Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning. Buenos Dias. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. Senate welcomes the in public, in person. And we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building.

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish quorum and begin our hearing. We have seven bills on today's agenda, one of which is on consent, and that is file item number five, AB 533, by Assemblymember Flora.

Not ready yet. Right.

Okay. We're not ready to establish a quorum, so we can proceed as a Committee? As a Subcommittee. Okay, great. No consent. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're going to start with item number one, AB 59 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Welcome.

You may begin when you're ready.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I would like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments today. Reclamation District 108 provides water to nearly 48,000 acres of farmland in southern Calusa County and northern Yolo County.

Currently, RD108's authority to participate in hydropower projects is set to expire on January 1, 2026. Without the authority, RD108 will lack the certainty it needs to engage in long term infrastructure planning and projects.

The district has already identified potential opportunities for future hydropower initiatives, including small hydropower facilities in its existing channels. Boy, that's a hard one, canals.

However, to make these long term investments, RD108 needs assurance that it can participate in these projects over at least a 35 year period. By securing long term financing, RD108 can make these projects more affordable for the district in the long run.

Because RD108's Hydropower Authority has been subject to sunset dates, the uncertainty has made it difficult to move forward with long term projects and financing. This Bill grants them permanent authority to participate in hydropower projects and includes a reporting requirement to keep the Legislature informed.

With this change, RD108 can move forward with confidence and continue investing in clean, affordable energy. With me today, I have Lewis Bair, General Manager of RD108, and Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith, Chair of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

Good morning.

Two minutes each.

Thank you so much. I'm Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith, Colusa County Board of Supervisors, representing District 2. That includes RD108. I'm here today in strong support of AB 59. I first wanted to thank the author, Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, and her staff as well as the Committee for their work on the Bill.

AB 59 is an important measure that would allow RD108, the hydropower authorization, to continue to seek opportunities to develop power through hydroelectric generation. RDA108 has a close working relationship with Calusa and Yolo Counties.

RDA108 doesn't just manage and deliver water that grows food. RD108 is an innovator and educator for floodplain management, habitat improvement and water recharge projects.

Colusa County is proud to support AB 59 and the opportunity for RD108 to reduce its energy costs in an affordably affordable and environmentally responsible way. Thank you so much for your time.

Members of the Committee, Chair, thank you for your time. RD108. I think folks have said a lot of things about us, but the one thing I would say is that we are very much focused on our responsibility and stewardship as a water manager. And part of that is our energy use.

We have about a million dollars a year in pumping costs and the renewable part of our portfolio has been important. We currently have a solar facility. We are engaged with a company called Emergy. We're... the most viable of the projects that Cecilia spoke of was an additional solar facility.

But the next project is a hydro facility and we'd like to see that happen. We think it's a responsible way to proceed here in California where we value our environment. I've been the manager there for 28 years, as you heard our supervisor speak.

We very much believe in taking care of our valley and being a steward in our valley, whether that's for the environmental purposes or energy air quality. You know, all of our water users can actually see their water use on their cell phone in real time for all of their fields.

So we, I would say, are a leader that you would want to see in charge of resources like this. And we continue to do that now for more than 150 years. And so be happy to answer any questions of the Committee and really appreciate you guys considering this authority for our agency.

Thank you very much. Yeah. Any more witnesses in support of AB 59? Please come forward and give your name.

Good morning, Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksamer on behalf of County of Yolo Board of Supervisors in strong support of AB 59. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members. Ivy Britton with the Northern California Water Association in strong support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no more in support. Anyone opposed? Nobody? Nobody at all? Okay. Good. Good job. Questions? Senator Choi? Any comments or questions? Okay, hearing none, then you may close.

I'm honored to be here because I've worked in the water world for a long time and I have seen what RD108 has done and the innovation that they've had and to have that curtailed would be just the saddest thing for not only our farmers, but the environment.

And so I'm honored today to be here ask you for your aye vote for AB 59. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, since we don't have the quorum, we will be taking it up later.

Great. Thank you very much. Senator.

Thank you. Good to see you all. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Okay, we move on to item number two. AB 417 Assemblymember Carrillo, welcome good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 417.

It is a measure that would provide clarification and improve the functionality and usefulness of laws that allow our cities and counties to utilize their own existing resources to build much needed critical infrastructure, such as affordable housing projects to adapt to climate change, transparent projects and fire hazard mitigations, and many more.

In order to respond to the needs of our communities, local governments have to come up with creative ways to fund critical infrastructure. Tax increment financing tools such as enhanced Infrastructure financing districts, or EIFVs and community revitalization and investment authorities, or CRIAs have become increasingly important in funding local infrastructure projects.

One great aspect of these tools is that they allow our local agencies to partner together to solve the infrastructure challenges that our communities face. EIFDs have been the most widely used and are often described as the most flexible tax increment financing tools. But as time passes, local officials have identified implementation issues.

This bill will make a few changes to IIVD law which will do the Support small businesses in a manner that fosters economic recovery and provide clarification to encourage regional partnerships. CREAs, on the other hand, were specifically designed to target our communities with the greatest need.

This bill will allow CRIAS law with changes made to IFD's law last year through SB 1140 by Senator Caballero to reduce barriers that make the formation of CRIAs difficult and unnecessarily uncoversome in order to address the concerns from the opponents.

Eminent domain has been a part of CRIA law for the last 10 years, which is a power which empowers cities and counties. They already have. They do not have to create a CRIA to ensure eminent domain.

If eminent domain was the primary reason a local agency would create a crea, we would have seen more cities and counties use this tool. I am aware of only one city created in a CRIA, and that's Victorville, a city in my district.

This bill is supported by a coalition of stakeholders, including the League of California Cities, American Planning Association, Cal Chambers and the Business Properties Association, among others. And with me today is Aaron Laurel, City Manager of the City of West Sacramento, to testify in support today.

Good morning, Honorable Chair. There we go. Good morning, Honorable Chair and committee members again, I'm Aaron Laurel.

You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Aaron Laurel and I'm the City Manager and Port CEO for the City of West Sacramento. I am here today, though, in my capacity as an executive board Member for CALED, which is the California Association for Local Economic Development, to support AB 417. CALED, just a little background.

We represent over a thousand members who are economic development practitioners at the local level throughout the state. And on behalf of our members, we've been working for about the last 15 years on tools to create tax increment financing options to allow our communities to build and upgrade infrastructure. In support of advancing priorities and creating investment.

AB 417 will make just minor improvements to both the EIFD and CRIA laws. But these are also very important to our Members. The amendments were developed by a working group of CALED practitioners working throughout the state. We very much appreciate Assemblymember Carrillo for working with CALED on this bill and we respectfully request your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 417, please come forward.

Good morning. Mad- Good morning, madam chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, Amy Brown, on behalf of the City of West Sacramento, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, in strong support.

Good morning. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Redwood City in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities, in strong support. Thanks.

Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California Chapters, in strong support.

Holly Fermini De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles Habitat for Humanity, California and California Yimby in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Madam Chair. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead&Company. Howard Amundsen, Jr. An Orange County philanthropist. He has opposed eminent domain over the years because of the social injustice wrought by eminent domain on minority and disadvantaged communities.

The recent about three or four years ago, the report of the reparations commission had a long chapter detailing how minority neighborhoods were decimated. And then the redevelopment projects that were proposed were never realized. This happens because of changed economic conditions, interest rates, lack of financing the developer has for other reasons.

A few blocks from here, in fact, in Sacramento on L, K and J Street, there are blocks of essentially abandoned buildings that were taken in redevelopment 50 years ago and those projects were never realized. We're just asking that this bill be amended to preclude the use of eminent domain.

Other bills creating housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have been amended to preclude the use of eminent domain. Out of sensitivity for this issue and we ask the author to do that to say that cities already have the authority. They don't really have the authority if they don't have the money.

The idea of this is to raise the money to exercise eminent domain and for the CRIAs. And so I don't think that's an adequate response. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Members, Senator Choi, any comments or questions?

Also hearing the testimonies, as a local government, city council and former mayor, I am concerned also with this ability of eminent domain. So if you can consider that opposition statements probably would support but for now as is I would have to abstain today.

Did you want to respond to that?

I'll just respond to the comments made by the opposition. It is an unfortunate reality that some projects didn't get built because of eminent domain, but eminent domain is already in place. This bill doesn't address the eminent domain issue.

They can raise the funds and the city's agency decided to do that through existing eminent domain law and requirements to be able to exercise eminent domain is already in place.

I am sensitive to what was brought up by the opposition because that actually happened in my district in the City of Palmdale where Lawa Los Angeles Worldwide Airport acquired 17,000 acres through eminent domain with the hopes to build a regional airport which has not been built by now. It's been decades.

But again being sensitive to that unfortunately reality. But again, eminent domains already in place. And this will just allow those agencies that want to create a CRIA to be able to raise the funds if they want to proceed with a project that will be for the public good.

May I briefly in response, just to reiterate that point, AB 417 has nothing to do with the imminent domain authority vested in CRIAs. This law has been on the books for over 10 years. The purpose of this bill is to create some very minor streamlining amendments for both the IDs and CRIAs.

I think as the assembly pointed out and as the consultant's analysis also included, there's only been one CREA formed in the time that this has been on the books. And if eminent domain was a huge motivator for city governments, which it is not, then there would be a lot more CREAs out there.

So we really want to deemphasize that point. It's in existing law. This has nothing to do with that actual issue. So thank you.

I think the point was just that it may be a motivator the way that- the way that is put now.

So I understand the point.

Would you like to make closing comments?

I will. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ultimately, AB 417 improves the functionality and usefulness of IFVs and CREAs by streamlining administrative processes and providing other crucial clarification to existing law while maintaining public participation and transparency. That's also another point.

These reforms will significantly improve the ability for local governments to support economic development and build critical infrastructure in our communities across the state. And with that, at the appropriate time, I will ask for respectfully as for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you assemblymember. Thank you for being here and we will pick it up when we get our corps. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next. Yes. Assemblymember Rubio AB 428, please come forward.

Welcome. Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Senate Local Government Committee. Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to present AB 428. AB 428 would permit water corporations to participate in Joint Power Authorities, or JPAs, for pooled insurance purposes. AB 428 is a reintroduction of legislation carried last year, AB 2735.

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

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

These savings are especially important areas comprised of low-income individuals and families for those on a fixed income. With me today in support are Susan Allen, with California Association of Mutual Water Companies, and Jennifer Lukins, from Lukins Brothers Water Company, Lake Tahoe. Thank you.

I just want to clarify, when you made reference to amendments, you're talking about from last year's version to?

Yes, yes.

The new versions to this version.

Absolutely. The new version includes the request from the Governor's office.

Thank you. Good morning. Whoever wants—you have two minutes each, please.

Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Lukins and I'm the owner of Lukins Brothers Water Company, a small water company located in South Lake Tahoe. I am also the Chair of the California Water Association Small Water Company Committee.

I'm here today representing my utility, the customers, and small water systems throughout our state, as well as our statewide organization. Thank you for allowing me to share some background information on AB 428, to allow water utilities like mine to join JPAs for pooled insurance. CWA is sponsoring this Bill to support water systems with ever increasing insurance costs.

In 2020, prior to the Caldor Fire, my water system was paying $43,000 per year for comprehensive insurance policy. During the Caldor Fire in 2021, my insurance rates more than tripled. In one year, our insurance went to $141,000 for just property insurance. In 2024, they rose again to $279,000.

And now, they are over $360,000 per year for just property insurance. The worst part about it is these costs are directly impacting my customers' rates, despite the fact that in over 75 years of ownership in business, my water system has never filed a single insurance claim and we've never been impacted by fires.

The Sacramento Bee recently published an op ed that I drafted on the growing impacts of wildfire threat on insurance costs. This isn't just impacting homeowners. Insurance costs are increasing everywhere. As a result, my water company customers' bills have increased over $50 annually, just to support the insurance costs.

The CWA has spent several years exploring every option available to address these rising costs. We've met with the Insurance Commissioner, we've spoken with the Chairs of the Legislative Insurance Committees, we've worked with self-insurance consultants to evaluate forming our own JPA.

If you could wrap it up please.

Yes. Thank you.

At the end of the day, there are few, few solutions for the rising cost of insurance. CWA is sponsoring AB 428 to try to contain these costs. Without the passage of this Bill, there's no way for Members or myself to participate in a JPA without, without your support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Go ahead.

My name is Susan Allen and, sorry, sorry about that. My Name is Susan Allen. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies Joint Powers Risk and Insurance Management Authority. We call ourselves CalMutuals JPRIMA. CalMutuals JPRIMA is a sister and our sister organization, CalMutuals, are pleased to co-sponsor AB 428.

We recognize the critical need to expand existing law to allow small investor-owned utilities to participate in JPAs for insurance purposes.

These small utilities, in particular, are currently facing increasing insurance costs in the private market, which additionally burdens their already stretched operating budgets and personal budgets of the customers that rely on them for water and have to pay the bill to cover the expense.

CalMutuals JPRIMA was established in 2016 through legislation that was introduced by Assemblymember Christina Garcia when mutual water companies, which are not for-profit public entities, kind of like co-ops, were informed that they were no longer eligible to participate in the Aqua JPIA Insurance Program.

CalMutuals stepped in to promote the statute in order to provide a critical alternative, and we now offer stable, affordable insurance to these small systems. We are in our eighth year of operation, and we've achieved notable success and exemplify the best of what a JPA can provide.

Cost savings, efficiency, expanded services, regional cooperation, tailored and flexible offerings, innovation, transparency. And we now have 600 water suppliers, large and small in California, that rely on us for insurance. That includes 300 mutual water companies that support about 1.3 million Californians. Central to our mission is to support small water systems.

And we're proud that we invest a portion of our premiums that are received back into resources to help reduce risk and strengthen technical, managerial, and operational foundations for our small systems and helping them navigate the challenges that they have in the insurance landscape and beyond, particularly in the face of climate change, wildfire, flood, and an increasingly litigious universe that we're living in.

So, whether we're managed as a cooperative or by our members, we think small systems share the same needs and demand. We eager—we're eager—to support our IAU colleagues and we respectfully request an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 428, please come up.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Martin Vindiola on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Employees, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Nobody? Okay. Members. Senator Choi, any questions or comments?

Yeah, I'll be supporting the Bill, but I'm curious why such an insurance premium up to small water system. $360,000 per year. What does the insurance cover? I'm curious.

So, that's our property insurance. So, our facilities, our storage tanks, our wells, our transmission mains. Does not cover meters, covers services. So, all of our property. And the reason behind it is because insurance companies do not want to insure in California anymore. So, we had to go to the surplus market in order to get insurance coverage.

Simply stating that here our state does not have enough insurance companies to compete?

Yep.

Big problem. Thank you.

Yep.

Okay, one more Member. Okay, thank you. No more questions or comments. Assemblymember.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I respect—respectfully—ask for an "Aye" vote when appropriate. Hopefully now that Senator Weiner's here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And thank you for...

Oh, and Senator Seyarto as well.

Thank you for being here to testify. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, we should do the quorum. Okay, we'll establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we've established quorum. We have Assemblymember Irwin, if you are ready. We'll take up Item 4, which is AB 523.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 523 will allow member agencies with a single director on the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors the option to authorize a director from another member agency to vote on their behalf if they are unable to attend a board meeting, and that is with limitations.

Of the 26 member agencies that constitute the Metropolitan Board, 21 are represented by a single board member. If a director for an agency with a single seat is unavailable to attend a board meeting, that member agency loses the opportunity to vote. This is not the case for member agencies with multiple representation.

Their directors may cast the votes for directors from their member agencies who are absent. This bill is supported by a majority of the Metropolitan member agencies, as well as by the Met Board Chairman. With me here today in support is Joe Mouawad, general manager for Eastern Municipal Water District, a member agency of Metropolitan and the sponsors of our bill.

Thank you. All right, you have a couple of minutes there, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. As Assembly Member Irwin mentioned, my name is Joe Mouawad. I am the general manager at Eastern Municipal Water District. We are a water, wastewater, and recycled water provider for approximately a million residents in western Riverside County and northern San Diego County.

We are also a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In fact, we are the Easternmost member of Metropolitan. Metropolitan and its enabling act are nearly 100 years old. The communities we serve and the issues we face are are vastly different than they were in 1928, and the way that we govern also needs to evolve.

It's time that we modernize and improve the Metropolitan Act. The Metropolitan Board of Directors meets several times throughout the month for various committees, subcommittees, and board meetings. This bill only applies to the Board of Directors meetings. Assembly Bill 523 is a narrow amendment to the Metropolitan Act that will address a fundamental inequity that exists within the Metropolitan governing structure by allowing a proxy for single representative agencies.

As an agency who is designated a single member on the Metropolitan Board, our representative is unable to participate in a meeting if they are absent and we lose our vote. Essentially, our priorities, our concerns and perspectives are not considered in the decisions made by the board. Multi-representative agencies do not have this issue.

Agencies with more than one representative can vote their full entitlement regardless of absences so long as one representative is present. This bill would provide agencies like Eastern the option to assign a proxy who would be another sitting member of the Metropolitan Board of Directors to vote on our behalf.

Assembly Bill 523 is intended to work in concert with legislation that adds flexibility to the Brown Act and teleconferencing provisions. This ensures that single representative agencies have every opportunity to have their votes considered at the Metropolitan Board. Ultimately, the flexibility provided by Assembly Bill 523 would be used in instances where teleconferencing is not an option.

The bill has built in guardrails by limiting how many times an agency can assign a proxy throughout the year and by noting that the proxy is only valid for board meetings. Also, the bill has a sunset clause which would repeal the provision of the legislation in 2030.

This will allow stakeholders to assess the value of this policy as it is implemented at Metropolitan. Thank you, Chair. We've worked closely with Assembly Member Irwin on this legislation. Our goal is to create a policy that is beneficial to Metropolitan and the 21 member agencies that are represented by a single board member. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 523, please come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the Rancho California Water District. Really appreciate the author bringing this bill forward. As you've already heard, it's incredibly reasonable and allows us to participate in important votes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Amber Rossow on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? None. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 523? Okay. Seeing none. Come to the Members. Any comments or questions, Members? Seeing none. You may close.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. This just makes sure that small member agencies of the Met Board always have their voices heard.

Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. Motion, anyone? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Seyarto to support and do pass to the Senate Floor.

[Roll Call] Four to one. The bill is on call.

Okay. All right, we'll leave it open.

Thank you. Okay. Is Mr... He's not here. Okay. If we can go back to items 1, 2, and 3. The bills were presented, but we have no motion. So let's take item number one, AB 59. Do we have a motion? Okay. Senator Choi moves the bill. Vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications. [Roll Call] 5-0. Bill's on call.

Okay, we'll go to item two, AB 417 by Assembly Member Carrillo. Do we have a motion? Move the bill, Senator Cabaldon.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call] 3-0. On call.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Go to item three, AB 428. We need a motion. Oh, we already have one. Oh, okay. Oh, that's... No, we had not. We didn't have a quorum at that time. Okay, so we need a motion on AB 428. Moved by Senator Wiener.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications. [Roll Call] 4-0. On call.

Okay, keep that on call. We don't have any authors here. We're waiting. Consent. Okay, we'll do consent calendar. We have one bill on consent. The consent calendar. Thank you. Senator Choi moves the bill.

File item number five, AB 533. [Roll Call] 4-0. On call.

Okay, we have... We do have an author here, Assembly Member Bennett. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you.

This is Item 7, and you may start whenever you want.

Morning, Chair and Members, AB 1430 is a simple bill. It helps our county recording fees catch up with inflation. This is the first time these fees have been adjusted since 2010.

Since then, we've seen 34 Recorder's Offices have to rely on county General Funds because their fees have not kept up with the rising cost. The work of the Recorder's Office does is critical for processing documents like Deeds and Trusts to ensure homebuyers don't have a delay in getting the keys to their home.

With me today are witnesses on behalf of the sponsor, the County Recorders Association of California, and it's Dean Logan, the LA County Recorder Register County Clerk.

Welcome, Mr. Logan.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, for your leadership and sponsorship of this Bill. I'm Dean Logan. I'm the Registrar Recorder County Clerk for Los Angeles County, and also the President of the County Recorders Association of California, asking for support.

As has been noted, the legally established base fee for recording and indexing was last adjusted in June 2010. And when established, that fee was intended as a fee for service with no additional expense to county's net cost.

The base recording fee has not been aligned to inflationary factors or the state's minimum wage increases, creating a significant budget challenge for counties. The adjustments in this Bill align with the Consumer Price Index and further requires that the features collected be dedicated and solely utilized for County Recorder's Offices.

And as I mentioned, budget requirements to maintain the recording function are now currently being augmented from county General Funds and thus, competing with funding required for other essential public services like public safety, public health, and general county administration.

Absent this adjustment, the ability to provide services, retain an adequate trained workforce, and maintain standards for timeliness and quality are at risk, and already, we have counties that are facing staff reductions due to insufficient recorder revenue. Just as one example, San Benito County is facing a 40% budgetary cut.

And my colleague, Francisco Diaz, the Recorder in San Benito County, indicates that AB 1430 is essentially a lifeline in order to maintain the recorder functions. So, of course, there are downstream economic impacts if we're not able to timely record input recordings on the public record. For those reasons, we ask for your support of the Bill.

And I should also just mention, in addition to being here on behalf of the—our—State Association, I'm also representing the LA County Board of Supervisors in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you.

You too.

Anyone else in support of AB 1430? Go ahead.

Michelle Balcava with Nielsen Merxmer, on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kristen Connelly, the Elected Clerk, Recorder, and Registrar of Voters from Contra Costa County, in strong support.

Thank you.

Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, as well as the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Calusa, Riverside, and Santa Barbara, all in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1430? No? Okay. Seeing none. Come back to our Members. Comments or questions? Move the Bill. Senator Wiener moves the Bill. Oh, go ahead, Senator Choi.

Okay. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett for this 1430. At first, I was concerned about this Bill having the assumption that this was a mandatory increase. However, after receiving the clarification, AB 1430 increase recording fees, it says you are setting the maximum on that.

So, it gives each County Recorder's Office the opportunity to increase their first page up to $15 and subsequent page will be $4 each page, as your Bill states. For these reasons, I'll be supporting the Bill. Thank you.

Okay. All right. No more questions or comments, then we will call the roll.

Thank you very much. I would just like to point one thing out. From a good government standpoint, unless there's a compelling reason, it's good for for us to match the users of a service with the fee being paid rather than having lots of other people. So, there are people that benefit from the efforts of the Recorder's Office.

And in this situation, it seems appropriate that we try to match the users and have them pay for the appropriate services that they're asking for from the public agency. With that, I respectfully asked for an "Aye" vote.

Okay. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Do you know if he's going to be able to pull away? Okay. We don't need to recess. He's on his way.

There he is.

We know you're chairing another important Committee. Not as important as mine, but.

No, not nearly as important. Not nearly as important.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

How are you, Madam Chair?

Very good, thank you. We will be taking up Item 6, AB 1206, and you may proceed, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see you. Good to see all of you. I'd like to start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I am accepting the clarifying Committee amendments.

Housing remains one of California's most pressing issues, especially in the wake of devastating natural disasters, such as the Eaton and Palisades Fire. The loss of these homes in Los Angeles has only exacerbated California's housing shortage of 3.5 million homes. 3.5 million homes we are short and that was before the Fires.

We need smart solutions—obviously, folks on this dais know that better than anyone—for cutting bureaucratic red tape enabling us to stop delays in our housing construction. The model for AB 1206, the Bill before you is AB 1332, which Assemblymember Carrillo got passed last year for ADUs.

And essentially, what the Bill does is create a catalog for each local agency for pre-approved single-family homes and multifamily housing units under 10 units. Let's be clear, this does not apply to master plan communities. The scale of this is quite small and we actually retain local control.

Each city gets to pick what plans they will put in this pre-approval program.

And this is really trying to help regular everyday people that are trying to rebuild their homes, remodel, just get through a bureaucratic process that seems to be more difficult, more costly, and more time intensive every year that we go on. And other cities, other states have done this.

Not only do they do this in Paradise after the Fire and Assemblymember Gallagher can tell you it's quite effective. Cities like South Bend, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Groveland, Florida, Norfolk, Virginia have successfully used this model with great results. This proven concept would come here to California, and we would empower local agencies to do the same.

I would say that it's a practical, flexible tool. I understand that there may be concerns about implementation. Happy to talk about those concerns here, but I respectfully ask your "Aye" vote and briefly hand the mic over to my witness today, Holly Fraumeni De Jesus, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Holly Fraumeni De Jesus, here today on behalf of Habitat for Humanity affiliates across the state. We're building in 42 counties and building for low-income home buyers. This Bill is really simple. It's about making homeownership more affordable for more than it does our Habitat families.

This legislation simply calls upon all local governments to join in helping individuals who own land and have access to land to just access pre-approved, affordable architectural designs and avoid those costly customization requirements for architectural review ahead of time they can go straight to building permit, some even Habitat homes.

And we hope that our plans throughout the state will become cookie cutter and available in every county, in every city throughout the state and that you can just build a very modest, again, habitat homes, about 1100, sometimes 1200 square feet and three bedrooms can house a family.

Habitat is very uniquely positioned in the homeownership space because we're builders, we also have internal architects, we're developers, we're mortgage lenders, and we're community-based developers overall.

And we really do hope that eliminating this first stage of the costly building process will really open up more entry level home ownership opportunities again to more low-income families throughout the state. So, we urge your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please come forward.

Good morning again, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Mike Bellota, on behalf of the American Institute of Architects. We worked with the Committee—appreciate the Chief Consultant's efforts, and yours, and the author's to make sure that while we're all for housing, we did want to make sure there wasn't an inadvertent chance of copyright infringement on architects' plans.

So, we're happy to support the Bill.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bob Neylor, on behalf of Fieldstead, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles Spur, and California YIMBY, in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Please come forward. Did you need some time?

Just brief. Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities. Respectful opposed unless amended position. Just wanted to appreciate the conversations we've had with the Committee as well as the Assemblymember on this one. I do thank—Cal Cities does remain concerned about the timeline for implementation.

Given that AB 1332 gave local governments about a year to do that, for far less complex plans, compared to single family multifamily homes, we think it should be either double that or around the same time to implement it.

We understand that it's trying to establish that program, but we think that it's still going to take time for smaller jurisdictions to do that. We'll look forward to those continued conversations and appreciate the amendments that we've had moving forward, and we'll look at them as they get in print. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. And I'm sure the Assemblymember will continue to look at those concerns.

Absolutely.

Yeah. Anyone else in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Members? Yes, Senator Cabaldon.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank the author for the, for bringing this forward. This is an important step. As a former Mayor, I know the value—these templates and how it can accelerate housing production.

I do want to flag an issue, though, and that is I represent a lot of small cities that are not next to anybody else's cities that don't have—that might have a staff of one or two people in City Hall and have virtually no development projects in the last five months or six months or a year.

I'll give one example. The City of—the town of Isleton in my district, population 777, as of yesterday, doesn't have the capacity to create plans and they don't have any development applications recently to be able to sort of pull those as templates. And they don't have the architect's approval necessarily in order to do that.

And they don't have a full time City Attorney to review the IP agreements or any of that. So, it's really challenging, particularly in the timelines in order to accomplish that.

And so, although I think that the concept makes sense in the vast majority of cities, do think it is important to recognize that for some places, I mean, we're legally requiring them to comply without necessarily the means to do so.

And I know that the intent here is that, or the expectation is that Habitat and others, hopefully the League of Cities and others, would, would, would provide free, you know, at no cost, provide the assemblage. But that's not in, that's not, it's not in the, it can't be in the Bill, obviously.

And so, these local—Isleton, for example—would be legally required to comply produce these, these plans, which they don't have the capacity to do in that time frame. And so, I would urge the author to continue to work on this issue together.

I know we'll be seeing if it moves forward today and Committee will move on to another Committee that I'm on. So, I'm hoping that we can get this resolved Because I think it's the right, it's the right approach.

It just needs to be tuned properly to make sure that it's not inadvertently creating problems for these very—these micro towns—that don't have the capacity to do what seems simple but is not so simple when you, when you, when you don't have the capacity.

Thank you. May I, Madam Chair?

Yes, go ahead.

I appreciate the Senator's comments and concerns. I was Mayor and Council Member in a town that was 11,000 people, slightly larger, but I know full well the concerns about small towns, small cities, resources and a lack thereof.

Let's be clear how you can comply with this law, and we do give until July 2026. You merely have to upload five plans that have been pre-approved, at any point, in prior history.

So, for a town less than a thousand people, as long as you have five plans that you have approved in the past that you like, that adhere to the atmosphere of the city that you want to promote, you upload those to your website, under the pre-approved catalog, you have complied with the law.

There's also obviously another way in which you can get pre-approved submissions from numerous different applicants and contractors and architects and that's a different avenue. But I just want to be clear as to what compliance for a small city looks like. It's uploading five plans. And so, we are very sensitive to that.

I think that we have tried to be as sensitive as possible with allowing—and I, again, want to thank Committee staff with the analysis and with that amendment because we are concerned. We do not want to overburden any city, large or small. But I think in the long run, this is going to help them.

I think in the long run, they are going to get more plans that actually meet the pre-approval so that they have to do less work on the back end. So, I think it might be a little bit of work on the front end, for a lot less work on the back end.

But with that said, I will continue to work, absolutely, with anyone who wants to see smart, elegant changes to this Bill.

So, can I follow up, Madam Chair?

Yeah, I just want to clarify one thing. The amendment that you just talked about wasn't formally accepted. And so, we discussed it, but it was not formally accepted. So, I just want to make sure.

I have formally accepted that. Yeah. And I just want to make sure that. Okay, yeah, let me just clarify. It will be an amendment that will be accepted. To the extent that it wasn't formally accepted in this Committee, that will be an amendment that will be present as an author's amendment for the next Committee, to the extent it gets out.

So, we need to discuss it as from our Committee.

Sure, absolutely. Fair enough. There will be an amendment that would I think address this issue. As I stated, it would merely require county or city to upload five pre-approved plans.

And trying to address that as well, that's why these amendments, one, to clarify the cities and counties addressing that very concerned cities and counties do not have to develop their own pre-approved plans if no private entity submits a pre-approved plan.

So, that one is definitely amendment that we worked out. The other one we still have to figure that out.

Got it. Thank you.

Go ahead.

No. Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are—exactly the question that I had about what the amendments were, or so that the, maybe going to help a little bit more. So, if, I'll just pick Isleton again because it's on the table.

If they haven't had five plans in the last several years because there's not a lot of development going on there and they don't have a pre-approved template, what would the amendments mean for them?

And I can address that and our...can jump in. Hypothetically, if a local agency, county, or city didn't have five plans in the history of the community that they could upload, then they could obviously get submissions to be part of the pre-approved plan. So, one avenue is just using what you have already approved in years past.

If you don't have a total of 5 then you will ask for submissions from local architects, local homeowners, contractors, to actually submit it. And if you don't get any submissions, well then, I think you're stuck in a situation again in this hypothetical that I think would never become true.

You are stuck in a situation where the agency could show that they're complying because they can't comply, right? I'm not going to force a city or a county to do something that they can't do.

And then, on the intellectual property issue.

I just want to.

Okay, sorry. Go ahead.

That's my interpretation of the Bill as well. Go ahead.

And then, on the, on the, the use of architects' plans, and it's noted, and I think that was that an amendment that was accepted, and what's, what's the, what's the, what does the amendment do?

The applicant has to—whoever is using or submitting the pre-approved plan for part of the portfolio has to have a, as the language said, the authority to do that from the architect, whoever owns the underlying intellectual property.

So, if, if, if, if, if Isleton did have a plan from two years ago that they approved, would they—do they need the sign off of that original architect in order to use that plan?

So, yeah, not to get into the weeds of copyright law. Technically speaking, the copyright and the intellectual property would likely rest with the architect and the architect would have the ability to take that plan down once it went up.

If they didn't want it to be part of the plan, they have 30 days as part of the plan, as part of the Bill to actually request removal of that plan from the pre-approved program. So, hypothetically, we upload five architectural plans and let's say you can do 10. We upload 10.

An architect comes forward and says for whatever reason, I don't want my design to be part of the program. Even though it's probably really good marketing and it's probably a really good way to get my name out there, but for whatever reason, I don't like new business, I don't want it there.

Okay, well then by law, we have to—the agency has to remove it within 30 days. We also have clarifying language that says that anyone who applies for the pre-approval program has to have the authority to submit those plans.

Now, realistically, if you look at the ADU program, how these programs work, it's the person who owns the plans that actually submits them anyway, so, that shouldn't be a problem.

Just, again, to further clarify that, they would—essentially, they'd need permission from the architect. I mean they, and then, they could ask that it be taken down, but that's essentially the process that they would have to go through. We wanted to make sure that their product wasn't being used without their permission.

Okay, Madam Chair, thank you and thanks for the work of the Committee on this to get it, get it right. I'm going to, I'm going to vote for the Bill today. It will be important to the—my Isleton test is, is, looms large for the, with this moves on to the Housing Committee. But thanks, thanks again.

Thanks for the commitment to work on it.

Okay. And again, final further is you would come back here with the amendment? Okay. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. I guess I turned it off. There we go. Thank you very much. So, when a Bill starts out with "It requires California cities," all these things go into my mind like okay, so who's going to pay for it?

What kind of control are they going to have, the cities themselves, over the different areas, the different aspects. I know in some of my communities we have some rural residential areas that are rural for a reason because they have equestrian, and equestrian next to other houses doesn't really work.

And so, you know, this isn't something that cities can't already do. They can do this. And I think everybody who thinks this is a great concept, and it may be, may be for some cities, it may not be for other cities.

But I get a little concerned when we start requiring from the state for local governments to intervene on their planning and the vision that their community has. You know, I have one, one community that is horse town. Well, guess what? A lot of horses.

And I don't know that once they've been required to do this and somebody brings a plan that that particular plan is going to work in some of these neighborhoods that have been established for many years and people have paid very much, a lot, a lot in property taxes and they paid for their houses handsomely.

They have a lot of investment in it. So, you know, it seems to me you have five, you know, pre-approved things for like five type of preapprovals.

But for a lot of communities, you might need 10 or 20 because people have different needs, they have different sized houses that they need, they have different architecture that fits into certain areas. And so, I really think this is just best left to the communities to decide that this type of a program would work for them.

And I'd rather see an incentive-based program, rather than a required program, so that they could participate in the manner that works for their community and also, allows the people that are elected at the local level, just like many of you have stated, I think we've all been there, to participate in delivering on the wishes of the people that live in those communities.

And so, you know, it's hard for me to add on to what we've already done to our communities, as far as taking away their local ability to have control and say in a lot of what's happening.

And right now, we're being greatly affected because a lot of the things that we've demanded they do, they're doing, and now, they don't have the infrastructure to support it, and we won't give them the money to do it. And so, that's concerning to me.

So, not only that, but I have several communities in my, my district that are not fans. So, anyway, I'm going to be opposing the Bill today, but you know, I think it's an interesting concept, but cities need to be able to do that on their own.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Senator Wiener.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for this Bill.

I support it and it's really creative and I'm sensitive to what Senator Seyarto had said, as a local elected official, and I remember when I was a local elected official, there were times when I would shake my fist at the state for making us do different things that we didn't necessarily want to do.

And there's always that balance between, you know, state requirements and local control. And it's, you know, a hard balance to strike, but we do our best. And I also, you know, in the end, cities, cities are really important and play a hugely important role. Cities are also—it's a legal construct to try to make sure we're delivering the services that people need.

And first and foremost, it's about individual people being able to live their lives and thrive. And might this cause some additional burdens on cities? Yes, that happens.

But this is going to allow people to be able to rebuild in a more efficient, streamlined way. And especially, I mean, your community, obviously, so deeply impacted.

And I know, you know, when people hear about the idea that there are people who just want to rebuild and so hard to rebuild financially and otherwise, and that they might get caught up in red tape, it's just maddening. And so, this is one strategy that I think will help. And I appreciate you advancing the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it.

I just want to ask if you wanted to take a moment to respond to Senator Seyarto's concerns? You don't have to, or.

You know, I would.

You can close with it.

Absolutely. And I'll use it as part of my close. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a local elected, I railed on unfunded mandates as much as anyone else.

And I do think that unfunded mandates, in a kind of theoretical sense, are always something that we should be very, very careful about approaching. And technically speaking, this is an unfunded mandate. I would say that to that concern, this is one that I think balances local control. I think this does empower local governments.

I want to be very clear. The Boards of Supervisors of any county, the City Council Members and city managers of any city, control this program.

It is completely within their discretion on what plans go into this program, what they look like, the dimensions, and making sure that each community is protected under this program was my number one concern. And I do think that this is an elegant solution that will help cities in the long run with less work.

I think it will help homeowners cut through bureaucratic red tape, as Senator Wiener said, and I think it's going to help lower to middle class families actually achieve their dream without spending thousands of dollars on bureaucratic red tape and actually getting through a process that I think is not exactly friendly.

In some ways, it's hostile, when you're trying to rebuild your life and your home. And I am sensitive to it because of what my community just went through. And while this isn't a panacea, it's not going to solve every problem, I think it does help address it in a little way.

So, with that, I respectfully ask for the' Aye" vote. I appreciate, appreciate the conversation and the questions and just want to thank all of you for your attention.

Okay. Just because we had some great discussion back and forth, I want to clarify what the amendments are. That the cities and counties do not have to develop their own pre-approved plans. If no private entity submits a pre-approved plan, there's some technical amendments and then, there's requiring the architect's permission.

So, with that and your agreement, we can vote.

Thank you.

Right. Motion. Do we have a motion here from anyone?

Move the Bill.

Senator Arreguin moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

Okay.

4-2. On call.

On call. And let us have Senator Laird back here. Thank you. Do we want to do it with...? Okay, we're going to lift calls even though Senator Laird is not here. We'll go back. Okay, going back to item one. AB 59, call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, 6-0 on call. Item two. AB 417.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, item three. AB 428.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay. Item four. AB 523.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, go on to item six. Or should we do the consent? All right, we'll do the consent. calendar

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, item six. We just did. AB 1206. We're okay on that one. Item seven. AB 1430.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, so we're good for now. Wait for Senator Laird. Yes. You're done.

Okay. You're the only one we have to go through this. Okay. Go ahead.

[ROLL CALL]

The Bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

The Bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

Bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

The Bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

The Bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

The Bill is out.

That's it. All right. Thank you Senator Laird. Yeah. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you're not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are very important to us.

We want to include them in the testimony of the official records. Thank you. We appreciate your participation. We've concluded the agenda. The Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. And thank you to everyone here, our consultants, staff, sergeants, everyone. Thank you.