Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning, 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 accelerated testimony through the position of 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 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 persons 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, 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 viewpoint they express in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much as possible from the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct or 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. The rules for today today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the destiny, 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 content that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions. Today is Administrative Professionals Day and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Marissa Leicester, our Committee secretary for her work for our Committee.

She performs countless tasks every day that we never see, as well as many that we do see. I would like to thank her for her dedication, patience, good humor and hard work for many, many years, not just for this Committee in the Assembly, but for the entire Legislature. Thank you, Marisa.

And thank you for all of our administrative professionals who keep trains running on time. Today we have 14 bills on our agenda. One of these items has been pulled by the author. Item 9, AB 1070 by Assembly Member word.

In addition, two of our agenda items are proposed for consent calendar item 2, AB36 by Assemblymember Soria, item 11 AB 1131 by Assembly Member Ta and all other bills will be heard in file order. 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 only. We do not have a quorum yet, so we'll be conducting this as a Subcommitee. The first item on the agenda is SB 24 by Assemblymember DeMaio. Assemblymember, when you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present AB 24, the Give San Diego Rural Communities a Voice Act. This Bill will correct a deficiency in the manner in which board seats are selected for the San Diego Association of Government, SANDAG. SANDAG is our regional transportation agency. They perform the functions of CalTrans.

They expend funds for our roads from CalTrans, but also a local sales tax measure. The SANDAG board has been under increasing criticism on a variety of levels for its mismanagement of funds, but also for its decision to cancel promised road projects. SANDAG has had a number of local tax measures called Transnet.

And in 1988 and again in 2004, Sandag went to the voters and promised a list of road projects would be completed if voters approved the sales tax increase. Unfortunately, the monies have since been transferred from many of those projects, and the projects that have suffered the most are rural road projects.

State Route 67, an important rural highway, has had its expansion canceled. This is not only a concern for traffic congestion, it's a public safety concern. Our rural areas are subjected to the highest fire risk. And without the expansion of these rural roads, our evacuation routes will not be sufficient to ensure public safety.

Now we can say that we in Sacramento get to decide to protect rural communities. I would say that that would be a violation of local government participation and input.

Instead, since SANDAG is a state agency governed by state law and that the board composition is dictated by state statute, I'm introducing Assembly Bill 24 to give the rural areas a greater voice. In fact, we're not giving them a greater voice. We're finally giving them the voice they deserve.

The unincorporated areas of San Diego County represent about 600,000 population. This is about 18% of San Diego population. But again, they're not being given a voice because under SANDAG's board composition, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors get two seats. And then the cities, the incorporated cities, get to select a representative for each of their cities.

Because of redistricting, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors each represent cities. And so these board members, the Board of Supervisors, are very interested in what the cities have to say about transportation projects. And they may very well overlook rural unincorporated areas.

My Bill would require that one of the two board seats, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors receives one of the two board seats would not be selected by the Board of Supervisors because they are again, representing cities, but rather the San Diego Association of Planning Groups. These are the unincorporated planning group areas.

And again, these are duly elected officials in their planning groups. They would receive one of the board seats. That is the purpose of the Bill. It again is designed to give a vote and a greater voice to these rural areas because these areas have not received their fair share of transportation investment.

I'm hoping that you will provide this modification in board composition so we can give rural areas a voice in transportation decisions in San Diego. County.

Thank you, Assemblymember. You don't have any witnesses? Anybody in the audience that wants to speak in support of the measure? Seeing none. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Also not seeing anybody coming up on the microphone in opposition. We're still operating under a Subcommitee. Any comments, questions from the Members? Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, Mr. Demaio. Of course, we both have keen interest as well in SANDAG and appreciate you thinking about some creative ideas as well because you do represent your district, you know, as strongly as you should. And I think we would share that goal as well about making sure that there's opportunity for voice that is afforded.

Because a lot of really big dollar intensive decisions are made through this body. Not ones that always, I think everyone would agree with, but ones that, like, we want to make sure, is trying to find mutual wins as well. I am curious, have you heard from the interesting times that they are down there?

Have you heard from any of the Members of the Board of Supervisors right now, from either of the two appointees?

I haven't spoken directly to the two appointees. I do know that Accounting Supervisor Jim Desmond joined me at a press conference to discuss this. It has a lot of support, particularly amongst the representatives of cities, actually, who believe that having a rural perspective will bring some balance. As you know, the controversy has been over the weighted vote.

I'm not trying to address that issue with this Bill. What I am trying to do, however, is to make sure that we have a greater voice for the unincorporated planning groups, the unincorporated areas. We are not eliminating both board seats. There was some discussion about making the county supervisor seats completely rural.

This strikes, I believe, a balance by taking one of the seats for the rural unincorporated areas and still retaining a seat for the Board of Supervisors to select. And I think, again, what we want to do is increase the voice of rural areas without shaking things up too much.

So you. One of those two seats, the way you've drafted it so far, would be from a Member of the Board of Supervisors who represents an unincorporated area.

Well, so that's the existing legislation. The existing San Diego legislation says that the Board of Supervisors shall select two seats from unincorporated areas. Well, as you know, the redistricting map means that every Member of the Board of Supervisors has an unincorporated area. So that doesn't really give us that flavor of the rural areas.

So what we've decided to do is continue to allow one Member to be from the Board of Supervisors and let them decide who they want that to be. The existing statutory language would still remain the same.

And then the other San Diego County board seat would be from the Association of Planning Groups.

Okay.

Got it. I would like to really see this marinate a little bit more and get some more local input on this before.

Obviously, when we get into the politics of SANDAG, we all walk into it together, but I think that I would need to hear a little bit more about that change, because taking one of our supervisors, who would also represent. We're doing the math really quick. 650,000 people or so, and maybe disempowering that opportunity for them.

The two appointees right now are.

So what's interesting about that is each. You nailed it. Each district, supervisorial district is about 600,000 people.

Right.

The unincorporated areas, 600,000 people.

Right.

So it actually works out mathematically to be that equal vote. You'd have 600,000 for one Board of Supervisors member, because that's about the size of a district. And then you'd have 600,000 for the unincorporated areas.

Okay. Guaranteeing that seat rather than, rather of those two seats.

Allowing the Board of Supervisors to be able to decide, like, who those two appointees should be. And are they currently Supervisors Lawson Remer and Montgomery Stepp?

Correct.

I don't know, because they change them every two years. But I believe it probably is Lawson Remer and Stepp.

But. So Desmond is not one. Or Anderson. Okay.

No, no.

Okay. I'd like to see this marinate a little bit more and get some more of that local input before I could think about a statutory change in this model. But I do appreciate you advocating for your rural communities as well. And we'll see how this moves, how the idea moves forward over time. Thank you.

Before we proceed, if there are any more questions or comments, we are at a quorum now. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum. Anybody? Assemblymember Ransom.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Assemblymember Demaio, for the opportunity to follow up. I just wanted to clarify. Is the APG Member at Sandbag appointed by the APG or by a different entity?

The legislation would have the APG, the Association of Planning Groups would select their representative.

Okay. And what makes the membership and voting requirements unequitable? Not to ask you to be redundant, but if you can just clarify. I think you mentioned the rural community just doesn't have as much representation.

Are there other concerns that make you feel that we, you have to work it out through this process other than a more collaborative process with SANDAG?

Well, SANDAG should not be involved in the selection of their board Members. SANDAG is the board itself. State law governs how we select our seats. Current state law says the two Board of Supervisors from the Board of Supervisors get to represent their share of the votes.

This would take one of those Board of Supervisors appointments and provide it exclusively to the rural unincorporated areas. The intent originally of the SANDAG board provisions of state law was that the San Diego County Board would represent the rural areas. But because of redistricting, each of our districts represents a lot of cities.

Each of the supervisorial districts have a large share of city population. So the San Diego County Board Members are actually getting double votes for cities.

What this does is it strikes a balance of saying, instead of taking both seats and giving them to the planning boards for unincorporated areas, we'll continue to allow the Board of Supervisors to represent one of those seats. And the other vote, the other seat would go to the unincorporated planning groups. So these planning groups are duly elected.

Each of these 16 planning groups, then they go to the association. So that body would meet and select amongst their Members a representative to SANDAG who would then take one of the two county board seats.

Okay. Is it fair to say that the existing law already specifically dictates that San Diego has the same voting powers as any small city or county in this process? The weighted vote. It's my understanding that there's a weighted vote in the SANDAG Members appointed to represent an area. It's weighted versus unincorporated versus incorporated, giving the same power.

Is that not the allocation?

No, not exactly. So what happened in 2016, state law changed, instead of one entity, one vote, it changed to a weighted vote.

There's been a lot of controversy and criticism on this. My Bill has been explicitly. We are explicitly not addressing that controversy because we believe that this might be a more balanced, measured step to see if we can rebalance the conversation with this amendment in terms of giving the rural areas a bit more of a voice.

Right.

But right now, the controversy is that the big cities gang up on all the other areas and they're able to dictate based on the weighted vote, whereas previously one entity, one vote required that small cities actually were part of the conversation. Remember, we have a regional transportation network.

And so if the big cities say, well, we're just going to do it this way, you might get a skew of investment versus looking at, well, what would be a balanced approach for the region. We're not going to address the weighted vote issue. It's controversial. Maybe in time we can see whether we need to make changes there.

But what we're trying to do with this is a balanced approach of give the rural communities one of the county seats. The weighted vote will still remain the same, by the way. So when two of the cities say we want a weighted vote, the weighted vote formula will remain unchanged.

Okay, thank you for that. I would have loved to see more input from the local government community in your community in regards to this issue, because I do think it is.

Well, let me say though, on local input, this, as Assemblymember Ward knows, this is a topic of great conversation in San Diego County. And the support for rural areas having a vote is overwhelming.

Democrat voters, independent voters, they all get the fact that this is a regional transportation system and that there are projects that have been canceled. State Route 67 is a matter of grave concern because we have a lot more population in our rural areas and it's higher fire risk.

State Route 67 was supposed to, starting in 1988 to get additional lanes for evacuation. Those lanes were canceled two years ago, replaced with a bike lane.

I can tell you right now, my rural communities may or may not be in favor of bike lanes, but they definitely would rather have the evacuation routes funded first and then look at other transportation investments. So this is something where there is a tremendous amount of local input and support, particularly amongst our planning groups.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate the input.

Seeing no other comments or questions from Committee Members. Would you like to close?

As Assemblymember Ward is well familiar with, this is a very controversial topic in San Diego County about the weighted vote. I obviously have my opinion on that. Others have other opinions. I think, however, maybe that controversy can be addressed through this common sense approach of providing a little bit more voice for rural communities.

Obviously, if that doesn't work, we can always revisit the weighted vote. But that's not the intent of Assembly Bill 24. Assembly Bill 24 is a measured approach to trying to make improvements to make sure that all voices are heard in transportation decisions in San Diego County.

And I ask for this Committee's support and the aye votes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Demaio. Thank you for presenting today. While I support your effort to ensure that residents have an equitable voice on SANDAG board, I do not believe that this Bill provides the balance you seek.

I have concerns with the approach this Bill takes to remove a seat appointed by the county and giving it to an Association of Planning Groups. In light of these concerns, I will not be voting on your Bill today. Do we have a motion or second. Is there a second. We don't have a second.

We'll leave it open for other Members when they do come in.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you sir. We are going to go on the items they are proposed on the agenda but I see Assemblymember Wicks. I'm going to go back to item one the Bill which was AB24 by Demaio. Since the Bill did not receive a second the Bill dies.

We don't have a second. Sorry. So clarification we're going to hold the roll open until we if we do get a second then we get to vote on for Members that are not here yet.

We'll leave it open until we have another Member make a second on AB24 Demaio. Going back to the agenda items by order but I don't see anybody on item 3, item 2 is on consent Assemblymember Wicks is present as agenda item number 4 AB 671 when you are ready.

They're where we grab our morning coffee, catch up with our friends over lunch, and even take meetings. The restaurant industry provides critical first jobs, and it creates pathways to business ownership for immigrant entrepreneurs and historically underserved communities. But right now, it's simply too hard to get these restaurants up and running.

In California, restaurant owners are forced to pay dead rent on unopened restaurants even as they navigate complicated permitting processes. Processes that for small business owners can create difficult, even insurmountable hurdles to open these restaurants. And all the while, communities can't access these important venues for food and connection.

AB671 responsibly reduces barriers to opening new restaurants in California by fast tracking front end plan review. It authorizes qualified professional architects and engineers to self certify plans for restaurant projects that convert an existing facility to a new one.

These restaurant retrofits are often completed by small restaurants, and this new permitting pathway means that these small businesses won't have to wait as long to start generating a profit from their restaurants. Under the framework, randomized audits ensure compliance with health and safety codes. And the approach does not exempt restaurants from mandatory construction inspections.

So AB671 creates a process to facilitate timely restaurant openings while maintaining public safety standards. Major American cities like New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago have already seen success with similar streamlined permitting programs. With AB671, we have the opportunity to do the same in our state.

We can lessen the burden on many small restaurants by allowing these businesses to open faster. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and will let my witnesses self introduce.

Good morning. Good morning Mr. Chairman Members. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of a group of restaurants under the Hard Scale Eats brand. And I think we too would also very much like to thank Mr. Chairman, your Committee staff.

They spent a great many hours working us on this and I think the final product is better than even what we had originally introduced. So thank you to your team. I think we all know and this Committee is probably uniquely aware of just how difficult the permitting process can be.

We often talk about the permitting process in regards to housing. However, it has broader impacts and broader challenges in other industries like the restaurant. So the cost, the delays, the difficulty, the uncertainty, those things plague the restaurant industry the same way they do others.

So we think this is a really reasonable Bill to try to take some amount of effort and reduce that upfront permitting, leaving everything on the back end fully intact to make sure at the end of the day everything is installed in compliance with health, safety, structural and everything else that needs to be the way it should be.

So this is a modest Bill, but really, really helpful. We appreciate the author and the work of this Committee to get it in an even better place. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association also in strong support of the Bill. I think what's been said is absolutely true. I think from a broader perspective from us, we represent mainly independent neighborhood restaurants.

We do have the larger chains, but the vast majority of our Members are those independent restaurants that are all your districts. And we are constantly surveying our membership in the restaurant community at large. And permitting comes up in the top seven or eight issues every single time. And it continues to.

And so this Bill moves us very much forward. And I would just say this. You know, when we are looking at local communities, mayors are often calling us. The Association and mayors are often looking for restaurants to come in and help revitalize areas of town.

And as we come out of COVID and try to rebuild, our downtown cores are in great need of help. And we need help in communities beyond those downtown cores. And I think streamlining restaurant opening, what we're doing here, what the Assembly woman is doing here, is unleashing a great force.

Once restaurants are back on firm footing, this will streamline things that will get restaurants open quicker, and it will also get employees on the payroll quicker. We have always been really proud to be the most diverse industry in California. We still are.

The thing that we lost in Covid is we used to be one of the top two private employers, and we used to be one of the top generators of sales tax to local governments. We want to get back to that spot. And this Bill will help us move forward to do that. So we really appreciate the effort and thank you for your time and strong support.

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

Good morning, chair and Members, Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors registering support for the following restaurants and organizations. Uvo, Sushi, Nozawa, Matu John and Vinnies, Heigh Ho, Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce and Steadfast la. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Amelia Zamani on behalf of the California Travel Association in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? See no one as primary witnesses. Anybody else in the room to be added in opposition decision? Seeing none. We have a first and a second. Take it back to Committee Members. See any questions, comments? Assemblymember Ward

Thank you for authoring this Bill. Like I think a lot of other work that we're doing in opportunities for streamlining. I'd love to be at it as a co author as well and appreciate your work.

Great. Thank you.

Anybody else? Seeing None. We have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Can I close?

Oh, I'm sorry. Close, please.

I just want to go on the record. Ms. Blanca Rubio just whispered I want to be added as a co author too. So we'll add both of you. And I think all of you know it's just so hard to operate a restaurant. It's so difficult.

And this is really like a cultural epicenter for a lot of our communities, especially with the downtown recovery we need. So let's make it as easy as possible for these small businesses to get up on the ground. Appreciate your work, Committee, staff, everyone, and hopefully bipartisan support we see on this. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Wicks. Thank you for presenting. And you'll be accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes, yes.

With community amendments. I will be supporting your Bill today. The motion is do pass this amendment to the Business and Professions Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 671 do pass as amended.

The bill is out. Thank you. Do you want to present your second bill now since there's no one else? So that's agenda item number 11. AB 1156, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'd like to begin by thanking you and your staff again for the thoughtful work and conversations we've had around this proposed policy because this bill is triple referred. Thank you, Madam Rules Chair.

I have proposed amendments that would be taken next week before the Agricultural Committee should have passed this body today and also passed out of the Utilities and Energy Committee this afternoon. AB 1156 updates the California solar use easement statute.

Permitting suitable lands with significant water constraints to transition from a Williamson Act contract to a solar use easement for the development of renewable energy projects. This legislation also modernizes the eligibility requirement and easement terms, aligning with our state's clean energy and water policy goals while providing farmers with with new economic opportunities on agriculturally constrained lands.

Working with all three policy committees and stakeholders, I've agreed to take amendments which remove all reference to the California Energy Commission. Clarify that every project under a solar use easement will undergo CEQA. Allow local governments to non renew an easement at the end of the project's operating life.

Provide local government the option of requiring a project to include specified community benefits and revised language around water availability. California has ambitious goals for our environment and for our energy infrastructure.

This past fall I learned through hearings at my own committee, Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform, just how hard it is to permit solar energy projects in our state and was left with the inescapable conclusion that we need to do better.

This will require collaboration and compromise by all stakeholders, and I can assure you there are many stakeholders in this conversation. AB 1156 takes a critical look at the existing solar use easement program, which is intended to allow for solar development on compromised agricultural lands.

It was envisioned before California's groundwater laws and before the establishment of our aggressive clean energy goals. To be blunt, the program isn't working. State data shows that only three projects have been permitted since 2011.

My goal with this bill is to update the framework to catalyze clean energy development on lands that for the foreseeable future can no longer be farmed. This will provide an economic benefit to the community and to farms that otherwise have very limited options.

I'm working on this issue because we have hugely ambitious renewable energy goals that aren't being met and because our lack of water means, whether this bill passes or not, that between 500,000 to 900,000 acres of farmland is going to be followed.

I want to provide an entirely voluntary choice for those impacted landowners to place solar on their property, make a healthy return during the length of the contract, and also provide more property tax revenue for local governments.

Vitally, AB 1156 does not propose that a Williamson Act contract be rescinded or canceled, but merely that it be suspended for the length of the solar project. This means if water conditions change, land can be returned to production in future years. My door has been and will remain open.

I know that this bill is complicated, illustrated by the fact that it's going to three committees and there are people, stakeholders on all sides of this. And I really want to work with them and all of the committees to ensure we have the best policy moving forward.

We want to to respect communities in this process and that's what I believe this bill can do. With me here to testify are Cara Martinson with the Large-Scale Solar Association.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cara Martinson. I'm here today on behalf of the Large-Scale Solar Association, or LSA.

LSA's Members are principally responsible for the majority of the utility scale solar and storage on the grid today and are critical to future projects that are going to help California meet our climate and energy goals.

We support this bill because, as our author said, it updates an existing program whose intent was originally to allow solar development on Williamson act contracted lands that could no longer be farmed.

This bill simply updates that program to allow the consideration of water constraints so that farmers that are losing water because of sigma or other issues and provides them an additional economic benefit through the development of solar. We really think we're at an inflection point right now.

Climate change is the most significant threat to human health and our communities, but we have many equally important goals, such as preserving open space and farmland so we can feed the state and the nation, creating and maintaining vibrant and sustainable communities, and also preserving our groundwater resources. And we do not believe these goals are mutually exclusive.

And that is really what the intent of this bill is.

And at the heart of the discussion, and why I think there's so many stakeholders involved, is it really is about the Williamson Act, which is a very successful tax policy program that's been on the books since 1965, and it provides a tax benefit to farmers in exchange for keeping their land in production.

However, this policy has largely been untouched since 1965. And recognizing some of the changing landscapes, the legislature in 2011 developed the Solar Use Easement Program, which again was intended to allow for solar development on these lands that were no longer viable for agricultural use.

Unfortunately, as our author stated, this program has been severely underutilized for a variety of reasons, but only three projects have, according to the Department of Conservation, have been approved so far. So it's just not working for its intended purpose. And that is really our goal with this bill today.

Outside of the program, a Williamson Act contract can be canceled through several other mechanisms, but they're complicated and expensive. One is a non renewal process that takes 10 years. So if a farmer is losing water and they want to get out of the Williamson Act, it could potentially take 10 years to get out of that contract.

The other option is cancellation, which includes a significant fee, but it also requires the city or the county to approve that cancellation and make public findings that say the cancellation is in the public interest. And it has to be furthering the purposes of the Williamson Act, which is really difficult if you're converting land outside of agriculture.

So there are a lot of cities and counties that are very resistant to do that. And that's why we want to focus on an existing program, updating the criteria and making it more workable. We would like to thank the author and all of the folks that have been involved. We do intend to keep working on the bill.

And I just want to reiterate some of those key points. This is an entirely optional program, full CEQA. These projects will Ultimately pay property tax and there's a community benefit associated outside of a fee. Thank you.

Thank you for that. I see people getting ready to testify and support. Please name, affiliation and support on the bill.

Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Invenergy in support. Thank you.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association. Our members grow fresh produce throughout all of California and we are support as proposed to be amended. Thank you very much for working with us.

Good morning. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Cesar Diaz on behalf of Next Air Energy in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the Abundance Network in support.

Good morning. Mckinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in support.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and members. Erin Niemela on behalf of Intersect Power also in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Awet Kidane representing Clearway Energy in strong support.

Good morning. Kristin Olson-Cate with California Strategies on behalf of Terrigen here in support.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Thank you. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of the rural counties. We represent 40 of California's rural counties ranging in population from 1100 to 500,000. We really want to first thank the author and committee staff for working extensively with us and the sponsors.

We've had so many conversations about this bill and look forward to working with you in the future to refine the bill to get it into a place where we can hopefully get into support. I think we share a lot of the same objectives and a lot of the same frustrations. The solar use easement isn't working.

We want to improve the solar use easement so that we can put land to productive use. We're some of the strongest supporters of the Williamson Act, but where we don't have land, where we don't have adequate soil quality, we need to be able to put those lands to productive use to produce energy.

So I think we share a lot of the same goals, a lot of the same objectives. It's just a matter of how we get there. We appreciate the author's proposed amendments to eliminate the CEC from the process. I think that is a huge improvement. We still have a couple lingering issues that we need to see resolved.

We'd like to see our authority to impose mitigation requirements built back into the bill. We have some real serious concerns that we want to make sure that we can require project proponent to install a fence to protect the project from grazing cattle or something else. From children from becoming attracted nuisances.

So I think they're, they're issues that I think we generally agree on. We want to protect the project. It's just a matter of how we can get there. And then the non renewal piece, if a project proponent ends up not building a project, we would like the opportunity to come in and non renew.

It's kind of that simple. So I look forward to the opportunity to continue working with you. It's been a good discussion so far, but we remain opposed today and look forward to the rest of this year. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wants to be out on opposition?

Morning Chair, members. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau we're in opposition to the bill, although we appreciate the comments from RCRC and we're aligned in the sense that the bill's moving in the right direction with the elimination of the Energy Commission.

We still have some concerns with the bill and we'll continue to work as the bill moves to Agriculture Committee with the author's office. Thank you. With relevant committees. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else, name or affiliation and position on the bill? Seeing none. Taking it back to committee members. Any questions? Comments? Okay. Assembly Member Wilson, Go ahead.

Oh, I would just like thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think targets a particular issue for farmers. One of the, a few of the concerns I have align with RCRC and the Farm Bureau in particular my own Farm Bureau, and there's a big conversation in my district around preservation of farmland. Right.

And so I'm really mindful of that. And at the same time I want farmers to have the flexibility to be able to leverage their land to the benefit of their bottom line. And I think this is a reasonable use to be able to do that.

And so you already have committed and you've committed to me personally to continue that conversation. I am going to lay off today because my concerns center around the concerns of opposition and in particularly the concerns from the Farm Bureau. And so I want to see what happens with ag before the floor.

But I commend you for one doing working on this, for working through all the three committees that are. And really taking into consideration because the point of it is around farmers to take into consideration the needs of our farmers and our ag land and so commend you for that.

And so my hope that it gets out of committee today so you continue to do that good work and look forward to being able to support it on the board.

Assembly Member Ransom, did you have something?

Yes, I Also want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think you are looking to solve, you know, very important issue with our ability to move forward with our climate goals. And I do think that we, it is an opportunity to figure out what we can do with land that can't currently be used.

At the same time, representing the Central Valley, we have major concerns about the preservation of our farmland. And as we are seeking to solve some of our issues with water, the ability to be able to return those lands to use.

And then there's also the concern with the fact that there is the opportunity to currently use the solar use easement program. And as you mentioned, it's not being utilized. And part of that may be because of the, the difference in what you're proposing today with regards to taxes.

And we really want to make sure that this program is utilized the way you intend it to be utilized and not used as a tool to circumvent, you know, stepping out of the Williamson Act.

With that said, I do appreciate that you've accepted amendments and been able to move this forward and I do trust you to continue working on it. And because this is triple referred, I happen to sit on two of those committees.

So I will be definitely supporting it today because I would love to see you continue to move towards something that works for both agriculture, local, local government and the intent of the Williamson Act, as well as moving us forward with our climate goals.

So thank you again for your thoughtful work and I look forward to seeing how this continues to progress and see you in the next committee. Great.

Any other Committee Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just appreciate the conversation. It's an incredibly complex bill, but my hope is that we can land in a good place. And I genuinely appreciate the conversations with opposition. I think we learn a lot more. We get a better product from that. So. And of course, the work from you, Mr.

Chair, and your staff and respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Assembly Wicks, for presenting this bill and for working with the Committee. I will be supporting your bill today with the understanding that you will adopt the amendments you have shared with us at the first procedural opportunity. The motion is. We do have a motion and a second, correct? Not a second. We need a second.

We have a second. The motion is do pass to the Utilities and Energy Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

The measure is out. Thank you. Congratulations. We're going to go back on file order. I thought I saw Assembly Member Avila Farias. No, Avila Farias is not here. Yeah, but then next we have Caloza on the agenda. That's agenda item number six. AB 920 by Caloza.

Good morning Chair Carillo and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB920, which aims to streamline housing approvals in California by creating a centralized application portal to track housing projects in cities and counties with over 150,000 residents.

I also wanted to share that AB920 is also part of a larger package within the Assembly, along with many of our colleagues that you've heard from already, to really address our housing crisis. For decades, our state faced has faced a severe housing crisis.

High rents and mortgages continue to outpace inflation and stretch budgets too close to the breaking point for many residents. One of the key drivers for our housing shortage is a slow and fragmented local permitting process.

And right now, many applicants navigate multiple layers of bureaucracy while being referred to various departments and approval processes just to understand what the status of their project is. Navigating an unknown portal to check on the status update adds time, cost confusion and ultimately delays to the process. For smaller builders and nonprofits, it can be insurmountable.

AB920 responds directly to this challenge by requiring local agencies to offer a centralized application portal that allows applicants to track and manage their permits all in one place. Several cities, including Sacramento and San Diego, have similar portals in place. This Bill increases transparency and improves the efficiency of housing project approvals.

One US study found that even a three month acceleration in permitting timelines could increase construction by 6% and result in increased property taxes for local governments by up to 16%.

As policymakers, we have a responsibility to reduce unnecessary delays in the housing approval process, not just to help builders, but to deliver homes faster for Californians who desperately need them. And tracking and data is a big part of that.

I hope you'll join me in being a part of the solution to our housing crisis and AB 920 takes a step in the right direction.

I also wanted to add that I would like to thank the chair, the Committee staff for your assistance and I'm happy to accept the amendments that you have proposed to help guide local agencies with making sure that we implement AB920 efficiently and properly with all of our local governments.

And with that I would like to introduce my two witnesses. And thanks again to all of our housing Advocates in this space for their tremendous work on our housing package this year. The first is Jacob Pierce from Abundant Housing La and the second is Nolan Gray from California yimby. And we'll start with Jacob.

Thank you, Chair Carillo and Committee Members. I'm Jacob Pierce with Abundant Housing Los Angeles housing advocacy organization working toward a more affordable California. Across the state, renters are struggling to get ahead would be home buyers are struggling to buy and several million are currently overpaying in rent or experiencing homelessness.

All driven by a shortage of two and a half million homes. So Abundant Housing has been organizing across Los Angeles County for a decade now. One thing that we've learned from some of our 89 local governments is that housing approval processes are confusing.

And not just for the volunteers advocating for homes, but also for the people working to build them. Cities rely on outdated, fragmented systems. In a lot of places, you have to call on the phone to figure out if anyone has even opened your application. That wastes time, drives up costs and blocks new housing from moving forward.

So AB920 is a simple fix requiring cities over 150,000 residents to stand up. A centralized online portal where developers can track permits, submit documents, pay fees. No bells and whistles, just basic functionality that larger cities should already have.

You might imagine the analogy of a shipping company like FedEx or Amazon notifying customers of the status of their shipment and where in the world it is. Except that in this instance, instead of a box or a package is a housing permit application.

And instead of just sharing status updates, the portal will also apprise builders on next steps that they need to complete in order to keep their application moving forward. So this will help local governments meet their state housing housing obligations and also help us all build the housing that we need. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and research at California yimby and a licensed city planner, here to speak in support of AB 920. California is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work and raise a family.

A major barrier to new homes is the lack of transparency in our permitting processes. Developers often face long and unpredictable delays simply trying to figure out where their application stands and what the next steps are. This not only adds cost and uncertainty, it disturbs the small and midsize builders.

We really need to get ourselves out of a housing shortage. AB 920 addresses this by requiring large cities and counties to create a centralized online portal for housing applications where applicants can submit materials and track the status of their application in real time.

This is a small but meaningful change and improves efficiency, it boosts accountability and it gives both local governments and builders a clearer path to delivering homes. This Bill preserves local control and only applies to jurisdictions over 150,000 in population. And it allows cost recovery through permit fees.

By improving transparency and reducing unnecessary delays, AB 920 will help get more homes built faster. I would reinforce this as part of the Fast Track housing package which is a bipartisan package of bills designed to speed up permitting and in the California housing crisis. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your support for AB920. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Our letter didn't arrive on time, but we are in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any opposition in the room? Seeing none. I take it to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns? I'll second the Bill. We had a first and a second no comments. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much to the Committee and to the chair. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Assemblymember Coloza for accepting the Committee amendments. With the amendments, I will be supporting your Bill. The motion is do pass Amended to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary Please call the roll

[Roll Call]

The Bill goes out 6-0. We'll leave it open for the Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you. Congratulations. We are gonna go to file order number 8, AB 1061. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. We are in the coziest room of the Capitol and we all fit so happily. Today I present AB 1061 which ensures the California Home Act applies in historic districts while protecting historic structures and complementing neighborhood architecture.

California faces a severe housing shortage, especially for middle income and small multifamily housing near jobs and transit. Restrictive zoning has made it illegal to build homes in over 70% of the state, driving displacement and forcing California into severe rent burdens.

The California act known as Senate Bill SB9, and I know, we all know SB9 who have worked in this space, legalized and streamlined the development of duplexes and small scale lot splits across California, including in historically exclusionary single family neighborhoods.

Small urban log splits and additional duplexes add density and lower cost homes in existing neighborhoods, increasing housing supply and afford portability. However, SB 9's exclusion of historic districts has created a loophole that opponents of new housing exploit to block development. And we've actually seen some cities fight this.

Pasadena, San Mateo, others. Local groups frequently misuse historic preservation designations to prevent homeowners from using SB 9, significantly limiting the law's effectiveness. Early implementation data shows SB 9 has been severely underutilized with this loophole being a key barrier to increasing housing production.

And I want to spend a moment on this because some of us who have been here for a while remember the headlines on SB 9, in essence that single family homes were going to now become extinct, that this was the end. And what we have seen is the exact opposite.

If any of you call your own cities and planning departments and ask how many permits have been pulled for SB 9s, you will find a staggering very few because simply it is not being utilized. Yet, the narrative remains.

AB 1061 closes the loophole by allowing homeowners in historic districts to build additional homes and duplexes while maintaining historic preservation protections. I do want to just also add to that as we've been asked, is this going to ruin our neighborhood's character? All of those unique qualities of historic architecture, which I too enjoy.

I know that that is a pride of many neighborhoods and in the section 6 states any development shall not demolish more than 25% of exterior wall area nor affect the character defining exterior features of the principal elevation of a contributing structure of a historical district.

This means that you can't alter or demolish any of the character-defining features of the street facing, the facade or roof or any of the structure that contributes to the historic district. And I'm spending time on this just to give you the look of two cities in Orange County.

San Clemente and San Juan are known for their mission-style building with architecture that reflects the past. And yet there has been many modern structures that have been built either adjacent or within those same neighborhoods that try to mimic and complement these. So we can do two things at once.

We can retain and appreciate historic structures while also building. Today, I have two witnesses with me and I will let them introduce themselves as my papers are mixed up here.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you Assemblymember. I appreciate that. Chair Members, of the Committee. Thank you for having me. My name is Daniel Friedman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I am a land use attorney with and partner with the law offices of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler and Mitchell. I'm here as someone with extensive experience dealing with housing development.

I primarily represent home builders and home developers. And I also have substantial experience with the conflicts that arise, typically when they deal with historic preservation issues as well as in the context of SB 9. I'd like to walk you through quickly what the Bill does and does not do.

It does not allow SB9 development on individually designated, individually designated landmark sites. Those sites remain excluded from SB 9. It does allow SB 9 projects on contributing properties to a historic district, but with clear and very reasonable limitations. Specifically, as the Assemblymember noted, no more than 25% of the exterior walls can be demolished as part of the project.

None of the character defining features can be demolished as part of the project. And this is intended to ensure that you maintain the visual, the visual and architectural character of that structure when you do that project. Importantly, the Bill also allows local agencies to adopt objective design guidelines for the additions and expansions as part of that project.

So again, it limits the amount of the existing building that can be developed, but it also empowers local agencies to implement design guidelines to expand on that character.

What we're talking about really is balance and a compromise between those who believe historic districts can and should contribute to our housing goals and those who want to ensure that the unique character of these neighborhoods also is not lost in that process.

California's housing crisis is real, and our response must include every neighborhood, including those of historic character.

With this Bill, I think the state affirms that contributing structures and storage districts are important, but they are also part of living communities and allow gentle density under clear rules with respect to the built environment as a step towards housing equity and good planning. Thank you.

Hi. Max Dubler, policy manager at California YIMBY, here to answer any technical questions about the Bill.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to be added in support, seeing none. Yes, I see somebody. Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Bob Mailer representing Fieldstead and Company nd Orange County philanthropist Howard Amundsen Jr. in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, California and support. Thank you. Thank you.

Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the room in opposition? Seeing none. I take it back to the Committee. Committee Members, any questions, comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And respectfully, as for your aye vote.

Thank you for your work on this issue. I will be supporting the Bill today. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. I'm sorry, I need a motion and a second. We have a first and a second. Call the roll, please.

AB 1061, do pass. [Roll Call]

The roll right now is 5-1. We'll leave it open for other Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members Moving on to AB 818. Avila Farias Rivieri, Assembly Member.

Hello. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 818. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank staff for their hard work on this. As part of the bipartisan Fast Track housing package above 818 Streamlines permits for temporary manufactured housing, allowing residents to safely stay in their property while we're building.

After a natural disaster, committees north communities north and Southern and the south have faced devastating wildfires losing thousands of homes overnight recovery can feel endless. Current laws lack clear process of permitting for single family homes after a disaster leading to a costly and time consuming delays even just as we live on site during rebuilding.

AB818 offers a ready to implement pathway using lessons from past disasters to help families return to their property with a safe place to live. A streamlined approval for the state approved modular prefabricated and manufactured homes requires utility providers to respond to connection requests within 30 days. This exempts affected properties from solar panel mandates under Title 24.

When disaster strikes, families need housing, not red tape. While our technical witness could not join us today, I'm pleased to be joined by Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research at the California nimi in support.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm Senior Director of Legislation and research at California YIMBY. Here in a strong support support of AB818. In January, tens of thousands of my neighbors in Los Angeles County lost their homes. God willing, it will never happen again.

But our role as planners and policymakers and advocates is to have a plan for when it does. AB818 is a key part of that plan, guaranteeing homeowners the right to quickly rebuild their homes and in a safe manner.

This Bill is part of the Fast Track housing package, a bipartisan package of bills to speed up permitting and end the California housing crisis. For this reason, we respectfully request your support for AB 818. Thank you.

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

Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Circulate San Diego and support, thank you.

Not yet in opposition. Shoot me. One second. No one else needs support from the audience. Okay. Now, any primary witnesses in opposition? Are you a primary witness or chest?

I think I'm the sole opposition, so.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah. Mr. Chair, madam, Members, Nancy Chadis Espinosa, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, pleased first to thank the Committee for working with us and the author, and we are able to remove our opposition with the amendments that are taken today.

Thank you.

Hello. Spencer Saks. On behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, the California Special Districts Association, and the California Municipal Utilities Association, we greatly appreciate the Committee's work and amendments, and we appreciate the author and we look forward to reviewing them in print. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go off script a little bit. I always enjoy seeing kids coming to the Capitol and it's happy to see you guys here. Thank you for coming to experience what a hearing looks like. Thank you for being here. Okay. Hope you enjoy your experience with that. Take it back to Committee Members. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. And I'll offer the second. And I was gonna note, I was concerned about the opposition concern with the impact fees and such, which would impact school facility funding, especially when there's changes, because the law already protects. And so, as I understand it, that was the amendment. You've taken that amendment and they've removed the opposition.

So I just wanted to know that that was extremely important as someone who worked on the education bond and is fighting for, you know, to make sure we have enough funding for our schools is extremely important. So I appreciate you taking that amendment, and that's why I was happy to offer the second.

Any other Committee Member with comments? You know, we do have a first and a second. Would you like to close? So we did get a second by Ms. Ramson I first. I do have a first by Ranson. Second by Wilson. First and second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Chair and Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Avila Faris, for working with the Committee and accepting the Committee amendments. With the Committee amendments, I will be supporting your Bill. The motion is do pass as amended to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call. The roll.

[Roll Call]

8-0 The Bill is out. We'll leave it open for Other Committee Members to add on. Congratulations. Thank you. Not seeing other Members. Super. Senior bills. We have a Committee Member that is going to present AB660 by Wilson.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members, I am pleased to present AB 660 which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. AB 66660 strengthens existing laws by setting clear timelines and accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits and service applications.

It ensures housing projects aren't delayed by giving the applicants a way to move forward when local agencies don't follow the rules. While past housing streamlining bills have made progress, challenges still remain.

The California Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reforms final report makes clear that despite state reforms, permitting delays and failures continue to be a major factor in in the housing crisis. Currently, delays in post entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up costs making homes less affordable for Californians.

Delays only exacerbate California's housing shortage and creates uncertainty for businesses and workers who rely on housing development for job opportunities. This Bill aims to streamline the housing approval process targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues.

It will also prohibit local agency inspectors from requiring the project to make changes in the field that would deviate from the plans the local agency already has approved.

It stops local agencies from dragging out the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limits how many times they can ask an applicant to revise and resubmit their plans if a local agency fails to meet the applicable shot clock deadline for acting on a complete application.

AB 660 authorizes the applicant to petition the court for a writ of mandate requiring the agency to approve the permit. Provide the application is both complete. Excuse me. Provided the application is both complete and meets all applicable standards. Targeting efficient inefficiencies in the housing approval process is a crucial step in addressing California's housing crisis.

This Bill ensures that housing project applicants are not being bogged down by by cumbersome permit approval process. And I have with me to testify on the importance of this legislation are Steve Cruz on behalf of CBIA and Deborah Carlton on behalf of the Apartment Association.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Member Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and we are the sponsors of the measure and very appreciative of the Assembly woman introducing it. AB660 is critical legislation needed to improve the efficiency, fairness and accountability of the post entitlement process for housing development projects.

As you know too well, California is in the midst of an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis. And despite the aforementioned prior legislative efforts, particularly the AB 2234 by Speaker Rivas, there are still a number of barriers that remain that would be addressed by the Bill.

So Building on speaker reverse 660 addresses these pertinent barriers head on and strengthen the existing framework by doing the following prohibiting last minute field changes that can contradict previously approved plans limiting excessive plan check resubmittals establishing legal remedies when local agencies fail to comply with established permit review timeframes and closing loopholes that currently allow indefinite extensions of the shot clock, thus eliminating the major source of certainty in the process.

Again, despite the prior efforts, developers across California continue to encounter a lack of enforceable remedies when timelines are missed. Local agencies that refuse to permit third party reviews to ease caseload workload burdens, excuse me and field inspections require deviations from plans that were already approved. And again, AB660 would address these issues.

It's an important measure for developer community and to ensure we can help solve some of our housing challenges. So we ask for your aye vote with me here today is Nick Camarada in case there are technical questions related to it.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association I cannot overstate the importance of a Bill like this and the other bills that expedite the process. Our Members billed not only in California, but other states. The typical construction timeline in other states is two to three years. California is six to eight.

So as you can imagine, the problem in California cannot be overstated and this Bill is extremely important. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses want to be added in support? Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Samantha Corbin on behalf of Housing California. And support, thank you.

Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf. Of Circulate San Diego in support, thank you.

Sarah Pollo Moo, California Retailers Association in support

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Business Properties Association. In support

Chair Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY and strong support.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? No, no primary witness is not position anybody want to be out on in opposition on the record so this is.

Spencer Saks on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and the California Special Districts Association. We just wanted to say we greatly appreciate the Committee and the author working with us on the amendments and we look forward to reviewing them. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Seeing no one else Committee Members questions? Comments? We do have a motion by Assemblyman Ransom. Please go ahead.

No, I just want to say this Bill's a long time coming. I'm so shocked that we took so long to get to the. This Bill. We've definitely seen in local government that, that it's a moving target. Right. And which really just exacerbates our issues and, and cost more money for folks.

And if we're really serious about, you know, asking the development community to help us with our goals and we have to be realistic. And so I appreciate the merits and spirit of this Bill and I'm happy to support it. Thank you.

See no one else.

I'm sorry. Sorry Chair.

That's okay.

And recognizing

we need a second motion. Second second over there too. I'm sorry. Go ahead, please. Close.

No, I appreciate, I appreciate the comments from my colleagues as well as those who've added on as co authors.

It's extremely important as as was noted, you know I happened to before coming to the Assembly was part of the home building process and for a publicly traded home builder and the issues that we have with being able to bring project and regularly as a Member of the finance team leading it, I would go to these meetings with our, with our corporate office who were based in other states and they were just like really we can get this done so easy here.

What is up with you in California? And so I'm really happy to build on, you know, the leadership of our speaker in this space and to work with the those who are doing this permitting reform.

And so as was noted, it strengthens existing law by closing the loopholes and timeline for local agencies to process these post entitlement permits, provides remedies for when people fail, ensure that we are taking the proper stakes to address this housing crisis.

As was noted from my colleague that it's about time that we cooperate with our developers since we're forcing them to cooperate with us. So with that I appreciate the Committee amendments and their work on this Bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And you do accept the Committee amendments?

Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you for working on this important measure to expedite permitting and other processes for housing projects. We share a commitment to. We share a commitment to efforts that will help our state produce more housing more quickly. I appreciate your work with the Committee on the Amendments and I will be supporting your Bill with the amendments.

The motion we have a first and a second. The motion is to pass this amendment to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ace here. The bill's out. We'll leave it open for other authors to add on later on. We'll go down to the next Seminole. First we want to clarify the item we had. First can have a seat. Item number one on the agenda, AB24 to clarify the status of AB24. DeMaio.

The Bill did receive a motion, but not a second. The Bill is held in Committee without recommendation that it does not die. I did not hear it. I did not hear that. But we'll wait for him to come back then. Did anybody hear a second?

No. There was no second. No.

Well, hopefully he'll come back then. There was no second. So please go ahead. Assemblymember Hadwick, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members, I would like to first thank you, the Chairman. I want to thank the chair and the Committee for working with us on this critical issue. Thank you for being so collaborative with my staff. We happily accept all of the amendments.

When a law, Executive order or state agency directive imposes a state mandate, a local government must be reimbursed for implementing this new mandate. These mandates are usually in the form of a new program or a higher level of service for an existing program.

State mandated programs carried out by local governments are critical for Californians health, safety and quality of life. The process to get a mandate approved for payment often takes several years, all while local governments are forced to comply with state mandates using their own money.

Unfortunately, California owes cities, counties, special districts, schools and community colleges over $1.8 billion in unpaid state mandates. Even after reimbursement is paid out, an audit may force the local government to pay the state back.

This happened to Shasta county in my district who was forced to pay back over $1 million for for money that was spent on a child abduction and recovery program. This program was approved for reimbursement in 1979, almost 50 years ago. Unfortunately, the repayment must occur even if the state owes a local government money for other unpaid mandates.

For small rural counties with tight budgets, repaying even a fraction of that little reimbursement they are owed can cripple their financial health. Assembly Bill 964 creates a mechanism that allows a local government to offset and any reduced reimbursement or any other unpaid reimbursement claims.

This Bill brings financial relief to cash strapped local governments by helping them hold on to critical funding for their under resourced communities. The cash flow in particular for our small rural counties, is very tight and counties are constantly being asked to add state mandated programs or policies.

As a Legislature, we should be finding ways to bring our counties relief and help them thrive, not causing fiscal stress because the state is not timely in reimbursement. I represent 11 counties and they are owed millions of dollars that are critical to keep their everyday operations going.

AB964 is a modest and sensible solution to provide desperately needed fiscal flexibility for my communities.

A Bill that is supported by California State Association of County Auditors, California Association of School Business Officials, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Rural County Representatives of California, Sacramento county and Urban counties of California, and also sponsored by the Shasta County Auditor.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I am joined today by Shasta County Auditor Comptroller Nolda Short.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Carrillo and Members of the Committee. I appreciate you allowing me to speak here. Nolda Short, Shasta County Auditor Comptroller I want to share kind of the necessity for AB964 and why it's so important, especially for our community.

Last year we had an audit of one of our claims, which was our largest claim that went back four years, and and we were required to pay almost 100% of that. So that comes to $1.2 million. And I'm not here to dispute some counties are still disputing whether they agree with those audit findings or not.

So let's just for this purposes, assume that we owe that money back. And so in talking with the state, we had two options for repayment.

We could either cut a check to them, or they would seize all of our future mandates until this 1.1 million is paid back for us, that will be somewhere between 10 to 20 years. So all the while in the future we'll be performing mandates and being required to perform those mandates.

We'll have no reimbursement for the foreseeable future. And so I approached the state controller and asked them, is there the ability for us to take because as we know, the state owes 1.8 billion to counties or to local governments, not just counties.

For Shasta County, they owe us 2.2 million for claims that we submitted between 2004 and 2014 for services that were provided. I would say that they are current for anything beyond that. So anything we're submitting now, they are reimbursing us now. But we have this backlog amount that we have no ability to access.

And so the answer that I was given is that they opined that if it's not appropriated in the budget, it is not available. And so it's really untouchable money for counties. And so that is what generated this legislation.

And I kind of viewed it as a win win because I feel like it allows us to access money that's rightfully due to us.

And it also allows the state to be able to write off some of this delinquency that they have, and they have a delinquency report that they do every year and post on the state controller's website.

And so it would help them to reduce some of that delinquency and be able to resolve some of those issues of back payments.

So thank you. Anybody in the audience wants to be added on in supports to your name, affiliation and position.

Mr. Chair Members Matthew Cyberling on behalf of. The State Association of County Auditors and strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members Gene Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California as well as my colleagues at the Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties, all in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members Michelle Gill on. Behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? We do have a motion to move the Bill in a second. Committee Members, any questions? Comments? No. Would you like to close?

I thank you for hearing us out and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your work on this Bill and for accepting the Committee's amendments. Thank you. I will be supporting your Bill today. The motion is to pass to the education Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

8 - 0. The Bill is out. Congratulations. So much. We do need to get Members to the hearing room. Assembly Member Wynn Hoover and Haney staff. You can let him know that we need him in local golf. In the meantime, we do need a motion for the items on non consent consent calendar moved by Stefani. Is there a second for consent items seconded by Ramos. Secretary, please call the roll for consent items.

[Roll Call]

8-0 consent calendar items. Measures are out. We'll leave the roll open for the Members to add on again. Members Wynn, Hoover and Haney. Staff reviews, please get a hold of them. We need them on local government. Thank you. We're going to take a small recess with that.

That was a very small recess. Thank you for being here. Seminary Member Nugyen. So that's agenda item number 12. AB 1223. Nguyen whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair, Members, Committee staff. I want to start off by accepting the Committee's amendments and want to thank the Committee staff for the time and thoughtful it went in helping to shape this Bill in a way that better reflects local priorities.

AB 1223 give communities in Sacramento county the option to move forward with transportation improvements when they. When they are ready. With local support and oversight built in the into the process. Right now, Sacramento Transportation Authority can only propose a transportation sales tax to the entire county.

The reality is not every part of the county is ready to move forward. At the same time, this Bill gives STA the ability to bring forward a measure for just a portion of the county and makes sure that any funding stays in the area that approved it. This is not about raising new taxes.

It is about giving communities the tool to act when they are ready. With input from local leaders and a vote of the people. We are in conversation with local and regional stakeholders including seacog and we have worked closely with Committee staff to make sure the Bill is narrow, targeted and respectful of local governments.

Here in support to testify and speak is Kevin Bewsey from Sacramento Transportation Authority and to answer any questions as well too.

Yeah, thank you very much. So good morning Chair and Assembly Members. Yeah. So you know, this is a Bill that I think SDA is really excited about. We've been in and around for about 37 years managing essentially Measure A within Sacramento county.

We have 16 elected board Members on that board and we presented this Bill concept to them in October and then in November for approval. It'll give us some flexibility to obviously as the some of them are noted on where a sales tax measure should apply.

Specifically, it is flexibility that similar agencies have already, whether that SACRT or Placer County Transportation Planning Agency already have that authority. So we're just asking for similar authority. And then also on the, on the tolling part of it, I think you know STA is a future Member of the Capillary Regional Tolling Authority which is.

Which is an effort to bring some tolling facilities with. To. To. To the region. But we're the only self help county within, within the Sacramento region, within SE COG itself. So we have resources to bring to those projects. Most of those projects are actually in Sacramento county.

So giving us the ability to utilize both toll revenue and sales tax revenue to finance those projects that make sense for Both and STA and SEOG seems like a good thing to do. We appreciate the support on this item. Thank you.

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

Audrey Ratajczak On behalf of Sacramento County in support.

Thank you, Audrey. Seeing no one else. Any principal witnesses in opposition? See no one. How about any opposition? See no opposition. Committee Members Questions? Comments Assemblymember Wilson

As the author knows, we've had lots of conversation around this Bill from at the staff level and both Member to Member and with the supporters of this Bill. This Bill is coming to my Committee in transportation and as said, and the author is aware that I have serious concerns about it from a transportation lens.

And because of that, I won't be supporting it in Committee today. So I just wanted to make sure that my colleagues knew why I was laying off of this. It will be in my Committee and will address the concerns I have that are more focused on transportation.

Thank you Assemblyman Wilson. Anyone else? Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you. Obviously have tremendous respect for all the organizations bringing this forward and for the author as a representative though Sacramento county and as someone who has some pretty big concerns about the taxpayer implications of this won't be able to support today.

See no one else in the Committee Members, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Assemblymember Wilson during the break. We did have really good robust conversation around some areas that we can work through and I really appreciate that. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting this Bill and for accepting the Committee amendments with you to you accept Committee amendments. Right. I'm supportive of your efforts to improve transportation in the Sacramento region and we'll be supporting your Bill today. We did have a motion and a second the motion is to pass this amendment to the Transportation Committee.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

6-0 the motions out. We'll leave it open to other Members to add on. Thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you. Members.

Moving on to item number 13 on the agenda. AB 1308 Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1308.

I want to start by saying I'm accepting the Committee amendments and I want to thank Committee staff for working closely with our office on this Bill. AB 1308, aims to streamline the inspection process and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for residential projects containing one to 10 units that are less than 40ft tall.

It does so by allowing applicants to use third party professionals to inspect a completed work if the local building department takes more than 30 days to conduct the inspection. California faces a severe and worsening housing crisis which is marked by a shortage of homes sufficient to meet the needs of all Californians at all income levels.

Delays in local government inspections of completed housing developments are referenced as a significant constraint restricting the housing production pipeline. To that effect, lengthy delays at this stage keep tenants from occupying completed housing and increases costs all around.

Additionally, delays and uncertainty at this stage also reduce the predictability needed for developers to plan effectively, further exacerbating California's housing shortage. With that I would like to introduce my witnesses and would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Nolan Gray, I'm the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY and a licensed city planner here as a proud sponsor to speak in support of AB 1308.

Our state is in the midst of a severe housing crisis and there's a lot that state legislators don't control when it comes to housing. But one thing you do control is whether there are excessive delays in the permitting process.

According to a recent study by researchers at Rand, it takes on average 49 months or four years to go from an initial proposal to a completed apartment building in California. Small scale missing middle housing and even single family homes likewise take quite a lot longer than you might have expected.

This is not just how long it takes to build housing. In Texas it takes about half the time for similar projects to move forward, and in Colorado it can take only three years. That extra necessary year of delays can and does often kill housing projects both affordable and market rates.

These extended and unpredictable delays are an important factor in why California has some of the highest construction costs in the country and why we built so little housing.

The most indefensible delays in my estimation are when a fully entitled permitted constructed housing unit is sitting and waiting empty simply because an inspector has yet to come out and sign off or provide the necessary feedback to make corrections. All too often, small local developers across California report waiting weeks, sometimes even months, for inspectors to come out.

And these are fully built housing units that are sitting empty. AB 1308 offers a straightforward solution that supports both local governments and home builders. It allows licensed and insured third party inspectors to insist on conducting these inspections when cities face constraints and are unable to complete the work in 30 days.

This ensures much needed housing projects continue moving forward while easing the administrative burdens on local planning departments, especially in a post disaster recovery context where cities really need to move quickly and are probably well above capacity. Importantly, AB 1308 empowers cities to maintain oversight over these third party inspections.

Indeed, it requires them to review these inspections and it provides them with an additional tool to manage heavy workloads. This is a smart reform that reflects international and increasingly US best practice.

It's been adopted in various states at this point and I would flag that this Bill is part of the fast track housing package, which is a bipartisan package to get California building again. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support on AB 1308. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity to speak. I very much appreciate it. My name is Daniel Freeman and I'm a partner with the law offices of Jeffer, Mangels Butler and Mitchell, here to speak to you on this Bill which I hope will help solve some of our housing issues.

I work with home builders through the full arc of residential construction. That includes starting from project conception, through project permitting, inspections, and all the way through sale and delivery. In nearly every jurisdiction across California, the inspection process is a persistent and common bottleneck.

For small scale home builders, these delays aren't just an inconvenience, they are a direct threat to the viability of their projects. Each day, each day of delay has a financial consequence. Construction loans carry very high interest rates and when a project sits idle, the those costs accrue.

Material costs can rise and perhaps most critically, subcontractors, framers, plumbers, electricians can be knocked off their schedules if they can't compete. If these subs can't complete their portion of the work when planned, they may be forced to leave the job altogether and come back several weeks. So there are cascading impacts due to inspection schedule issues.

By allowing a certified private inspector, professionals who hold the same standards as their municipal counterparts to handle inspections for small housing projects, we can create a system that is faster and more flexible without compromising safety and quality. They're licensed, they're trained, they do quality work.

And in fact, many jurisdictions already allow for this type of inspection and use of private professionals. And this Bill has never been more needed. As noted by my colleague here, local governments across California, including cities in Los Angeles where I reside, are facing tightening budgets and staffing constraints.

And at the same time we were hoping, hoping to see a surge in housing projects as communities try to rebuild. This is a common sense solution that helps local agencies get more homes built faster and allows small builders to avoid risk and costs and overruns which always get passed on to the consumers and homeowners. Thank you.

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

Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Circulate San Diego in support.

Thank you. Any principal witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. No opposition. Bring it back to Committee Members for questions. We have a motion and a second, no questions. Would you like to. No questions. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Yes. So first of all, I want to thank the author for this Bill and I definitely understand the need for it. In looking at the both the Bill and the analysis, it looks like there are two times this can be applied.

One being if there is a new development and then the other being if there is construction or remodeling or something like that. And the Bill allows people to at their own expense, expense be able to bring in this third party, which I think is great.

My only concern is that sometimes folks are doing remodeling with like low income or FHA or things like that and maybe they don't have the ability to go in their own pocket and pay more.

So is this, are the rates, is there any provision that will require that the fee be similar to what they would pay to the local government? Or are we potentially looking at a disparity between the haves and have-nots?

Like I can afford, you know, whereas my neighbor who's doing a remodeling project cannot afford to pay, you know, the same as like a big developer, they have more money to do that.

So I'm just wondering if you can, or someone can speak to the ability to ensure that this is an equitable thing and not something where if you have money you can circumvent slow government because that is a concern.

I'll let my witness respond to that and then I'll also add a comment, but I'll let them go first.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for the question. So nobody would be required to use a third party applicant. But to your point about costs, this would presumably result in a lower fee from with the city.

So the applicant would be able to potentially hire somebody to do this work and then have that adjusted in any fee that they would owe the local jurisdiction. So I think there's relatively minimal risk here.

Hopefully if there are certain applicants that do opt to hire third party inspectors and if that does cost more, hopefully that relieves workloads on the public inspection side and so those projects. But happy to take feedback and recommendations on how we can guarantee that all projects have access to this.

Thank you.

Yeah. And so just to add on to that, I think obviously the goal of the Bill is to offset, right. The actual fee for the government as well. And I believe we also took a Committee amendment that extends the length of time for that authorization as well or that fee reimbursement. So certainly open to ideas on that.

But I think the goal of the Bill is just to improve efficiency in the entire process. And so if we can reduce the workload on our local governments, hopefully that'll free them up to be more efficient as well. In addition to this option for people that are remodeling or building new homes.

Any other Committee Members questions? Comments? No? Would you like to close, Assemblymember Hoover.

Yeah, so appreciate the opportunity. I obviously want California to be a place where my kids maybe one day might be able to afford to buy a house. And you know, more and more we're seeing more young people leaving the state. I would love to see more of them stay and invest here in the future of California.

And so that's the big reason I introduced the Bill. It is part of the fast track for housing package which is a bipartisan effort and would urge your aye vote on it. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember for working with the Committee on Amendments. With the amendments I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amendmended to the Housing and Community Development Committee. We do have a first and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1308 do pass as amended to Housing. [Roll Call] 9-0.

It is 90. The Bill is out. Congratulations and we'll leave the roll open for those who want to add on. With that we go to the last item on the agenda. Item number 14. AB 1445 by Haney Assembly Member, when you're ready.

All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. I want to thank you and your Committee for working with us and accept the Committee amendments. AB 1445 is a way to help our downtowns recover more quickly and rebound stronger.

It would provide necessary tools to support the creation of affordable mixed use housing on former commercial spaces in downtowns across California by providing the much needed financing to make those pencils project allowing for downtown recovery districts to be created. Right now that's only something that is available to the city and County of San Francisco, which is great.

We're in the process of doing it. But the challenges that we're facing and these opportunities are not unique to San Francisco. There are many cities across the state who might want to do this and are telling us they want to do this and deserve that opportunity to opt in and create these districts. With me in support today is Amelia Zamani from the California Travel Association.

Good Morning Chair and Members. As the Assembly Member said, my name is Amelia Zamani. I'm the Director of Government affairs and Public Policy for the California Travel Association. We are the advocacy organization representing the travel and tourism industry in California.

CalTravel serves over 230 Member organizations including destinations, lodging, attractions, transportation companies and others for whom travel and tourism advocacy is important. According to our partners at Visit California, Travelers infused $156.4 billion into California's economy last year, which exceeds spending in 2019.

Before the pandemic devastated our industry, last year's spending supported 1.2 million jobs and generated $12.6 billion in local and state tax revenue. Unfortunately, the industry is facing headwinds from inflation and the continued slow return of business meetings and international travel.

From the difficulty of forecasting future trends to alarming dips across sectors and global headlines casting doubt on travel to the U.S. the industry is at a precarious point. Not since the pandemic has the travel industry faced this level of uncertainty.

Because of this Cal Travel support of any legislation that will allow our industry to continue innovating and growing our economy. At a time when most cities across the state face budget shortfalls, we can't afford to allow our downtowns, the main cultural, economic and revenue generating districts of California's gateway cities, to further deteriorate.

AB 1445 will help Fund key projects that will revitalize California's downtowns by capturing property tax increases in areas that are most in need of economic support. This Bill would provide cities with the necessary tools to support the creation of downtown revitalization and economic financing districts which would create affordable mixed use housing.

When more residents live in the hearts of our cities, we see more vibrancy and a fast track to downtown recovery. As the Member mentioned, San Francisco is in the process of doing this work now.

After the implementation of last year's AB 2488, which 1445 seeks to expand statewide, San Francisco's analysis suggests that 50 properties within their proposed financing district has the capacity for over 4000 units which could be candidates to participate in this program. We want our downtowns to be open past 5pm 24.

Seven downtowns, increase tourist visitation, create jobs, increase tax revenue and benefit our entire economy. For these reasons and more, Cal Travel is urging your support of AB 1445. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody you want to add on please state your name, affiliation and position.

Good afternoon chair Members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Downtown Association representing the state's business improvement districts, we're proud to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Circulate San Diego and support.

Thank you. Thank you. Any principal witnesses in opposition? See none. No witnesses in opposition. Take it back to meeting. Members, comments, questions? We do have a motion and a second see. Yes. Assembly Member Stafani.

Would you like to close Thank you for presenting this Bill today I support your efforts to revitalize the downtown areas for our communities. Thank you for working with the Committee to limit the scope of where projects receiving the property tax incentives can build commercial to residential projects.

The motion is do pass this amendment to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8-0 the bill is out Congratulations. Thank you. Before we close for the day we have some some add ons and some bills that need to be added on. And Assemblymember Ransom, did you want to change your vote on an item?

I was here the entire time.

Okay, so add ons. We're going to do the hold roll for add ons for Members that were absent at a certain item.

[Roll Call]

There is no way for reconsideration because we never voted for the Bill. The Bill did not die. It received. It was held. It did receive a motion but there was no second. No one made a second at the time see was held.

I mean I am second. But you're saying that already passed.

It already passed because the role was. We cannot hold the roll open because it was never open due to the lack of a second. So that's.

[Roll Call]

Good question, Mr. Chair. On item 10. AB 1070. Is there a vote on that?

No, that was pulled by the author.

Thank you for the clarification.

So we're waiting for words. Thank you Members. We're waiting for Assembly Member Ward to add on. A couple of items for add ons.

Start with the consent calendar.

Going to start on consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

10-0 bills out. And with that, we conclude today's hearing.