Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the local government hearing for June 18, 2025. We're going to go through some rules first. Housekeeping items. I would like to remind the public that testimony will be in person for this in future hearing, as we no longer use a moderated telephone service.

We also accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. Protesters have appeared at some of our legislative hearings.

Some of these people have yelled from the audience, initiated threats to potential violence. These actions actually disrupted the legislative hearing and the person who caused the disruptions were removed from the hearing.

As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of their viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disrupts, 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's hearing are as follows: no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that these violations of these rules may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions. We have 15 bills today on our agenda.

Eight of these are proposed for the consent calendars and they're Item 1 and 2, SB 74 and 225 by Senator Seyarto. Item Number 3, SB 272 by Senator Becker. Item Number 7, SB 409 by Senator Archuleta. Item Number 9, SB 558 by Senator Padilla.

Items 11, 12, and 13, SB 735, 736, and 737, all by the Senate Local Government Committee. One of these bills has been pulled by the author—Item Number 15, SB 827 by Senator Gonzalez. There is a typo on the first Item 1 and 2, that's SB 74 and 255 by Senator Seyarto, just to be clear.

All other bills will be heard in file order unless we have a Senator present to present the Bill. 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. In addition, Assemblymember Haney, who's not here yet, will be stepping in for Assemblymember Ward today. And when he comes in, we'll welcome him. Let's see. We don't have a quorum, so we're going to proceed as a Subcommittee. Thank you.

The first item on our agenda is SB 333 by Senator Laird. Senator, when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 333 would allow San Luis Obispo voters to decide if the county can raise the combined local sales tax limit above 2% to support transportation services. San Luis Obispo has seven cities.

The county with the unincorporated area and at least one of the cities is or will potentially put above that level any transportation tax that would go to the voters. The voters did not approve a transportation tax three cycles ago by a handful of votes. It got so close to two thirds it didn't make it.

Next year, they're talking about putting it back and they need to have this measure in effect for it to go in effect countywide. Of the seven cities, I don't know the polite way to say it because I'm in public, but they don't usually agree on everything. And all seven cities have endorsed this Bill.

So, they, regardless of their views on revenue or things in general, believe this is the way to go. So, I would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote when you have a quorum, and here with me is Gus Corey on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, and he assures me he's going to be brief.

Thank you, Senator. Please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Gus Corey, on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, here in support as the sponsor the legislation. Happy to answer any questions. Ask for your "Aye" vote.

That was brief. Thank you. Any other Members in the Committee room that wants to go in support, for the record? Seeing none. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition of the measure? How about opposition in general? Seeing none. Mr. Vice Chair, or Assemblymembers, questions? Comments?

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Just at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote and I really appreciate your consideration.

Thank you for the time. We will get quorum. Thank you. Not seeing other Senators, authors of bills. Please, Senator staffs, let your Member know that we're waiting for them to present at local government, Room 447. With that, we're going to take a brief recess. Thank you.

We are going to resume to the hearing. We took a small recess, but now we see. Senator Becker, are you ready, sir? So that's item number five, SB 390 by Senator Becker.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 390, and thank you to the Chair and your Committee staff for your work on this bill. This bill addresses an unintended gap in the Mello-Roos Act that allows fully developed commercial properties with partial conservation easements to opt out of contributing to infrastructure funding.

The loophole was highlighted by 2019 court ruling that invalidated a legally approved CFD in South San Francisco despite receiving a 2/3 majority vote. Bill is narrowly crafted to apply only to properties within the regional shoreline of San Mateo County, where many parcels are subjected to two Bay Conservation Development Commission easements.

Developed properties benefit from local infrastructure, e.g. roads, water, sewers, and should contribute to their cost under current law. Some owners enjoy these services while avoiding their fair share of funding, shifting the burden to other taxpayers. This bill restores the intent of the Mello-Roos Act by ensuring that all benefiting properties participate equitably in funding improvements.

This is home. This area is home to one of the the world's largest biotech cluster. Probably maybe the largest. We'll find out shortly. And we've planned over 180 million in infrastructure upgrades. Without this bill, the city faces barriers to financing critical transportation and public service improvements. This bill does not remove conservation easements or cancel protections.

It still requires a formation of a CFD to meet the 2/3 voter approval threshold and ensures local control while resolving a technical obstacle to infrastructure investment. SB 390 upholds the will of local voters by preventing a minority of landowners from vetoing democratically approved community funding plans. I'm joined by James Coleman, Council Member, former mayor of the City of South San Francisco. Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chairperson Carrillo and Members of the Assembly Local Government Committee. Hello to our Assembly Member Catherine Stefani, proudly serving the City of South San Francisco as well. My name is James Coleman. I'm currently proud to serve as a Council Member for the City of South San Francisco.

And I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 390. A little bit about South San Francisco and where the community facilities district that we're envisioning would affect. The east of 101 area in South San Francisco is home to the largest and fastest growing biotechnology cluster in the world.

We like to call ourselves the biotech capital of the world. It currently includes over 250 biotech firms with 7.5 million square feet of space under construction or approved for development. And this area is a vital industrial and warehouse hub for the Bay Area.

We project that by 2040 the number of employees in this area will triple to 100,000 employees. To keep pace of this extraordinary growth and maintain our status as a global leader in biotech and innovation, our city is planning to modernize critical public infrastructure.

The CFD will support several essential improvements, such as multimodal transportation infrastructure, including transit, bike, and pedestrian upgrades. Think bus lanes and bike lanes. Enhanced public access to the Bay Trail and shoreline for nearby neighborhoods.

It will also support our state and our city's climate goals by ensuring that our commuters to our city's biotech hub are taking transit, that they're biking, walking, and using other non-motorized transportation to complete their commutes and reduce traffic.

And it will also enhance public access to our Bay Trail by making it safer and more convenient to bike, walk, or use transit options to get there from other parts of the city. SB 390 is a district specific bill that makes a very narrow technical amendment to the Mello-Roos Act, applies only to the City of South San Francisco, and will close the loophole that the Senator also mentioned prior.

The goal is to ensure that all property owners who will benefit from these public improvements, regardless of conservation easement status, will contribute fairly to the cost of those improvements. Because we know if there's some property owners who can exempt themselves, that does jeopardize the CFD as a whole. So in closing, thank you so much for your time and consideration, and I respectfully urge your support for SB 390.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to go on the record for support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none also. Mr. Vice Chair, any questions, comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank Senator Becker for bringing this forward, as a representative of South San Francisco. At least half of it. Assembly Member Diane Papan shares the other half. And I'm just so impressed with everything that South City is doing, and this bill is essential to facilitate all the great work.

Like I said, every time I go to South City, I meet with your mayor and Council Member James Coleman. I am really in disbelief of everything they have put forward to make that city the economic engine that it really is for that part of the Bay Area. So thank you so much for being here today, Mr. Coleman. Always good to see you. And thank you again, Senator Becker, for bringing this forward. I'm in full support, and I move the bill when it, when we have a quorum.

Thank you. No comments, Mr. Vice Chair? Good? No? Would you like to close, Senator?

Yeah. Thank you. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Stefani for your work on behalf of South San Francisco in general and your comments in support of this measure. I want to thank the council member for coming all the way up to testify here on this measure, and respectfully ask for an aye vote when the appropriate time.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. As you can see, we don't have a quorum yet. Once we do, we'll be calling for a question.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Have a good afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item Number 6, SB 394 by Senator Allen. All right, Senator, when you're ready.

How are you? Here we are. Ready to go? Okay, great. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members. This Bill has to do with water theft. Public water agencies are responsible for delivering safe, clean, and affordable drinking water throughout the state.

But water theft, interestingly, has proposed a serious threat to their ability to fulfill their responsibility to our constituents. We found that the most egregious form of water theft is through water hydrants, where we've got some pretty sophisticated commercial entities.

Unfortunately, this is not small-time stuff, but they will sometimes use specialized tools to steal water from hydrants for construction, for landscaping, for farming. And it's really started to impact our local water districts in a major way. I mean, improper—first of all, they can screw up the connection.

That can cause costly damage to hydrants, which then need to be repaired before they can be used again. Of course, any kind of dirty connections can contaminate the water quality. And then, as we saw with devastating effect in the Fires in my district, unexpected water withdrawal can lower water pressure, which affects nearby ratepayers.

It also, of course, could potentially affect emergency firefighting efforts. And then, you know, where does—this is not a victimless crime.

In the end of the day, all that lost water, that missing revenue from the stolen water, and the cost of repair is ultimately paid by law abiding ratepayers, our constituents, who are seeing their rates go higher and higher.

So, existing law authorizes fines ranging from $1,000 for the first violation to $3,000 for the third and additional violations, with a one year reset to penalties.

What we found is that for some of these serious commercial thieves, they just consider that the cost of doing business, I mean, that's way below the cost of the value of the water that they're oftentimes taking. It's absolutely an insufficient deterrent to prevent this criminal activity from occurring. So, we're basically looking to increase.

Well, to authorize local governments to increase the penalties for water theft to fines not exceeding $2,500 for the first violation, $5,000 for the second, and then, $10,000 for the third and each additional violation. It also removes the one year reset on fines, and it allows local agencies to recover full damages from water theft through civil action.

I mean, our intent is for these increased penalties and for the civil liability to never be used, because the hope is that this will deter this, this water theft from taking place in the first place.

So, with me here today, from my neck of the woods, we have Dave Pederson, who's the General Manager of Las Virgenes Municipal Water District and respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Dave Pederson, General Manager of Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. We're a retail water and wastewater agency in the Senator's district, on the western side of Los Angeles County. This has been a real problem that we've experienced in our district.

We estimate up to about 50 million gallons of water per year is lost because of water theft.

We have fire hydrants that are in remote areas and where they're not under the watchful eye of water operators or people, and that we have commercial operators that will come and hook up without authorization to those fire hydrants and take that water frequently outside of the district.

And it's been a problem, in talking with my colleagues across the state who also run water agencies, we are not alone in having this challenge. It's an issue that happens statewide. In terms of dollar amounts, we're talking about several hundred thousand dollars.

But the issue, as Senator Allen explained, is really less about the cost and the value of the water, and it's more about the potential damage that can be caused to the water system, both the fire hydrant and even the water system when those fire hydrants are shut too quickly.

There's also a potential for health and safety issue if those trucks were not to have the right protective equipment and that contaminated water, in some cases, could flow back into the public water. So, we appreciate your consideration of this.

We feel like the proposal and increase in the fines is going to really go a long ways in terms of serving as a deterrent. Thank you.

Thank you. Those in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Julia Hall of the Association of California Water Agencies, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Alfredo de Rodondo, on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District and East Valley Water District, in support.

Good afternoon. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, as well as Mesa Water District, in support.

Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Roseville's Environmental Utility Department and the City of Thousand Oaks, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Board Members. My name is Daniel Jenkins. I'm Vice President of the Board for West Valley Water District and we support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of Mission Springs Water District, also in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Cucamonga Valley Water District, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Miner, on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District, pleased to support. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz, with the League of California Cities, in support.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross, on behalf of the City of Burbank, in support.

Patrick Foy, with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in support.

Brian Sanders, City of Sacramento. Apologies for missing the letter deadline, but we are in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, in support.

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

Kasha Hunt, with Nosman, on behalf of Padre Dam Municipal Water District, in support.

Chloe King with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Water Association, in support. Thank you so much.

Sar Stewards for the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Coachella Valley Water District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Nobody in opposition. Taking it back to Committee Members. Any questions, comments on measure in front of us? Seeing none. We still don't have a quorum. We're still open on the Subcommittee. Would you like to close, Senator?

Well, you've seen all of water world is in support.

Yeah, yeah, I see that.

We, that's right. We respectfully asked for an "Aye" vote. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good afternoon. Thank you very much. And since—Senator Richardson, Agenda Item Number 10, S 611. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you. Well, good afternoon to all of you. It's nice to come on the other side of the hill every now and then. First of all, I want to start off by thanking the Chair and Members of this Committee.

As you all are all too aware, California's housing crisis has reached a critical point profoundly affecting the state's economic stability and well being of its residents. SB611 is crucial to ensuring that legally approved developmental projects Let me Repeat that again.

SB611 is crucial to ensuring that legally approved development projects can move forward as long as the community housing plans were in effect at the time of permitting. SB611 removes the risk of unnecessary delays to much needed Housing and Community Development.

For example, in the largest county in the State of California alone, delay delays to community plans can prevent tens of thousands of housing units from being built. In 2012, the Hollywood community Plan was adopted, but litigation stalled critical projects, setting the community back years.

In response, the Legislature passed AB 1515 in 2019 with unanimous bipartisan support, which provided certainty by ensuring that projects permitted under an adopted community plan could proceed despite pending litigation. Unfortunately, those protections expired on January 12025 which means we are once again facing the uncertainty for vital development projects.

SB611 restores these provisions, ensuring that projects remain legally vested at the time of permitting, reducing unnecessary delays Here with me today to testify in support of this bill is the sponsor of SB611. No Nicole Currie, State Affairs Manager to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Good afternoon, Chair and Members.

My name is Nicole Currie and I serve as the State Affairs Manager to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to sponsor this bill. I'm here because Mayor Bass is deeply committed to protecting housing projects that will address the housing and homelessness crisis in Los Angeles and throughout California.

In 2012, as the Senator said, we updated our Hollywood Community Plan, but progress was stalled due to CEQA litigation and this halted all community Plan related permits, which led to developer uncertainty and housing construction delays. Earlier this year, we again updated and adopted a new Hollywood Community Plan, and this includes a proposal of 30,000 additional housing units.

The plan has since been challenged under ceqa, which puts us at risk once again of stalled or stopped housing projects. SB611 aims to restore the protections of AB 1515, which passed in 2019 and thus allowed projects proposed under a recently adopted community plan to move forward even if the community plan was being currently litigated under ceqa.

This Bill does not seek to stop environmental review of an individual housing project or development. Rather, this Bill would prevent the CEQA litigation process from stalling or stopping all of the projects tied to a single community plan.

In addition to the Hollywood Community Plan, the Harbor, Wilmington and Boyle Heights Community Plans are among the closest to adoption out of 14 other pending community plan updates within the City of Los Angeles. And this is why we need to pass SB611 now.

The Bill will provide much needed clarity to local governments Residents and developers so that critical housing development projects may proceed without unnecessary delays. Thank you. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to add in support, please take your name, affiliation and position only.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Karen Lang. On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, we should have updated our letter. We're in full support now. Thank you to the author for taking the amendments to include the city and county. So just in support and ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. No opposition at all. Committee Members, questions? Comments? Seeing none. We're still operating as a Subcommitee. Would you like to close?

Senator, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting bill today. Once we reach quorum, we'll be taking action. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Senator Richardson. You have two bills, correct?

Would you like to. Is that okay, Senator Richardson?

Yes.

You tell me. I have two. I have two. No, I'm good. Thank you.

And that's item number 14 on the agenda. SB 757 by Senator Richardson.

I'm in the middle of three committees at the same time, as you all know all too well. Okay. Good afternoon again, chair and Members. I'm going to give these to. Thank you to our sergeants here. There's some examples of what I'm going to talk about here in this bill that are so important to all of us.

I'd like to start off by thanking the Committee staff, staff for working with my office to make technical changes to the language which I will be accepting the Committee amendments today. Let me start by painting a picture. In the third quarter of 20241 of the largest cities in the State of California reported 32,145 dumpings.

This is the highest quarterly count in the last three years and represents a 22% increase from the prior year. More specifically by district, which happens to be the one that I live in.

The dumping reports led to a more intense cleanup program that resulted in over 26,103 tons, or 52.2 million pounds of trash, debris and overgrown vegetation to be picked up as of May 29th of 2024.

SB 757 would authorize the legislative body of a city or county to establish a procedure to use a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment to collect abatement costs and related administrative costs until January 12035. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make neighborhoods, streets, parks and buildings safer.

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

Despite municipal rules and notices, some property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines and citations imposed by local governments, thereby putting financial burden on the local agencies to enforce these fines and collections and after they've already picked up the individual's trash.

Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the responsibility on the property owner to dispute the assessment instead of requiring a local government to bear further costs by going to court when a property owner does not keep their property free and clear of debris from the cost that they incur to clean the area, SB 757 policy updates allow nuisance abatement costs to be collected, which cleans up our streets and vacant lots from unnecessary debris and clutter and reimburses those cities and counties from the burdensome unbudgeted costs During a Senate hearing, two questions were raised to me that I quickly wanted to address.

Those two questions were one what are we doing to address the due process concerns? And 2 what have we done to address liens being given to lower income residents that may not be able to afford the cleanup?

To the former question, we have changed the language from a reasonable amount of time to 60 days in order to provide a guaranteed time for the process to cure, meaning for the owner to be notified and for the city to go through their normal nuisance abatement process.

The second question we have addresses the fact that we've ensured that there's a hardship waiver in place that states that an individual owner can have their fines reduced or waived if they make a bona fide effort to comply with the notice. SB 757 is a strategy, a toolbox that prioritizes health, cleanliness and safety for residents across California.

Here with me today to speak in support of this bill is Carly Shelby on behalf of Contract Cities, which includes the City of Oakland and the City of Compton.

Thank you and good afternoon. Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee Carly Shelby. I'm here today on behalf of the cities of Oakland and Compton in support of Senate Bill 7. In both cities, where many residents live in historically underserved neighborhoods, chronic nuisance properties pose serious health and safety risks.

These are commUnities already grappling with overlapping inequities. When Unsafe or Un neglected properties go Unaddressed, they don't just Undermine neighborhood stability, they threaten lives and entrench disinvestment. Our local court enforcement officers routinely encoUnter dangerous conditions, exposure, exposed wiring, collapsing roof, fire hazards. All that put residents in adjacent homes at risk.

Yet many of these properties are owned by absentee landlords or speculators who view civil fines as a cost of doing business. For cities without deep legal resources, the only remedy filing a civil lawsuit is often out of reach. SB757 changes that by offering a fair and timely alternative.

It allows cities to recover unpaid administrative fines through a nuisance abatement, lien or special assessment, but only for violations that endanger public health or safety.

The bill includes safeguards, a 30 day notice, an opportunity to cure hardship, waivers for owners making a good faith effort to comply, and a requirement that funds recovered be reinvested into housing code enforcement, including support programs that help help low income homeowners make needed repairs.

This tool is critical for cities like Compton and Oakland where families living in aging housing stock and dangerous conditions can l for years without resolution. SB 757 empowers local governments to act decisively and equitably to protect our vulnerable Committee communities. And on behalf of both of our cities, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else I want to add on in support? Please state your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Sarah Duquette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Please step up. You have up to three minutes. Can come to the desk? Yeah.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Californians absolutely deserve adequate standards, safe and affordable housing. There is no one in this room who would dare oppose a policy that moves us closer to this goal. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm here from the Cox Firm for Law and Policy on behalf of my client, ACLU California Action.

We regret that we're compelled to oppose this bill because the language as written makes clear that all that is certain to occur on the other side of enactment is that tenants will become displaced when their only housing is foreclosed upon. We haven't used the word foreclosure yet.

The point of this bill is to be able to take away property rights, to take away property. And nothing about that creates a bridge to safer, more affordable or cleaner housing in the midst of our housing crisis.

Now, as Senator Richardson remarked, cities and counties already have the ability to seek liens and special assessments for fines and daily penalty fees. And to be clear, that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about any costs incurred by any jurisdiction.

There is already the ability to seek special assessments and liens without going to court for costs actually incurred by the jurisdictions. What we're talking about is taking away the ability for homeowners, many of whom are not absentee landlords. The bill is not limited in any way to absentee landlords. The bill absolutely applies to homeowners who have.

Who earn low incomes and who are living on their property and simply do not have the funds to bring themselves into compliance. That is also who this bill not only applies to, but most likely is going to leave without their property.

We are very much concerned not just about due process, which, by the way, both the California State constitution and the federal constitution demand. We're also very much concerned about racialized wealth extraction. We know that this is going to fall along racial lines. We have provided a great amount of data to the Committee to make this clear.

We have filed lawsuits up and down the state, including in Sonoma and Siskiyou County. We have seen these sorts of code enforcement actions being targeted at black and brown folks in communities that. Where we see the desire for gentrification with displacement. Not just gentrification, but gentrification with displacement. Our opposition is based on those two fronts.

We are absolutely concerned about removing the ability for a neutral arbiter, that is a judge, to make a determination to that the fines and fees are proper. We also are concerned that the. We've seen administrative hearing officers attempt to take into consideration a person's ability to pay, and we've seen those hearing officers get fired as a consequence.

These are folks who work for the cities and counties who are going after these dollars. These are not neutral arbiters. And nothing about adding an additional 30 days addresses the due process issue. And it certainly doesn't address the racialized wealth extraction issue. This bill is not ready for prime time. It is going to be harmful.

And nothing about the amendments even proposed by the Committee will fix that.

Thank you. Before we call for additional witnesses in opposition, if there are any, we reach quorum, we're asking Madam Secretary to please call the rolls so that we are on the record on quorum.

[Roll call]

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We do have a quorum now. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? See none. Any comments, questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Do you want to address some of those concerns?

Yes, sir.

Thank you for the permission through the chair. A couple comments that I'd like to make. Most of us here actually come from local government like myself. And we know what it's like to be a part of a city and to have a limited budget.

A limited budget in code enforcement and in code enforcement, we all know that in cities and counties there is a process. It's not like someone suddenly comes up to your door and takes your property. We know that that's not true. Code enforcement has a process where they have to notify the owner.

Normally, they have to notify the owner more than once. The cities aren't just coming up and cleaning properties. They want the original owner to actually come in to remove the items.

And in fact, most cities and counties actually have free cleanups where if the owner has someone, you know, deposited a refrigerator or tires or whatever it is, the city normally has a process where they can have a free pickup to remove the items. That's not what this bill is about.

This bill is about individuals who own vacant lots. And we've seen them in all of our communities where the trash has added and added and added, not for a week, not for a month, not for six months, but four years.

And the question we have before us, because we know local government has limited resources, the question is really clear about this bill.

Do the cities and counties have the ability to continue to pick up tons and tons and tons of trash and then wait till after the fact, going through a whole delayed court process to be able to recoup their funds? This bill says that when a county or a city actually collects the trash, they can assign a lien.

And that way, we know within a limited period of time, within a year's period of time, they have an opportunity to recoup those funds. But what I find most egregious by the comments is that in fact, this is, this bill, we worked very hard in the Senate. It's quite ready for primetime. That's why we're here right now.

And, and with the bill, we made very explicit ability that any owner that who would have a hardship, even after being notified, even being able to have the items picked up for free, even after the city picks it up and incurs the cost, that owner still has the ability to go to the city.

We all know that cities have appeals hearings. This is a common process, and that individual would have an opportunity to request a hardship. So we've worked very hard to check all the boxes to make sure that owners have an opportunity to maintain their property.

But what this bill also says is that owners need to maintain their property in a clean and habitable way so that that way kids can walk to school, parents can drive and get out and park for church, and. And that people can actually be engaged in their neighborhood.

And right now, in many of our communities, that's not the case. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Didn't see any comments or questions for Committee Members. We'll consider that at your closing.

Yes, sir.

Is there a motion or a second? First and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote is 7. 0. That bill moves on. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you for all of your time.

Thank you. And the last item on the agenda to be heard today is by Senator Arreguin, and that is agenda item number eight AB4A9. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 489, which requires that all public agencies that have roles in approving housing developments post approval requirements online, and that will also include ministerial projects in some additional places in the Permit Streamlining Act.

SB 489 is, at its heart, a good government transparency bill that helps to ensure that California's housing development processes are acceptable--accessible, predictable, and efficient. In 1977, the Legislature enacted the Permit Streamlining Act, a law born out of the recognition that unnecessary delays in red tape were stalling the delivery of urgently needed housing.

The PSA was designed to bring clarity, transparency, and timeliness to the permitting process but the law has not kept pace with the realities of housing development. So what this bill would do is require that all public agencies involved in housing development publish online the information necessary for a housing application to be deemed complete.

This empowers applicants to prepare better submissions, improves coordination, and reduces costly delays. The bill also includes a separate but related provision related to LAFCOs to publish their application information online, respecting the preference to not be incorporated in the PSA framework.

This is a simple but impactful bill that will provide transparency and ensure that the approval process for new housing in California can be streamlined. With me to testify in support is Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, the sponsor of the bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsors of the bill. I think the Senator said it: this is really a good government transparency bill.

I think we are all well-aware, especially sitting in this committee, that there probably is no more difficult business to be in in California than home building and bringing housing from inception all the way through completion.

We're when it comes to the number of sheer agencies that are involved in what we do--state, local boards, commissions, the list goes on and on--when you have that many cooks in the kitchen, delay is inevitable, and this bill is really about trying to get as much delay out of the system as possible.

A $1,000 price increase in a home prices out roughly 9,000 families. So delay is really impactful. This is about trying to expedite that. If you have a role, post it, make it easy and accessible for all builders--large, medium, small, etcetera--for all project types, not just market rate, but rental and everything else in between. So this is a good government bill. Appreciate you taking the time to consider it today. Would urge an aye vote.

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

Mr. Chair and members, Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Ahmanson Jr., in strong support.

Good afternoon. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Rogers. I'm with the California Association of Realtors. We're in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Buckeye Properties, Council of Infill Builders, Cypress Equity Investments, SPUR California, YIMBY, and Habitat for Humanity California, all in strong support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition or opposition at all? See none. Committee members, questions, comments for the author? Yes. Assembly Member Wilson.

Just one caution as it relates to--thank you to the author for this. You know, I understand the need for streamlining operations when it comes to housing and development, extremely important, and--but I did have one follow-up just to make sure I address the concern that was brought up from my own district, and in the opposition letter from Solano LAFCO, it notes that the requirement for the application completeness without the executed tax exchange agreement, which does take some time. How do you feel that your bill does or does not address that issue or that it's not relevant to what you're trying to accomplish?

Thank you for the question. Good to see you, fellow former colleague in regional government. So I believe that the recent amendments address the concerns that were previously expressed.

All this does with respect to LAFCOs is just requires that they have to post the online the information needed to process an application which I think we can all agree is it's good for applicants, it's good for citizens, it's good for good government, and so I--so I think we--there were--there was some concerns expressed about a prior iteration of the bill because we were proposing to make some changes to some of the provisions around LAFCO, we have since stricken those amendments, and the current version of the bill's narrowly focus on just the submittal requirements.

Okay. Thank you so much. I don't know, was a motion made?

Not yet.

Catch it. I'll make the motion.

We have first and a second. No other comments or questions from committee members? Would you like to close, Senator?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

The motion is do pass to Housing and Community Development. [Roll Call]. Ten/zero.

The vote is ten/zero. The bill is out. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much.

We have some other items that we need to do before we adjourn. Should we start with the consent calendar, Madam Secretary? We have a motion. Second. Thank you. Please call the roll.

The consent items are SB 74, SB 255, SB 272, SB 409, SB 558, SB 735, SB 736, and SB 737. [Roll Call]

The bill is 10-0. The bills are out.

SB 333, Laird, is a do pass. We need a motion and a second. Who's the first? [Roll Call] 7-2.

The vote is 7-2. The bill is out.

The motion on SB 333 that we just did is a do pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee. SB 390.

Call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the floor. [Roll Call] You have 9-0.

The vote is 9-0. The bill is out.

AB 394 is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Can we please have a motion and a second? A first and second.

I need to recall that one again. [Roll Call] 9-0.

The vote is 9-0. The bill is out.

AB 394. We need a motion. The bill is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call] 10-0.

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out.

SB 611. Need a motion. The motion is do pass Judiciary. [Roll Call]

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out. 9-0, the bill is out. I think that concludes the hearing for today. Assembly Member Haney, thank you for being with us today. Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Meeting's adjourned. Thanks, everybody.