick story of how this Bill is working in practice with hope for reducing water rates by decreasing insurance costs.

So one of our Member companies is called Lukens Brothers Water Company. They're up in the South Lake Tahoe area. They were threatened by the Caldor fire, but it fortunately never got close to them. But as a result of having that threat of the Caldor fire, their insurance costs. I'm gonna look at my notes really fast.

From 2020, they were paying 43,000. Now they're paying 279,000 dollars a year for property insurance. And that's only property insurance. A water utility needs a whole host of other insurance products too.

So what we've been trying to do is to really just level the playing field between all different types of water providers in the state so mutual water companies and local public agencies have access to risk pooling.

We're trying to add our Members, investor owned utilities to that mix too, so that every rate payer from for a water utility has the benefits of receiving this lower cost insurance. So thank you very much, please go ahead.

My name is Susan Allen and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies Joint Powers Risk and Insurance Authority, which is Cal Mutuals. J Prima for short and Calm Mutuals. J Prima and our sister organization Cal Mutuals are pleased to be a co sponsor of AB 240. I'm sorry.

We recognize a critical need to expand existing law to allow investor owned utilities to participate in joint powers authority for insurance purposes. These utilities are currently facing. Thank you.

These utilities are currently facing rapidly increasing insurance costs on the private market, which places additional burdens on already stretched operating budgets and on the personal budgets of the customers that rely on them for water and must pay the Bill that covers those expenses.

Cam Mutual's JPREMA was established in 2016 with legislation introduced by Assemblymember Christina Garcia when mutual water companies, which are not for profit co ops were no longer eligible to participate in the JPA through ACWA.

And so CA Mutual stepped up and was able to have a law passed that provided a critical alternative and now offers stable and affordable assurance to mutual water companies. We're now in our eighth year and we have achieved notable success. We exemplify what we think. We think we exemplify the best of a joint powers authority.

We provide cost savings, efficiency, expanded services, regional cooperation, tailored and flexible offerings, innovation, transparency and we have about 600 water suppliers that rely on us for insurance. 300 of them are mutual water companies which are very small community owned co ops that support about 1.3 million Californians. Central to Calmutual's mission is support for small systems.

We are very proud that part of our business model is to reinvest a portion of premiums into resources that assist small systems. This helps them reduce risk and strengthen their technical, managerial and operational foundations.

We've observed growing challenges faced by water systems of all sizes but IOUS and smalls in particular in navigating the insurance landscape and as we contend with climate change, wildfire flood insurance leaving the state, significant increases in premiums and aggressive litigation.

Whether we're managed by cooperatives like Mutuals or private companies like IOUS, all water systems have similar needs and demands. And we are eager to support our IOU colleagues in addressing this urgent need with more affordable options and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add any support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, Member Scott Wech on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the California State Pipe Trades Council in support, thank you.

Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? Seeing none. Taking it back to Committee Members for questions. Comments, anybody? Do you have a question or you?

I did have a question. I had an opportunity to speak with the author and so first of all, I want to thank you for bringing this. We all know that we need all the opportunities we can get to help bring down cost for consumers as well as for folks who are delivering services.

I just wanted to ask what the kind of decoupling or exit plan is. If we have a JPA and there is a local government or municipality that decides they no longer want to be in partnership because maybe things don't go, you know, as originally planned.

I just want us to publicly go on record, you know, ensuring that folks understand that there is an exit plan and what that looks like.

Well, the way it works now, there are no municipalities actually in our jpia, but so there's expectations about how who's eligible in terms of managing their risk and being responsible Members. And so we could ask them to leave if they don't honor their commitments.

But if they want to leave, there's just a one year notice that they would like to pursue something different and then they're free to do that okay, so it sounds like they're not stuck.

If the relationship is not working the way, we would hope that, you know, these partnerships work. There's like a one year kind of. You got a one year exit plan for folks to be able to get their agencies together. Okay. So thank you. I really appreciate it.

I think other than that was the only concern that I had is having our, you know, municipalities stuck in a really bad situation which ultimately would hurt everyone. So I appreciate you addressing that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Committee Member comments, questions? Seeing none. Would you like to close? We do have a first and a second. Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly member, for bringing this Bill back this year with additional oversight and safeguards for customers. I will be supporting your Bill. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8:0 so, now the bill is out, we'll leave it open for other members to add on. See no other member on the agenda. Assembly Member Ruby. Do you have a third bill? Would you like to do that? And that's item number 13, AB 1007, when you are ready.

She's busy. Hi there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, for allowing me to present AB 1007.

I'll spare you the pitch on our housing crisis because if each of you are keenly aware of our housing supply and lack thereof in our state, AB1007 aims to streamline the permitting process for housing projects by reducing the time it takes for responsible agencies to act on completed housing permit applications from 90 days to 45 days.

This timeframe, known as the shock clock, was shortened for lead agencies through the passage of the Housing Crisis act of 2019, but did not correspondingly shorten the clock for responsible agencies. This Bill would shorten the shot clock for responsible agencies, which are the public agencies that provide input to how the environment impacts are mitigated and implemented.

AB1007, part of the Fast Track Housing Bill package, is one of several proposed solutions aimed at streamlining the permitting process to allow more housing to be built without unnecessary delays.

Whether we are building for displaced residents from the LA fires or unhoused neighbors, or for the families and individuals simply trying to make ends meet, we must have tangible solutions and AB 1007 is one of them.

With me today in support of this bill, Kirk kimmelshew on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Kirk Kimmelshew on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, as the Assembly Member covered, the shortened timeline under the bill allows builders to expedite vitally needed housing production. This approach, as she mentioned, is very consistent with the approach this Committee and the Legislature has taken for lead agencies.

We're just seeking the exact same change for responsible agencies. And not to belabor it, but just one important thing I think to note is under the Permit Streamlining Act, the shop clock does not begin to run until after the environmental impact report under CEQA is complete, which is going to be at least a year.

And during that entire time, both the lead agency and the responsible agency are very involved in that process, able to ask questions, recommend any changes throughout that timeline. So we think the adjustment here is critically important and for those reasons we'd ask for your aye vote Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association.

I want to thank the author. This is, you know, is an important Bill in the package overall. A lot of our Members build in more than just California and other states. California is the longest it takes them the longest to build. It can take them as long as six to seven, even eight years.

So as we continue to look at at least shortening the process, this is the only way we're going to get housing on the market is to fix some of the at least timelines that we face. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Anybody that wants to add on in support, name, affiliation and position on the bill, please.

Chair Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carvajad on behalf of California Yimby in support. Thank you so much.

Holly for many Dejus Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Spur Abundant Housing Los Angeles Fieldstead and Associates and Habitat for Humanity. California in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition, please come up front. See nobody in opposition. I'll take you to Committee Members. Assemblymember Ward really appreciate the author.

I think we're all trying to do our part to be able to improve on housing production and get more residential units under construction. And I understand what you want to accomplish here. I think it, you know, gels well with a lot of other initiatives that other members, myself included, are working on this year.

If you have me, I'd like like to be a co author and happy to move the bill. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Anybody else? First and second. No comments. We have first and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for presenting this bill; I will be supporting the measure today. The motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Aye. Aye. Ta Aye. Ta Aye. Hoover. Pacheco. Pacheco aye. Ramos Aye. Ramos Aye. Ransom Aye. Ransom Aye. Rubio Aye. Rubio Aye. Stefani. Stefani aye. Ward. Ward aye. Wilson.

The vote is stays here. The measure is out. We'll leave it open for the Members to add on. We're going to back to the file order and I see Assembly Member Ward AB 632 agenda item number eight.

Got everybody here.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 632 a Bill to strengthen local enforcement of state housing law, fire hazards and illegal cannabis activities. I'd like to thank the Committee for your work and will be accepting the Committee amendment. Counties and cities are currently allowed to enforce local ordinances through several methods.

This includes imposing administrative fines and penalties that may be collected through property taxes. Unfortunately, the existing penalty statutes were designed for routine code violations. These processes are not well suited to address serious code violations such as large scale unpermitted cannabis operations, imminent fire hazards and dangerously substandard housing conditions.

Conditions AB 632 will provide local governments with the authority to collect penalties through an expedited process for these egregious violations. This mirrors the process currently used for enforcement of pesticide laws. Local jurisdictions will be allowed to obtain an order for a money judgment for unpaid fines after the administrative process is complete.

This includes a judicial review if the property owner wants one. This model can be effective in cases where where existing code enforcement mechanisms may be insufficient, such as slumlords or illicit Canada's operators whose assets are hidden. Given this mechanism is enhanced penalty collections option, it would be limited to only serious violations.

AB 632 also clarifies the existing case law by reinforcing the authority of local governments to impose ordinary property liens to ensure that those who break laws are held accountable. There is no opposition to this legislation.

Speaking in support of the bill is Sarah Duquette with the Rural County Representatives of California and Faith Borges with the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. And also here to answer any technical questions is Arthur Wylan, the former County Council of Tahama County.

Good afternoon. Chair Committee Member Sarah Duquette on behalf of the rule, the Rural County Representatives of California, co sponsor of this measures like Assemblymember Hart, said counties are authorized to enforce local ordinances through several methods, including imposing administrative fines and penalties through ordinary priority liens as established in the City of Santa Paula versus Nguaro.

However, existing penalty structures aren't always designed for these more serious violations. Oftentimes we struggle to enforce serious violations because we are dealing with persistent bad actors that often have numerous violations liens on the property and consequently are undeterred by existing enforcement mechanisms and is a real challenge for us to compel compliance.

So to help code enforcement officers, we looked at existing types of structures, particularly in the Food and Ag Code, which has really helped on pesticide enforcement. So this would allow us for certain violations to be entered as a money judgment which would result in full range of enforcement mechanisms available under the Code of Civil Code procedure.

Additionally, this measure codifies existing case law to provide clarity and avoid unnecessary disputes. The confusion arose out of an unpublished federal court case that dealt with super priority liens, so this would make sure that both the regulated and the regulators are clear on our authority and prevent future litigation.

In addition, we put additional measures around noticing for liens that really codifies best practices that are already happening in many jurisdictions.

Your second witness Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair and Members. Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officer is a proud co sponsor of AB 632, which gives local agencies an essential tool to ensure administrative fines are not ignored, helping resolve violations such as fire hazards and unsafe housing conditions before they escalate into more serious public health and safety risks.

Without a way to enforce payment, agencies are often left with few options to achieve compliance with safety measures other than costly and time consuming litigation which drains public resources and delays resolution on these public health and safety matters that have evaded much needed code enforcement.

The lean mechanism streamlines the process and makes enforcement more effective while keeping cases from dragging on unnecessarily. The primary goal of code enforcement is compliance with health and safety law and to ensure that the safety of residents.

We do need to have this power to better empower local agencies to deal with dilapidated properties that foster unacceptable living conditions such as insect infestations, unsafe drinking water, inadequate restrooms and fire hazards.

California State housing and safety laws are some of the most comprehensive in the nation and to assure that there's decent and safe sanitary housing for all Californians. However, to ensure that those laws are enforced, this bill is necessary to hold property owners accountable because some owners ignore fines because they know there isn't an immediate consequence.

A lien ensures that an unpaid fine cannot be dismissed or avoided. It improves government efficiency and staff resource allocation, for it creates a clear and enforceable path to resolution and it prevents Repeat violators, property owners who face a real consequence are more likely to correct violations and avoid future non compliance.

So for these reasons and more we ask your aye vote.

Thank you. I see people coming in support name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Audrey Ruckyjck on behalf of Sacramento county in support.

Thank you Mr. Chair Members Gene Hurst here again today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, a proud co sponsor of the measure as well as the urban counties of California in support.

Good afternoon again Chairmembers Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities and support thanks.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Opposition at all seeing none. Committee Members, questions? Comments? Move the Bill please. Move the Bill. And a second. No other comments. Assembly Member, would you like to close? zero, you do have a comment?

No, I was just going to say, you know as from coming from local government. I want to thank Assemblymember Hart on behalf of local government everywhere. There's nothing like having unmitigated blight and issues in your community and folks that are not willing to be responsive.

And so I do appreciate you bringing us a tool that communities can use to make themselves better. Thank you.

Would you like to close? I think Assemblymember Ransom made my clothes for me. So I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you for your work on this bill and accepting the Committee's technical amendments, I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo Aye. Ta. Voting. Ta. Not voting. Hoover. Pacheco. Pacheco. aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom. Aye. Rubio. Rubio. Aye. Stefani. Stefani. Stefani. aye. Ward. Ward. aye. Wilson.

70. The Bill is out. Congratulations. Next item on the agenda. It is agenda item number nine AB 670 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva did a wonderful job.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting AB 670 which threatens housing stability for low income renters and promotes affordable housing preservation. Most low income renters in California live in market rate housing, including older multifamily buildings that remain affordable without subsidies.

However, private equity firms and corporate investors increasingly target these properties, raising rents, displacing long term tenants or demolishing them to build high cost housing. The loss of these naturally occurring affordable homes worsens California's housing crisis. Nonprofit affordable housing providers occasionally acquire and preserve naturally occurring affordable housing known as NOAH Properties as permanently affordable housing.

Using limited local programs such as the Bay Area Housing Finance Authorities, Housing Preservation Pilot Program and United Housing Los Angeles Initiative. However, the state provides little funding for these efforts. Local governments also face disincentives because housing element law primarily rewards new housing construction rather than the protection of existing affordable units.

Current law requires the replacement of certain demolished affordable housing units and mandates relocation assistance for displaced tenants. Unfortunately, reporting requirements remain vague, making it difficult to track how many affordable home developers demolish or whether jurisdictions comply with replacement and relocation requirements. AB 670 allows local governments to count investments in preserving NOAH. Is that how you say it? No.

Toward their Housing Element and Annual Progress Reports Members, I want to highlight that that local governments are allowed to count investments and preserving noaa. And we know that local governments are always focusing on how do they increase those affordable units. This is a major ask for local governments.

The bill also strengthens accountability by requiring jurisdictions to report all housing demolitions in their aprs regardless of the reason and demonstrate compliance with replacement housing and relocation assistance requirements.

With me today to provide testimony and support and answer any questions is Anya Lawler, Policy Advocate with Public Interest Advocates and Amy Snyder, Principal Legislative Advocate for Housing and Local Government with Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, both who are sponsors of AB 670.

First good morning Mr. Chair afternoon. Sorry Mr. Chair Members Julie Snyder representing two of the bill's sponsors, ABAG and MTC, along with the bill's co-sponsors, the Public Interest Law Project and Enterprise Community Partners. Our staff co led a statewide preservation working group that developed the approach that's in the bill before you today.

The working group included local government staff, public interest attorneys, developers and others, all of whom are dedicated to the Proposition that preserving the affordable affordability sorry. Of existing housing provides deep value both to individual renters and to our broader communities.

Preservation allows renters to remain in their homes and neighborhoods even as gentrification or profit motives drive up rents. It provides stability and maintains the neighborhood fabric. And that stability is particularly important for health and educational performance of our school age kids as well as the long standing small neighborhood businesses that meet everyday needs.

And preservation can operate at a smaller scale by retaining affordable duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes in neighborhoods that don't have larger apartment complexes or when it's the most appropriate housing option for populations that are being served. So those are just a few of the reasons that MTC and ABAG prioritize housing preservation alongside housing protection and tenant protections.

And it's why we appreciate Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for authorizing this bill. Sorry boy to create an incentive for cities and counties to invest their time and resources into preserving affordable housing. I'll share that.

Yesterday the California Housing Partnership just came out with their new report that shows a shocking 334,000 unsubsidized affordable homes are at risk of losing their affordability in the near term. 334,000. Replacing those homes with new stock would be incredibly expensive. So that's why we think our state's housing crisis demands the both and approach.

We need to build, we need to preserve and we need to protect our tenants. And that's why we're pleased to sponsor this Bill. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Anya Lawler here today on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, one of the sponsors of the bill. I'm going to talk about the other piece of the bill.

I think all of you are aware that the state has long asked local governments to submit what we call annual progress reports or that are meant to provide a wealth of information about how local governments are doing towards achieving their housing goals. What we get on those reports though is a good picture of units that are constructed.

But that's not the full picture because to really understand whether or not we are expanding housing supply, we also need clear information about how many housing units were lost. So we have to be able to subtract the demolitions from the new construction. And unfortunately, current law only requires reporting on a very narrow set of housing demolitions.

AB 906 ensures that all demolitions are actually reported so that we actually, when we look at those APRs, we have a clear sense of what is actually happening in the jurisdiction. Also, since 2019, the state law has recognized that demolishing existing housing without replacing it is not very effective.

So if when we demolish housing to make way for new developments, whether it's housing, whether it's logistics uses, whether it's a new residential care facility for the elderly, there has to be a commitment to replace those housing units so that again, we're not subtracting, we're expanding supply and unfortunately so cities and counties are supposed to impose those requirements as a condition of approval or development of projects.

There are also requirements to replace in some cases with deed restricted affordable housing and pay relocation assistance to displaced low income residents. Compliance with this has been spotty at best. And we are hoping that if we actually require reporting of what is actually happening that we will actually get better compliance.

And frankly, I think a lot of local governments simply don't know about those requirements. It's not willful non compliance. They don't know that we're there. And so we do want that information. We want to know that we're getting the replacement housing. We want to know that low income tenants are getting the relocation assistance that they're due.

And we think that by requiring reporting we'll get better compliance with the law and better outcomes that were intended by the Legislature. And with that we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support please state your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Justin Yotta, California Housing Partnership in support Brittany on behalf of the League of California Cities and support.

Hi Gracia La Castillo, cranks here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners and strong support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition. With that we'll take it back to Committee Members for questions or comments. Anybody? Questions? Comments?

Just want to thank the author for bringing this information forward. This bill that's needed. I did get from my local realtors some concerns but I know that you're working through those concerns centered around the first Buyers program and new buyers on there. So I want to thank you for continuing to move forward in this area. I want to thank you and move the bill.

We have a first and a second. No other comments? Questions? Seeing none. Would you like to close? Assemblymember Yes.

I appreciate the remarks by my colleague and we will continue to work with the realtors on this. But as the bill is titled preserving affordable housing now, working in the space of housing now for quite a few years we have been focusing on the production part but the preserving and building is also imperative.

With that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for bringing this bill forward today. And I want to recognize that you're one of the champions in the housing area in the state. Thank you for continuing to be that.

It is important that the state ensure that there is no net loss of housing and this Bill would help measure our progress to that goal. I will be supporting the bill today. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. Rio Aye.

The vote is a zero. The Bill is sad. We'll leave the roll open for the Members to add on. Thank you. If got distracted. I just want to recognize former Congressman Tony Cardenas who just walked into the room. Nice to see you sir.

So we're going to continue with the agenda as the next item is item number 11 by Assemblymember Addis AB761. No, I got distracted. I'm sorry.

So in 2014, the Monterey Salinas Transit District proposed Measure Q, a countywide 1/8 cent sales tax ballot measure to support public transit and since its passing, Measure Q has generated approximately $7 million annually which has funded transportation services and equipment for veterans, senior citizens and people with disabilities.

However, this important measure is set to expire in 2030 unless it is renewed by voters or a new measure comes forward to replace the lost revenue. Under current law, MST may only propose ballot measures if a majority of the 12 represented jurisdictions approve via their city councils or governing bodies.

Requiring MST to secure support from each city, as you can all imagine, is burdensome but also unnecessary, especially given that the board of MST is already composed of representatives from these jurisdictions.

In addition, if the MST board were to propose a higher sales tax to expand its programs, it could push some cities in Monterey County close to or even over the state imposed 2% cap on combined local sales tax within a County.

So AB761 would authorize the MST board to propose a sales tax ballot measure to voters upon approval of 2/3 of its Board of Directors without needing approval from its Member jurisdictions. To be clear, this would not give MST the power to impose a tax itself.

It would simply allow the agency to propose a ballot measure giving voters the opportunity to decide whether to continue or expand the existing sales tax. And the Bill also specifies that an increase in the MSET success sales tax would not count toward the 2% combined rate limit for local taxes.

Joining me today is Michelle Overmeyer, MST's Director of planning and Innovation.

Good Afternoon Chair Carillo, Vice Chair Ta and Committee Members. I'm Michelle Overmeyer. I'm the Director of Planning and Innovation at Monterey Salinas Transit. I'd like to thank you for hearing the Bill today. I also want to thank Committee staff for their assistance in getting us here today.

Monterey Salinas Transit is a district that was created by state law AB 644 and formed in July of 2010. MST operates 36 fixed routes, door to door paratransit service and other vital mobility programs in Monterey County in 2014. Measure Q passed overwhelmingly.

Over 72% of Monterey County voters approved the first ever countywide sales tax dedicated to public transit this past fiscal year. Measure Q actually brought in over $12 million to our agency. And it's for vital services and equipment specifically benefiting seniors, people with disabilities and veterans.

Some of those include veterans and senior shuttle bus lines, same day taxi trips, and training individuals to navigate transit with confidence and to maintain their Independence for daily life. MST wants to extend that transit sales tax measure that is set to expire in 2030.

AB761 will allow MST's board to submit the measure to the voters to extend the life of Measure Q and expand the 1.8cent up to a quarter cent for other transit operations and capital needs. I want to thank Member Addis for authoring this Bill and I would appreciate your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to be added on as support? See none. How about any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition at all. Seeing none. I'll take you back to Committee Members for questions or comments. No questions. No comments about a motion first and a second. Would you like to close?

Assemblyman, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting today and thank you for closely working with the Committee on amendments to the Bill, which I understand you accept, correct?

I do accept the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you for accepting the technical Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. Due to compressed deadlines, the amendment will need to be adopted in the Revenue and Taxation Committee. With that understanding, I will be supporting you today. The motion is to pass to the Revenue and Taxation Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. Kirill. Aye.

Kirill, aye. Todd, no. Todd, no. Hoover. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom. Aye. Rubio.

Rubio. Aye. Stephanie. Stephanie. I. Ward. I. Ward, I. Wilson. It 71.

Aye.

It is 71. The Bill is out. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. Next item on the agenda is item number 12. ABA 10 by Assembly Member Irwin, whenever you're ready. Assembly.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to start by accepting the Committee amendments. I'm pleased to present AB810 which will require special districts and joint powers authorities to migrate their public facing Internet websites and email addresses To.gov or ca.gov domain by 2031. Six years from now.

The public's trust in government is foundational for a healthy democracy. As the level of misinformation and fraud perpetuated Online continues to rise and as more sophisticated threat actors continue to confuse and mislead, we can no longer be haphazard about how local governments are presented online. The majority of special districts in California use.org, Or.net.

these unregulated domains can easily be purchased by anybody and spoof legitimate local governments by registering a domain with a slight typo or adding terms like district and my staff bought a domain for a few pennies in about 20 minutes.

Consider for a moment that the water and wastewater sector is one of the most vulnerable vulnerable critical infrastructure sectors for a cyber attack. Or consider how easily it is for a fraudster to create a fake website based on one of many special districts for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation and causing panic in times of emergency.

Government websites are one of the most sought after resources and fraudulent actors prey on these moments.

Immediately after the Palisades fire in my district broke out, we began to see hundreds of website fraudulent websites meant to confuse and defraud my constituents without uniformity in government websites only using a.gov domain our constituents are being conditioned to believe that any.com Or.org could be real government information.

California's local government should take every effort to safeguard the public's trust in our institutions, especially especially when they rise to the level of being requirements for federal grants. So right now if you want to use the federal $1.0 billion grant for cybersecurity you need to migrate over to.gov.

That's for local government and you can also get this website for free.

I acknowledge the practical tech aspects of this Bill could pose challenges to some smaller local governments with with less IT capacity and I am more than happy to work with the opposition coalition to find a way to add technical assistance into the Bill should that be something they would like to work on.

The transition itself though is not inherently out of reach for local agencies.

There are local agencies already on.gov and there are local agencies like the Desert Water Agency in Riverside County who have said in their position letter that they can comply with this Bill and as long as it has the five year timeline that we agreed to in the amendments.

I would also like to note that every city and county in California is already switching over to.gov thanks to AB 1637 from 2023. Additionally, tribes are eligible to be on.gov and many have made that transition. Consistency through local agencies is a key element to reducing the effectiveness of fraudsters ability to deceive Californians.

I believe it's important for all Californians regardless of where they live to have confidence and trust that their online interactions are with their government agency. Migrating to.gov or.ca.gov domain will secure that trust. I would also briefly like to address the opposition to the Bill in print from the school districts.

They were removed by Committee amendments from the Bill. I accepted accepted the Committee amendments because I believe in getting as many local agencies on.gov as possible and incremental progress on this issue is better than none at all.

However, the continual fight from the school districts to ignore the cybersecurity of their students and their families continues to amaze me. They argue that the cost of migration over the next six years will be too much for them. But these claims offer no regard for the cost, both financial and otherwise.

When a student and their family are defrauded by a fraudster seeking to act like a local agency or school stealing information like student Social Security numbers.

So while California students, teachers and parents will not be served by these amendments, I am proud to continue to carry this Bill for the remaining special districts which interact with thousands of Californians every day. Thank you.

Thank you for primary witness no. Okay.

It's my staff helping me along the way.

Anybody else that wants to add on in support from the audience, this is the time. See none. Any primary witnesses or opposition at all? I think I see someone coming.

Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association. CSTA represents all types of special districts including fire districts, water districts, geologic hazard abatement districts, port districts, air districts and more. We understand and appreciate the intent of AB810.

Unfortunately at this time we must respectfully remain opposed to the Bill due to the outsized impacts that has on local agencies. AB 810 would require special districts and JPAs to transition to a CA or a.ca.gov or a.gov domain and would require that agency employees are provided with.gov or.ca.gov email addresses.

This is going to be a significant cost undertaking for these types of agencies.

In addition to establishing a public facing portal, agencies also have to expend resources to ensure the configure the valid configuration of single sign on architecture, the redesign and replacement of outdated graphics security patches, they the update and rewriting of certain agency applications, the testing of all of these changes and more.

Special districts also suffer a disparate impact not unlike the disparate impact that would have been suffered by school agencies in that special districts are agencies that do not generally always fall with neatly within the jurisdictional boundaries of a city and county special Districts, as essential local service providers, have a dynamic relationship with the communities that they serve.

And so, in occupying a space that is distinct from cities and counties while also providing public services, special districts and JPAs take on added importance in establishing their own unique and memorable identities in order to enhance civic understanding and reduce confusion. Take for example the case of the Alameda County Mosquito and Vector Control District.

That district has managed to secure the mosquitoes.org domain under AB810.

The district would not be permitted to use this anything matching this domain name because mosquitoes.gov would be reserved for a federal agency and mosquitoes.ca.gov would not be permitted because it is not the full legal name of the agency nor is it contain the full initials of the of the agency.

As a result of this, the outreach that the district has undertaken would have to be abandoned and it will be subject to significant costs. This would be a fact pattern repeated throughout all of California for all the agencies that will be brought under the AB18 810 penumbra.

And for these reasons we oppose AB810 and respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that want to add on us in opposition Please state your name, affiliation and position on the be.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Bark Districts want to echo the comments of CSDA. Thank you. Respectfully opposed. Hi Chris Clark, CA IT and Education. Our organization represents IT technologists throughout the state and we're here to oppose Good afternoon Mr.

Chair Members Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators we appreciate the work of the Committee and getting to meet with the author staff with our concerns with the amendments as proposed we will be removing our opposition. Thank you Mr.

Chair Members Nick Romley, here on behalf of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and also here on behalf of California IT and Education as well want to clarify that with the amendments taken today, we will be recommending removing our opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kylie Wright on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Committee Members Michelle Gil on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials thank you for the Committee amendments. We'll be moving our opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horowitz with Los Angeles Unified School District and also on behalf of Alameda County Office of Education Education and California County Superintendents. With the amendments accepted today, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chairmember Sam Nash on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education and with the I want to thank the author for accepting amendments who would be removing our opposition as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Assembly Member Word.

I want to thank the author for her intent to make sure that we are ultimately providing security for a lot of these institutions.

These are governmental institutions that I think that you, more than many of us here, understand the nuance of technology policy and the, you know, I think that the gold standards that we should be having for a lot of these public agencies.

I'd be curious if there's maybe I'm not terribly warm, unfortunately, to some of the opposition arguments in that there is this, you know, cacophony of claim that we're going to have a lot of expense, there are going to be a lot of burden. You're building the websites anyway. You're creating email addresses anyway.

All this is developed over so many years anyway. But we're just asking that this is rather be housed and be worked through an opportunity that affords better security for a lot of these public agencies. And I believe that that's achievable.

I would believe that that's achievable under, you know, with, with minimal or negligible impact as well as you, your workload in IT procurement continues to go forward and out yours anyway.

And I'm curious as well, for the Alameda example, to the author, would anything prohibit an agency, for example, from using an alias for convenience that redirects back to protected governmental website? So you could have mosquitoes.org that automatically redirects you back to the.gov site?

That is correct.

Okay. So I think that there's ways to still make this usable and workable out there. But I appreciate the intent and the standard, really that you're trying to achieve here.

I would acknowledge, while you're trying to be able to move this forward right now and you're doing so in a way of cooperation to not not have to involve school districts at this time.

I would encourage our school districts to continue to work with the author to achieve the same ends as well and possibly, you know, future work or other creative ways to be able to provide again the same outcome that we would want for all of our school districts as well and the security for its professionals, its students and its teachers.

With that, I'm happy to move the Bill. Thank you, Mr. War.

Anybody else? Assembly Member Ramos thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank the author for bringing this, this topic forward. Just some questions and some concerns, maybe suggestions for you within the amendments that came forward. It talks about school districts, but there's city schools and county schools.

And if we could be a little bit more clearer that county schools are also part of that component, because at the local jurisdiction, city schools, unified school districts are under that jurisdiction, and counties have different school districts underneath the county. So those are suggestions for you, if we can make that a little bit clearer.

You also did mention that tribes are eligible, but is it written explicitly in there, including tribal governments?

I don't remember that there's anything on tribal governments. Obviously, tribal governments are sovereign, and so I think it is really. It's offered to tribal governments. But if there's any language in there that you think might relate, we will certainly take it out because that would not be legal, certainly.

And because we get to a lot of the language that we've seen throughout this Committee and throughout the Legislature that we have to insert, including tribal government. So that's a suggestion that maybe we could look at moving forward.

Did you want to include them?

It would be great to be able to include tribal governments into this language.

All right, well, we'll work with you on that.

Well, thank you so much for that. Any other Committee Members? See? None. Do we have a motion or second? You have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry. Assemblymember, when would you like to close?

I just respectfully asked for your aye vote. And as you know, I was honored by the special districts. I love special districts. And as you mentioned, there are a lot of very important special districts.

And to me, that shows the need even more for them to eventually, over the next six years, migrate to the.gov website because if you have a fire Department, that that's a special district. We would like our residents to know when they're clicking on.gov that it's actually a government agency.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assemblymember Irwin. I want to thank you and your staff for working with Committee. I really appreciate you taking the amendments. Thank you for doing that. I will be supporting your Bill today. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Secretary, please call the Rock.

Aye.

Korea.

Korea, aye. Tah. No. No. Hoover. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco I. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Stephanie. Stephanie. I. Ward. Ward. I. Wilson.

71. The Billy South. Congratulations and thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair and Committee.

With that, we move on to Assemblymember Haravidian's Bill. Agenda item number 16 AB 1206. Thank you for being so patient.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for running such an Efficient meeting. I appreciate it. And they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. And AB 1206 imitates a very good Bill, AB 1332, which one of the smartest legislators that I know brought this Bill last year.

And what that Bill did was create a pre approved design for adus that every agency could adopt. And what that Bill actually did was have a high success rate. And it was a very elegant solution in enabling ADUs to actually be built and help us solve our housing crisis. That Legislator was Assembly Member Juan Carrio.

And what this Bill does 1206 is take that model and applies it to single family homes and multi unit housing developments up to 10 units. This is not a controversial idea. This is something that is happening in other cities and other states such as Kalamazoo, Michigan and Bryan, Texas.

It's also something that happened and was implemented in Paradise, California after the Tubbs fire.

And when I presented this in Housing Sonoma, Marie Gallagher spoke to just how effective it was in trying to allow victims and many of the victims of the Eaton Fire and Palisades fire are trying to figure out just how they're going to rebuild their lives.

And those programs in paradise and in Kalamazoo and in Bryant, Texas really help people. And they help people in simple ways. It doesn't make each development project bespoke where you have to go through a lot of red tape and expense of dealing with design review and also clogging up local government with their limited resources.

It also is very much pro local control. As a former Council Member and mayor for a number of years, I very much believe in local control. I think it's important that our communities retain local control. These programs would be unique to each local agency. The Bill merely requires the adoption of pre approved designs.

Those designs are picked by each local agency and they can be as plentiful as that local agency wants.

And I would say that this is one of many tools that we can implement in the State of California to ensure that we're doing everything we can for victims of wildfire or just regular old people who are trying to find housing, actually get housing supply built in an efficient, cost effective way.

And I think this is a common sense measure and I would appreciate your support. And here with me today is holly from many dejesus on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and Abundant Housing LA thank you.

Again Mr. Chair. Good afternoon Members. Holly. I'm Holly Fermini here today on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, which are affiliates represented throughout the State of California. And as you may know, we're providing entry level homeownership opportunities for first time home buyers in 42 different counties throughout the state.

And we're proud to become a sponsor now of this Bill. We believe that Habitat and using all the tools in our toolbox to build affordable housing. And this legislation calls for local governments to join us in that effort. Habitat is uniquely positioned because we're a builder, a developer and a mortgage lender.

And the best outcome for this legislation that's going to help expedite phase one of home building, which is the architectural design which can be very time intensive and costly. Habitat is always looking way to reduce costs for our homes, but also for homes for everybody to build in our community.

And the vision of this Bill is based on and modeled after what Habitat has done in partnership with many communities after disasters, not just in paradise, but also what's happening now in Los Angeles County. So the author has stated that this will require a very simple program. And actually, let me just describe it for you.

It'll be like a catalog, a catalog of designs. Catalogs of designs that might include like Craftsman's, even maybe Victorians or Cape Cod style cottages that we're getting accustomed to seeing in Midtown and East Sacramento. But again, a lot.

And somebody who owns an empty lot does not have to pay for the customization, which can be very expensive and hopefully they can just go straight to building permit.

And at Habitat, we even hope that some of our own very low cost designs that will become pre approved and also in those catalogs so folks who can't afford a very large custom home can actually just take the Habitat model and build it themselves in their empty lot.

So we're really hoping that this Bill pass and every city can follow the model that is again working in other states and in many cities in the State of California. And we urge your support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to be added in support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Chair Members of the Committee, Jordan Panad, on behalf of California, Yimby, Field Spur and Abundant Housing LA in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And there is no opposition. I don't see anybody coming to opposites. zero, there is, there is. Please state your name, affiliation and position on the building.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Shockingly, my first opposition won today. So, you know, I'm, I'm excited for that opportunity. But I did want to say we do have an oppos unless amended position. Did want to say the amendments in housing were super helpful. I think we want a couple technical changes that would make the Bill improving.

And I know we need to touch base on that. But I think the big thing is making sure that, you know, with a multifamily being limited to 10 units, that's a step in the right direction.

But we want to make sure that locals still have the ability to ensure that the sites specifically that they would be meant for that could qualify. I think the Bill does that, but just providing that certainty. So we need to have our, you know, special counsel review that just to confirm that's an issue.

I think the other big thing is the deadline is July 12026 if we could extend it two years as 1332 did, so cities have more time to implement it and get those plans in and they'll have to probably update their housing elements and stuff to qualify for these programs.

So I think having a longer deadline with everything overlapping would be super helpful in helping cities implement this. So I think it's kind of more technical stuff that we're kind of looking at fixing it. But we think the prior amendments were a step in the right direction.

But for right now, we do remain a puzzle less amended and look forward to those continued conversations. So thank you.

Thank you for that. Committee Members questions? Comments? Assemblymember Pacheco.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I know you've had an intense first year with everything that's happened at the Eaton fire and in your district. So I commend you for your efforts and everything that you're doing.

And I also commend you for being such a champion for our chair here and mentioning him as well. So flattery does get you places. And just ask just a question. Has anybody ever told you you look like an actor?

zero my gosh. No, they haven't. Thank you.

No, but seriously, thank you. And I know you are committed to working with the opposition and making this Bill better. I have no doubts about that. I will be supporting your Bill today and I will be moving the Bill. So thank you again.

Thank you. If I may, Mr. Chair, please. Thank you. Pacheco. I will just say really quickly to that. Happy to continue to working with the League. I think we will be able to come to a mutually agreeable solution. So appreciate your comments and thank you.

Anybody else? Assemblymember Ransom.

I just wanted to check my understanding. First of all, thank you for this. I just wanted to be clear. The cities, the communities will have an opportunity to pre approve all of the plans. Absolutely. They won't have any Surprises. This will just be kind of a.

You know, it's no different than going into a development where you go into the sales office and you pick the plan. Except the city's picking them in advance. Correct. Awesome. Thank you. I think this is a sound piece of legislation. Appreciate it.

Vice Chair Tong. Yeah, I really appreciate the author for introducing this Bill. I think this is a really good Bill. In response to housing rises in the State of California. I had 16 years experience on the local government, so I think that we usually have a lot of concerns of the process. It would take a long time.

I think this Bill really, really helped a lot of people in the states. I really appreciate that. Yes. I second the Bill.

Thank you. And I just want to add on your concerns of the timeline. I really don't think that we can afford to wait anymore. You know, we are already housing crisis before the fires, and losing 14,000 plus housing units makes our situation even worse.

So I understand the concerns from the local governments of me being a city planner. I do get that. But I think that we have to be able to build the housing units that we need in the state. Again, having lost an additional 14,000 units is critical that we start actually building the units that are needed.

And I have to say, when this Bill was presented to me in Committee. That sounds familiar. So with that, would you like to close? Assemblymember Harry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Respectfully, astronaut. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I will be support this Bill. The motion is to pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aye. Aye. Hoover. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. A I. Ramos. Ramos. I. Ransom. Ransom. I. Rubio. Rubio. I. Stephanie. Stephanie. I. Ward. Ward. I. Wilson. Wilson. I.

Aye.

Bill is nine. Sierra. Billy. South. Thank you and congratulations.

I don't know. We don't know yet. This inside. Inside joke. We'll tell you about it. I still don't know who it is. I don't think it was flattering.

Assembly Member Ransom, you have a Bill to present. And that's agenda item number six, AB436 by Assembly Member Ransom.

Thank you. Awesome. Awesome. Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair and Committee Members. I am here to talk about Assembly Bill 436, which is expediting the process for setting up composting facilities. As we know, in 2022, we gave instructions to communities that they needed to hit some goals in regarding composting.

Nearly half of California's waste, like food scraps and yard clippings end up in landfills. Organic waste makes up 20% or more of the state's methane emissions and California aims to divert 50% by 2020, 75% by 2025. Today, to meet our goals, we need 50 to 100 new and or expanding composting facilities.

However, the process to build composting facilities is slow and complicated. Some of the rules and zoning codes create unnecessary delays in getting the facilities built. Assembly Bill 436 simplifies the process, helping local governments find locations and avoid roadblocks. This will help reduce methane gas emissions and create more sustainable sustainable future.

With that, I'd like to pass it over to my witnesses to speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

Start with Neil Good afternoon Members. I'm Neil Edgar. I'm the Executive Director of the California Compost Coalition. Our Members are predominantly service providers. Municipalities throughout California are processing yard trimmings and increasingly food materials to meet the lofty climate change goals prescribed in SB 1380.

CalRecycle predicted, as Assemblymember mentioned, that we need to add some 50 to 100 facilities. Since SB 1383 has been passed in 2016, we've opened about a dozen new facilities, only two of which are permitted to take food materials which require a higher bar for permitting. In my day job, I permit and develop composting facilities.

Having permitted 46 facilities in 23 counties, I know firsthand the challenges in getting them on the ground and operating across the state. This bill is intended to resolve one of the key hurdles we are facing in moving forward with this critical infrastructure.

By providing model zoning ordinance language, local governments have every incentive to plan for and permit organic waste facilities in the interest of meeting SB 1383 requirements. I just don't believe they have the right tools to resolve the issues that delay numerous projects. This Bill will help provide some of those tools.

Agriman, one of our Members, spent 12 years to complete two zone text amendments in Ventura County to expand an existing facility, largely because the zoning ordinance did not explicitly allow commercial composting operations on agriculturally zoned land.

Closing the loop on organic materials will require, in part, that compost be returned to agricultural land, and local solutions are important to limiting transportation impacts. I thank Assemblymember ransom for bringing AB 436 forward.

Great. Thank you so much. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities we are pleased to support AB 436 regarding organic waste. AB 436 requires the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to develop sample General plan goals, policies and implementation measures and a model ordinance that reflects the best practices for siting of compost facilities.

It further directs local governments to consider those best practices when they perform the next substantive revision of their land use element on or after January 1, 2029. We do believe and agree that this will provide local governments with more tools to facilitate the siting of compost facilities.

SB 1383 from 2016 was a very robust law and goal and it does require our state to reduce that organic waste matter by 75% below 2014 levels. So in our implementation of those efforts, we are really trying to meet those goals.

And as mentioned, the 50 to 100 new compost facilities that may be needed to meet those goals are estimated to cost up to $20 billion statewide to meet that. So given the importance that the state has on reducing methane emissions and increasing organic waste diversion, we strongly support AB 436 and request your aye vote today.

Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add in support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Hi, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the Solid Waste Association of North America California chapters in support.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Mandy Strello on behalf of CRNR Environmental Services, Rethink Waste and Californians Against Waste and support.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Primary witnesses? Seeing none. Taking it to the Committee. Any comments, Questions? Seeing none. Just have one question for you. Based on your experience in the number of facilities that you help get permitted, do you recall what the average time is to approve a new facility without this bill?

Typical facility. Smaller facilities typically take two to three years. Larger facilities that are allowed to take food material have to go through environmental review and a much lengthier process and that's typically more in the six to seven year range. Although the facility at Yolo County Landfill, which I oversaw permitting for, took 12 years.

Wow.

And it's a $70 million investment that is only in place because the city and County of Sacramento and the cities and County of Yolo were instrumental in securing feedstock to feed it.

Thank you for that. Do we have a motion? A second person? A second. I was holding on to your pen. Would you like to close? Assembly Memorandum Yes.

Thank you so much for your questions and for the support of the Bill. We know this is important to our state. We also know that states are never our communities are always frustrated when they get mandates and they don't get clear instructions or they don't get money.

So we're not offering money, but we definitely want to make sure that they have the clear instructions so that we can move closer to our goals. And so AB 436 ensures that California can build the composting infrastructure needed to handle our organic waste effectively, efficiently and quickly. And so with that, I would appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Assemblymember Ransom. Thank you for your work on this bill. I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo Aye. Tom. Aye. Aye. Hoover. Pacheco. Pacheco aye. Ramos. Ramos aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom aye Rubio. Rubio aye. Stefani. Stefani aye. Ward. Ward. aye. Wilson. Wilson. aye.

The measure is out 9:0. Thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Before we move on to the last item on the agenda, we are going to do the consent calendar items as stated at the beginning. We have three calendar items, and that's AB 726, Avila, Farias, AB 1141, Lee, and AB 1479. Tangipa is the first and second. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar Items are out 9-0. Thank you. I'm going to pass the gavel to Vice Chair Ta so that I can present the last item on the agenda.

Honorable Chair, the last item from you. Thank you. All right, the last item. AB 1154 from.

From the chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. Members, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1154. AB 1154 brings. Brings clarity and consistency to our ADU loss by aligning regulations for small ADUs units up to 500 square feet with those for JDUs.

Specifically, this Bill would, number one, remove the parking mandates for small ADUs, which are a maximum of 500 square feet, helping reduce construction costs by thousands of dollars. Number two, eliminate the owner occupancy requirement for JDUs with their own bathrooms, allowing homeowners to rent out both the main residence and the jdu.

These changes will make it more feasible for homeowners to build and rent out these units, increasing access to affordable housing. Over the years, the Legislature has worked to streamline ADUs and JDU development, and this Bill continues that effort. It helps address the confusion caused by overlapping regulations, which often discourage homeowners from moving forward with projects.

In my own experience, I built both an ADU and a JDU on my property, one of which is housed by my daughter while she attended college.

That was supposed to be my Menke, but she came back from college and she had prepared the IDU These units are essential for multigenerational families, for rental income and for adding housing options already established in already established neighborhoods. And I want to add also that this could also serve to house our aging parents.