Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone. We're getting ready to get started with Assembly local government. Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. I'm going to go through some housekeeping items before we begin, and I'd like to ask authors if they can make your way up. Yeah, it's on, right? Okay. How is that now? Well, let's do it over again.

Welcome, everybody, to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing of July 2nd. I'm going to go through some housekeeping items, but I also want to ask authors to make your way up to local government over at room 447. Senators, please make your way to 447.

I would like to remind the public that testimony will be in person for this and future hearings. As we no longer use 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 of those who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. Protesters have appeared at some of our legislative hearings. Some of these people have yelled from the audience and issued threats of potential violence.

These actions actually disrupted the legislative hearing and the persons who caused the 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 effective and fair hearing.

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

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at this time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We have 13 bills on our agenda today.

Four of these are proposed for Consent Calendar, and they are Item number five, House Bill 392 by Senator Grayson. Item number six, SB 482 by Senator Weber Pearson. Item 10, SB 595, by Choi. Item 11, SB 598 by Senator Durazo. Again, we're waiting for authors to come to local government, room 447.

All other bills will be heard in file order, beginning with Senator Wiener when he comes in. He will also be presented as SB485 on behalf of Senator Reyes. 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. We do have a quorum right now. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

[roll call]

We have a quorum. I'm sorry. Yes. We have not won yet, but yeah, you have a motion for consent? Motion for consent. Is there a second? Second. Will you please call the roll?

[roll call]

7:0. Those on consent. Can we leave the roll open for the Members to add on? With that, we're going to move to item number three. Senator Durazo, if she's, are you ready to present? Yeah. And you have two bills, SB346 and also SB363.

Okay. Take a number.

635.

Okay. Sorry, I'll.

I'll make a correction. It's SB635.

Okay. Is that the first one that you want?

You can go ahead with 346.

Okay. Start with 346. If I. I can. Thank you. Okay. Ready?

Ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to accept all the Committee amendments. So Today I'm presenting SB 346, which empowers local governments to collect transient occupancy taxes already owed and to enforce the ordinances the electorates have voted for regarding short term rentals.

Over the last several years, Short term rental platforms like Airbnb and VRBO have grown rapidly, especially in California. This has given rise to two problems and I that I address in this bill. One, inconsistent practices in the collection of the transient occupancy taxes and two, unlicensed operators.

The first problem is the collection or the lack of collection of transit occupancy taxes. When local government requests the addresses of short term rental properties from short term rental platforms for tax collection, they are refused.

Unless they are able to use taxpayer dollars and legal funds to subpoena platforms, they are unable to get access to this essential information. Instead, short term rental platforms offer local governments what's called a vca, a voluntary collection agreement. These agreements force local governments to waive their audit access to property addresses.

Local governments then receive a certain amount of tax money and are left completely in the dark as to whether the amount they received is correct and without the tools to check. This Bill aims to fix this by requiring short term rental platforms to provide local governments with the location of each listing.

The second challenge is our in our current system is unlicensed operators in Los Angeles County. Short term rentals are meant to be limited to 90 days in a calendar year without a host present or three months.

And when you look up entire homes available for rent from today to the end of 2025, you can find over a thousand listings. One example is an entire studio apartment available for rent for six consecutive months. The problem is that we do not know if these unlicensed operators pay taxes or not.

And while governments already have the addresses of licensed operators, they are not able to enforce the ordinances their electors have voted for without the locations of all short term rentals in their jurisdictions. Given. Excuse me.

Given that we are hosting the upcoming Olympics, World cup and super bowl in California, now is the time to ensure that short term rentals are operating safely and legally and that they are contributing the correct amount of tax dollars to the communities they operate in. Today I have with me two witnesses in support of this bill.

Ben Triffo with the League of California Cities and Patrick Sullivan elected Treasurer Tax Collector of Lake County. Okay.

All right. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Ben Triffo at the League of California Cities proud to co sponsor SB 346 which will create transparency and provide cities and counties regardless of size with tot audit enhancement and a baseline level of information to assist in ordinance enhanced enforcement including around unlicensed short term rentals.

Short term rentals are regulated via ordinance at the local level that includes rules on such items such as licensor and tot compliance in some instances, ordinances. In some instances, ordinances limit the number of short term rentals allowed to operate lawfully. Other instances may ban them entirely.

Some may have limited restrictions such as requiring just a business license and tax collection. Unfortunately, it can be difficult at times to enforce these ordinances and verify whether when an item or a rental is operating lawfully or licensed correctly and the correct amount of taxes are being collected or remitted. This is where the address comes in.

Short term rental platforms do not display the address of properties on their listings. So it's nearly impossible to tell if a unit listed for rent is licensed legally. Meanwhile, the platforms have full knowledge of where these properties are, but do not disclose their location.

One of the few solutions we have is to adopt an ordinance that requires the platforms to provide the addresses of the listings. Unfortunately, the platforms sue and we must go to court using taxpayer dollars. The end result is typically a settlement with the platforms agreeing to provide the information originally requested.

SB 346 will level the playing field by providing local governments with the addresses of short term rentals when requested via ordinance, ultimately ensuring licensed short term rentals are operating in our communities and the correct amount of TOT is being collected and remitted. I should note there is precedent for action like this.

Other cities in California receive host and property related information which goes beyond what SB346 looks to do. Additionally, the State of New York has enacted similar legislation to require short term rental platforms to disclose property related information to local governments.

This begs the question, if the short term rental platforms can do this and more elsewhere, why not California? Thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Sullivan. I'm the Treasurer Tax Collector for Lake County and I'm appearing on behalf of the Association of County Treasure Tax Collectors.

Like many cities and counties, Lake County relies heavily on transient occupancy tax for a small rural county with extremely limited staff and resources to investigate these rentals on our own. Our goal is just to bring people compliance and get them paying the taxes that are owed. There is no legitimate privacy interest protected by platforms concealing an address.

The name and address for business permits are already public record. This is true whether it's a restaurant or a cannabis farm or a short term rental. We're already required to publish these addresses for short term rentals and legitimate owners and operators, since it is already public record, really should have nothing to fear from this.

The only people being protected are the bad actors where platforms conceal their identity and facilitate these payments tax free. For example, in our county we deal with brokers. There's one resort near us that has over 281 brokers that act as middlemen facilitating these payments. They are not the property owner.

We also have innocent property owners that don't realize a tenant has rented their property out. They found out from our office and now they're facing back taxes with penalties and interest being owed. So I want to touch on a few alternatives that have been offered that I've I believe raised by the platforms.

It's been suggested that we use voluntary collection agreements as was previously stated. They do not provide us the address. They do not solve our problem. For audit purposes, it's been recommended to use administrative subpoenas. But again, each time one of these is attempted, it leads back to litigation, back to court.

So it puts us back on that same wheel we've been on, unable to identify these properties and proceed. So in our opinion, all these issues are easily resolved and the transparency this Bill offers is that first step. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, Members, Jason Gonzalez, representing the cities of Norwalk, Simi Valley, Indian Wells, Lake Forest and Lakewood, all in strong support. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of Avenue Insights and Analytics, the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County and Orange County in support.

Julissa Ceja Cardenas, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross, on behalf of the Town of Truckee and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Dean Hutchings, on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad and Thousand Oaks, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the counties of Placer and Merced, in support. Thank you.

Jeff Neal, representing the Boards of Supervisors of Imperial county and Lake County, as well as the City of Hanford in support.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Louis Brown, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, in support. Good afternoon.

Adri Rocito, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, in support.

Good afternoon. Connor Gusman, on behalf of Unite Here International Union, in support.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, City of Goleta and the City of Beverly Hills, all in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jared Moss, on behalf of the City of Riverside in support.

Hello. Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Espinoza, on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara and Riverside as well as the Urban Counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Ysidra, on behalf of the county of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

County Board of Supervisors, the Solano County Board of Supervisors and the County of San Luis Obispo in support. Thank you.

Matt La Jay with SEIU California in support.

Robert Mutri, California Chamber of Commerce, in a bit of a tween position. If I may for a moment, support if amended was due to concerns about protecting legal process to object to over broad requests. Thank you for the moment.

Andrew Governor, on behalf of the California Outdoor Hospitality Association represents RV Parks and campgrounds. We appreciate the sender taking our amendment on a clarification. Thank you.

Thank you. Those primary witnesses in opposition, make your way to the desk.

Mr. Chair and Members, good afternoon. Pat Joyce with KP Public Affairs. On behalf of Airbnb, I'd like to thank the Committee Members for your engagement on this issue and appreciate the many discussions we've had over this past week. I think by now we're all short term rental experts.

Let me start by saying that we agree with the author and sponsor's goal to collect every dollar of TOT and gain better visibility into home sharing activities inside their communities. We believe two provisions in particular will help achieve these objectives.

First, we support the proposed language that would allow governments to audit short term rental facilitators who collect and remit TOT. That's currently common practice. Already, we've never said no to an audit by a city or a county.

Secondly, the permit field required can close the knowledge gap that the author and sponsors reference giving locals information about who is permitted to operate and who is not.

Now, the amendments referenced in the Committee analysis unfortunately do not address our primary concern regarding the language in the Bill that would force facilitators to turn over private business records with no due process. In places where we collect and remit TOT, we already provide addresses and any other information needed to verify the accuracy of TOT.

Beyond that, we routinely receive takedown requests from locals and those are handled by a case, handled case by case, working with local code enforcement officers.

Most importantly, city attorneys who are in charge of enforcing local laws and regulations have the existing authority to compel third party platforms to produce business records related to their customers, including physical addresses through an administrative subpoena. This is not burdensome to the city. I just reviewed one from a major city in Southern California yesterday.

It was barely four pages long, included a dozen URLs of listings on the website. Airbnb, and the city's justification was they're, they're bad actors. So it was very minimal need. Airbnb complies with these subpoenas requests regularly and rarely goes to record over the request as long as the subpoenas tailored and follows federal laws.

With this Bill, the Legislature is creating a big exception to a well established legal process that cities use on a regular basis. City attorneys would no longer need to provide a subpoena to obtain private business records related to the location of short term rental operators.

By approving this measure, the Legislature is signaling it's okay to come to the Legislature whenever a city wants to shortcut the subpoena process. If there are ways to make it easier for cities to work through an administrative subpoena, we're happy to explore what that looks like. Without the provision that gives short term rentals some due process.

In this conversation as it relates to cities requesting information, the companies remained opposed to the bill and I ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add an opposition state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Hi there, my name is Alyssa Stinson. I am with Expedia Group and I'm here opposed unless amended to the Bill. For reasons similar to Airbnb. But our main focus is on the administrative subpoena process and ensuring due process regarding our host information. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Beverly on behalf of Booking holdings, we respectfully have an opposed unless amended position and would align our comments with Expedia's. We appreciate the Committee's proposed amendments and look forward to continuing our work with the author to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. With that Committee Members, questions, comments on what's in front of us see none. I'm sorry.

Assembly Member Ward

yeah, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I think like has been mentioned in discussion here today...

I think there's a lot that merits improvements that we would want to see as a gold standard for how we are able to reconcile information gathered and collaborated with a lot of these platforms and the important assurance that local governments are getting the TOT that is commiserate with this activity, it is rightfully that they need it, it's rightfully theirs and it is in alignment with hoteliers and with other properties and activities that are subject to TOT as well.

So I think that if I really parse this Bill out into three areas, you know, those last two areas about making sure that we can reconcile just like hotels do today, the activity that's going on and the TOT that is remitted I think is an important check that is there between the platform who collects that TOT so they have a role to play there and the submissions to the city.

And then secondly the requirement for the listings of permit fields to be on sites, I think is something that I presume is generally done in practice today as well. But if that needs enhancement to provide some kind of a standard in the law, I very much am supportive of that too.

Because I think it's important that for respecting local ordinances you can demonstrate that any listing is, has a number that is assigned to it that is, you know, respective of San Francisco county or Sonoma county or the City of San Diego or whoever the authorizing local government is.

I have heartburn though about a blanket directive that requires the, under the law, a immediate submission or return of information in this case. Because as someone who actually worked on short term rental ordinances in local government when I was on City Council, I recognize that there are three parties here that are in the mix of questions.

And I always see this relationship as something that is between the local government, the authorizing jurisdiction that decides as big or as little or the parameters that it wants to around short term rental activities, and the property owner and that, that, that is I think, the defined relationship there that is trying to be able to be maintained a platform, whether it's Airbnb or Homeaway or Craigslist or whoever is doing listings is a mediator.

And I recognize too, I'm not, not blind that they are a convenience, that they, they have a wealth of information. But is it that entity's responsibility to share what it has as its proprietary information? And I recognize that we've narrowed a little bit through Committee amendments as well about what, what could be shared.

I'm still stuck on the question of whether or not they should be directed to share that in the first place. And if it's true that looking at the permit fields, for example, that should be listed on the site, well, you already have that information because that permit number came from the local government anyway.

And so let me dial it back one step. When I was in local government and working on short term rental ordinances, it was very clear that we also needed to establish that fee that permitting would be able to Fund for code enforcement.

And a lot of that was to make sure that we were compliant for permitted properties, nuisance properties or anything else that was in the ecosystem of managing these, these, these properties.

And so there should have been in a perfect world, I think, a decent alignment of a nexus of that activity and the permit fee that should be able to keep unpermitted activity in control.

And I'm fully aware too that neighbors are probably the biggest source of information when they believe there's unpermitted activity that they want to call the city because they think there's an illegal Airbnb VRBO operating down the street. Well, you can go ahead and look at that property to see if there's already a permit attached to that.

And if not, probably your local ordinance has enforcement that's attached to it. And I have a broader question as well, too, about why we would even need state legislation here to be able to compel this activity, when I'm pretty sure that you could be able to. I think.

I think you'd be authorized to do that through your local ordinance anyway. If operating in the city or listing properties in a given county is something that is of interest to you, your local ordinance should be able to reflect the requirements for data sharing.

And if not, there could be a penalty that could be enforced from that local government to that platform. We're not not having that compliance. So I'm trying to also reconcile the need for state legislation that I think is already authorized and permitted for cities to be able to do if they...

If they so want to be able to do that. So these are things that I'm tussling with just fundamentally about that first and critical issue about is making sure that we're not getting into some kind of overreach if we're getting into spaces of, say, you know, search and seizure of information.

And I guess an open question as well, too, And I'll kind of leave my comments there is, is there any parameters here to how often you can request that information? Could a city request information?

I want to see all your listings and all these APNs and all this information, and then three days later request the very same information, and three days after that, this very same information. I realize that's probably not going to happen in practice, but what would be if this were the language that moved forward?

Some parameters that, you know, I think were reasonable from a business perspective.

Well, great. Thank you. I will let the experts answer that because they're the practitioners. They're the ones who've had to deal with this and how it's become a statewide problem.

As you could see of all the supporters for this Bill that were here today, you rarely get the kind of diversity of towns, medium cities, large cities, counties across the state. That's rarely being done. So I take that as one reason that I agreed to take on this bill is because it was widespread.

Widespread from Hanford to Santa Monica to La, all across the board. There is a real serious problem here, and we're trying to find the best way efficient way for governments to be able to do what they're supposed to do, which is to enforce the law and collect the taxes from these, from these platforms.

So I will let them get more into the weeds of it.

I want to hear more in the weeds. But I could just also maybe add this for some color. They also hold the trump card, so to speak, in that they could just have an outright ban in that city. Right.

They could just say like, okay, fine, if you're not willing to share information, if platforms aren't willing to be at the table as a part of the, the mechanics of our ordinance, then we have no activity in our state. We will not issue any permits and these will be unauthorized.

And I think that that's a huge hitch too. So I feel like they've got some, they've got some advantage already in today's standard. But I'd like to hear a little bit more from the experts.

Okay, maybe if I can work from your last couple questions, we'll work backwards. From the ban perspective, cities don't want to, most cities don't want to ban short term rentals. TOT can reflect upwards of 50% of General Fund revenues for some cities, especially in heavily tourism districts and areas.

So you know, that would, you know, be going into the territory of bankruptcy from some cities if they did that.

So and then from the second question you had about, you know, the every three days requesting the data, we did put, you know, language into the Bill restricting, you know, every three months is the max that could be requested on there. Unless the ordinance in the jurisdiction requires TOT remittance every 30 days, we aligned it with that.

So we want to make sure there's parity and, you know, coordination between whatever the local ordinance is and the request of the data. To your point, we are in a unique time right now. If you look back to the statute and the guidance that the controller's Office gives on TOT auditing and it's outdated, it talks about hotels.

We know where hotels are. You walk down the street, you see the sign. You don't often see neon signs at the windows with a short term rental company's logo. It's hard to find us as local governments, we look at the map, we see the same dots that the consumers see.

So really our tool is, to your point, we can put an ordinance out there and we can say in our ordinance we would like to receive the address and whatever other sets of data.

But as you can see from the court cases that were referenced in the analyses, whether it be from the Judiciary Committee or even from the opposition's letter. They sue as soon as those ordinances go into effect and then we have to litigate. They ultimately end up settling and we get the data.

But you know, that's not, that might be feasible for some larger cities that have the staff capacity, the bandwidth and the, you know, the budgets to do that. But the smaller cities, the medium sized cities, that's just not, you know, within their scope of what they can do.

So really what this bill's goal is one is an opt in bill. So you know, if a city does have, you know, a great working relationship with a platform, you know, there wouldn't be a need for them to utilize the bill.

But really what it does is says, you know, if you do put that ordinance in place to request that the state compels that they have to provide that information. And so that's the point of the Fourth Amendment and search and seizures.

There is no federal case that states that providing an address is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. So you know, that's just couldn't be my perspective on it. But you know, get happy to answer any follow up questions.

Seizure of information.

Seizure, yeah, correct.

All right. I can just add a little bit more to that too in terms of how to limit it and how it be tied to reporting schedule. That really would help out a lot, especially I think in smaller counties where we're at. I mean, my office has a very small staff.

We have a lot of trouble getting out to sites following up investigations. But because we're not getting regular reporting, when we do find out about a short term rental operating unlawfully or without registration, by then we often have a few years of interest and penalties that have built up.

So by the time we find out about it, because it's not timely. Right now, the sweep we did, there's more unregistered operators than registered. So we're looking at hundreds of listings and trying to bring people into compliance.

But unfortunately the data is so late, you know, now we're looking at far more serious consequences than there needed to be.

Anybody else? Comments? Questions from Committee Members? Assembly Member Hoover?

Thank you. Hmm. So I've got a couple cities that support this and I said I'd be very open minded, but I just, I'm not, I'm not convinced here. I understand. I actually share a lot of the same concerns as my colleague expressed and I do understand the challenges associated with tracking all this information down.

But I guess what I don't understand is why the platform is now responsible. So if you could kind of clarify that for me. Again, this seems like the job of government and I think that local governments have a lot of tools at their disposal to do this work. So why is the platform now being pulled in?

I say, you know, we're operating in the way like the platform is the entity that knows where these rentals are. You know, we, we know where the license rentals are. They've come to the city or the county and they've gotten a short term rental license or business license.

But the, you know, unlicensed operators, you know, there is no check at the platform, there's no verification. So those are allowed to be listed on the platform. And again, the dots that we see on the map, you know, there, there may be a field for the license, you know, that was mentioned.

But we've seen some of them in the license say 0 or the license will say 123. And so again there's no verification. And so that's why the platforms do hold the address. So then we're not asking them to verify.

If they give us the address, we can match that up to what we have on file and then we know who is not licensed. And then to the tax collector's point, we can then go hope to bring those folks into compliance. And we don't want to shut folks down.

Yeah, we want to make sure this is a huge revenue source for cities. This is existing revenue stream we have. This is about bringing folks into compliance and enforcing our existing laws.

So again, it's the unfortunate reality of a unique situation that we have with the advent of the Internet and these platforms and the gig economy is that there is only one central location that has this information.

So just one follow up on that and I'd like to hear from both support and opposition if possible, this question about a permit number. There's other forms of ways to verify this information that don't involve private information.

And I do take some exception with your testimony from the standpoint that there's this talking point that hotels and Airbnbs or VRBOs or whatever short term rentals are the same thing. I think they are fundamentally different things for a lot of different reasons. But why not use some other less intrusive form to bring these people into compliance?

For example, if they're unlicensed or don't have their correct permit number, why not go about it that way as opposed to, you know, basically writing a state law to try to do this. It seems like there should be enough tools at the local level.

I always add, if you know if we don't, if it's incorrect permit number on there, there would be nothing to check it against. At the local level, we wouldn't have the address. And so it would just be kind of a wild goose chase.

So I don't know if you guys have a comment.

Yeah, on the permit field, obviously, if there's zero, the city knows that that's an illegal listing because they don't have a license with the city. In which case we would encourage the city to reach out to Airbnb either informally and we'll take it down.

I have examples of six cities that are supporting this Bill where we've done takedowns in their cities over the past six months. They've just asked and we've done it. Or you can go to your city attorney, have them submit an administrative subpoena, which would compel us to give you the information.

Preferably we do it informally, but if you need to go to the city attorney, that's a tool every city and county has.

I'll just close. Make one comment. So, you know, I appreciate the dialogue. I think, yeah, there's still some concerns here, and I don't know if I could ask the author if you're open to continuing to work on some of these concerns as we move forward.

I know we're getting sort of late in the process here, but I'm just not sure that this bill is quite narrow enough for me today, and so certainly still open to changing my mind on that. But I think it's something that I'd like to see a little more refinement.

So I don't know if that's something you're willing to continue working with opposition on or if you think there is a path there, but just wanted to put that out there for you.

I can't say that there is a path that would satisfy without giving up the opportunity and the right that the cities have right to be able to collect the taxes. So that's what I'm most concerned about, because that's the purpose of the Bill.

If there's anything that follows that goal, then sure, we'd like to, of course we can talk about it, but I'm very dependent on the folks who carry this out. You know, if they know what they're doing, and I don't think they'd be sort of creating an issue when there's no issue.

They just want to be able to collect the taxes and you know, do it, do it in a simple, as simple a way as possible without having to go to court without having to do subpoenas. I mean, there ought to be a simple way.

So that's what we've been trying to that's what we've been working on and trying all these many months.

I appreciate that. I appreciate your work on that. And honestly, I do respect I think one thing that's very clear here is that I think cities really, in most cases, right, want short term rentals. I think short term rentals really want to be able to continue to operate in cities. So there is a mutually beneficial relationship there.

I feel like action at the state level is a bit far, to be honest with you, at this point. It seems like these are things that could be worked out more informally at the local level. But I appreciate the comments. Thank you.

Thank Assembly Member Hoover. Assembly Member Stefani

Thank you, Chair and I want to thank the Senator for her call today and for allowing me to express my concerns about the Bill and for your efforts in collecting the transient occupancy taxes for local governments. Coming from San Francisco, I know how important this is.

I do want to align myself with some of the comments from my colleague, Assembly Member Ward, and touch on the privacy issues that I mentioned today.

I know this is going to Judiciary, so I'm not going to take a lot of time here today and I'm happy to support, as we move on to Judiciary, I can continue talking about those privacy concerns based on the hosts themselves as this continues to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Member Stefani. Seen no one nails somebody? Assembly Member Ward

Thank you for indulging Mr. Chair.

One final thought is that if the issue is ensuring that we have accurate collection of TOT and that there is validity in the information that's shared here, why not just simply simplify this Bill to a requirement that connects the permit number to the amount received for a given quarter and have that be the submission.

If that's the and then a city would check that and say, okay, like, you know, we have all these permit, permitted because it's their permit number. Oh wait, this permit number 123 that doesn't exist, then that helps them hone in on something that is a red flag that could be teased out a little bit more.

Oh wait, we have all these other permit numbers as well that receive no TOT remittance. Maybe we need to look into that. I think that's maybe the amount of information that would need to be shared to be able to reconcile the issue of ToT.

If it's broader than that, like I said I still see an issue of code compliance issues that I think cities are already empowered to work on. So I think, like my colleague from San Francisco, happy to support, but I want to make sure that we are getting something that is, you know, as narrow as it could be.

As you're working on some of those privacy issues in the coming Committee as well, I would appreciate an earnest effort to try to be intentional about what it is that the scope of the Bill that we're working on here.

Thank you. Thank you. Assembly Member, Ward, Assembly Member Rubio?

It sounds like we're complicating. I mean, I'm looking through the Bill and it sounds like all you want is addresses, is that correct? I'm sorry that all you want are the addresses to the short term rentals.

and the listing.

Yeah, well, I've had conversations many times already, so it just feels really complicated because part of the conversation we had in my office was about the ability for cities to already do this. And that was my pushback when we had our conversation was like, you know, the cities already can do this. Right.

If we mentioned in particular, I think Irvine was a specific city that we talked about that some of the neighbors don't like the short term rentals, therefore they were turning them in, I guess to the city. Right. They were saying, oh, this particular home is a short term rental.

But we went back and forth about what the ability of the city is to be able to do this. Can a city write an ordinance that says you must provide this?

So I'm sorry, I just wanted to get clear. So your suggestion is that each city do their own separate ordinances.

Well, they're doing their ordinances already.

Collect information.

Yes, because from the conversation we had, cities already are writing ordinances in regards to short term rentals already. Right? That's... from what I understand, that's correct. Right. Cities are already saying these are the parameters if you want to do a short term rental, et cetera, et cetera.

Can a city that's already doing this say and platform, you must provide the addresses.

We do. And then typically when the address is part of the ordinance that it's requested, that's when we get sued for the by the platforms and then that's when we have the prolonged legal fights and then that's when we get the settlements that you see in the court cases that are on there.

So you're being sued because of the ordinances that are being written?

Yes. And what has been the outcomes of those suits?

We've settled with the platforms and they have given Us the information that we've originally requested.

So can you address that issue?

Sure. So I think in the context of settling, it's really two parties working out an agreement. From the city's perspective, they have their priorities, but from the platform's perspective, they need to protect their customers privacy. So when it comes to protecting their customers privacy, their physical addresses, unlike hotels, these small business owners often live at their residence.

So protecting their physical address is a priority for the company. So I think the settling is really two parties coming together to work out an agreement.

Right, but, but the, the privacy part. So there's two tiers of privacy. Right. It's the name of the person and the address. If you exclude the name of the person that you know and only the city is allowed to use that information, then that's protecting the privacy of the, the owner.

We, we have no, the city is, can get addresses from their small businesses. That's not a problem. Where we have.

The problem is when the city goes to a third party to get those addresses because we, the courts have, courts have, federal courts in New York and Boston have both said physical addresses are personal information and they're protected by the Fourth Amendment. And that's why you need a subpoena.

There needs to be a legal process in place if government wants to search the business records.

But then that's why we're here because of the back and forth instead of providing the addresses,

I'll point out they.... Can again, they can pass their own ordinances and that's something we work with them on a regular basis. Sometimes it does result in litigation, but I think most of the time the platforms work with local governments to find sensible short term rental regulations.

Yes, but that's why we're here though. That's why I think we're overcomplicating this whole issue. We've been back and forth for weeks on this and it's taken a lot of time, but it just feels like, yes, you know, the privacy from, in my opinion is the addresses or I'm sorry, the names of the folks.

They said that, you know, there are ordinances or they are asking for that information. And if you, you know, when you, when the platforms get the information or have to give the information, then they get sued and then there has to be settlement.

So at some point there's gotta be a middle ground to how much are you willing to pay on legal fees to get this or we do this this way instead of saying no, we don't need the names, we just need the addresses. So I'm in between right now. That's why I'm trying to figure this out.

Just one response. There's a legal process in place that we're asking the Legislature to preserve here, and that is a city attorney works with the local code enforcement officer when they suspect illegal activity on the platform. The legal process in place is for the city attorney to provide an administrative subpoena. It is not that difficult to do.

Again, I saw one yesterday. It was barely four pages. And when Airbnb receives that, most of the time they comply and turn over the information. What this Bill would do was take that legal process away and allow cities to request information without having that due process in place. So that's what we think is important.

That's what we're asking the Legislature to provide.

Right, Correct. But, but the whole point is that some of these, these short term rentals are underground, like they're being. That's, that's where the, the cities are not getting that information. Not because you are not providing them. And yes, they can subpoena, but then this makes it easier.

They don't have to go through, you know, a third party to try and get these addresses. Simply you provide the addresses. Because some, again, I know it's a far fetched comparison. However, the cannabis market, right, they have facilities that are providing cannabis that are illegal. How would a city find out if somebody's not reporting it? They don't.

Some of them need permits. There is no platform for them to, to say, hey, this whatever organization or whatever business is functioning without a permit, here, there is a particular address that they can pursue. I'm. Again, I'm in between. It's not making sense why it's so complicated.

I understand that you neither side wants to go to court, but them having to subpoena you, that means they have to go to court.

The subpoenas doesn't. You don't need to go to a judge. You don't need to go to court. Well, they can't write it themselves. They can. The city attorney can. The city attorney just writes it, drafts it. It's 34 pages, depending on how complicated it is.

And they email it to Airbnb and Airbnb looks at it, legal Department looks at it, and then they provide the City the information so it doesn't take forever.

They don't need to spit a bunch of dollars on legal funds fighting in court.

So then, okay, so then the question is, how often does this happen? Does this happen on a monthly basis, on a quarterly basis that they have to write a subpoena to go get.

I know the company feels those requests on a regular basis. I don't know the specifics in terms of how often each city does it, but there's a legal process in place. It doesn't require going to court. The code enforcement officer can work with the city attorney and just email the letter over to the company.

The company reviews it and provides the information.

Okay, well, I think that the timing is every three months. I think that's language in the Bill. They can only have that process every three months. So that would address the issue from doing over and over again.

Right, well, and again what I'm trying to do is like, so now they have to hire a third person, a third party to do this, right? That they, they're the ones that are searching for the addresses. So the addresses are somehow. They're getting, they're getting the addresses anyway.

So in terms of privacy, that goes out the window because the third party has access to it. Right. So now they're having to pay for a third party to provide that information to the cities.

Because I don't think our customers want us providing their information to a third party that the city is contracted out with.

But they're doing it, they're getting the information.

Again, this is why we're pushing hard to protect the customer's information.

The name, but the address, like I said, is not necessarily attached to, you know, the name is the one that is for me, the name is the one that's more critical. The address. You can get an address from a third party. The name is. Anyway, we're gonna go round and round. I'm still in between.

I'm just trying to make sense of, you know, it shouldn't be that complicated to provide the addresses and for the, you know, for the cities or whoever's requesting that information for you. You can also, you know, write that ordinance. Right.

Even though you're going to, I understand you're going to go to court, but you can also make that part of the ordinance because cities are writing ordinances already for short term rentals. So that's why I'm like going back and forth. And it's still a very obviously, I think it's an emotional issue right now. Not necessarily.

And I found that this has been throughout my conversations with folks on this issue. It's more emotional, somehow, it just seems very adversarial as opposed to trying to work together. I, I feel like you can fix it without having to do a Bill and without having to go to court. On either side. Right.

And so I don't know where the disconnect is and I think I'll just stop because we're not necessarily getting the answer either way. So thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We've seen nobody else. Is there a motion and a second? Second, first and a second. Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you. Well, I really appreciate all the questions, all the comments because we're trying really hard and I don't think any of these cities want to go through excess work, you know, to be able to collect the taxes that are owed.

And just to remind us that there are, you know, a lot of businesses that are carried out. There are a lot of businesses in people's homes. That doesn't mean they're not required to follow business requirements. If you have a childcare facility, you need to get a family childcare license. You have to submit your address. Right for that.

And there's lots of examples like that a short term rental is a small business like any other. They need to be licensed and when they apply for licenses, they provide their address. That's not a privacy issue. Right. That's there, that's provided.

So we just want to make sure that the short term rental hosts have licenses and pay their taxes and they're competing on the same field on the same level as everybody else. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I also want to thank you for working closely with the Committee on the amendments which you agreed to take.

Thank you.

I have had numerous conversations on this bill like many of us did, and I understand the position of the short term rental platforms. However, I do believe it is important that cities and counties are able to enforce the ordinances they adopt with the amendments.

I believe there is a balance between information the local agencies can request and the burden on platforms to comply with this request. The amendments make it clear that only information that is specific to an individual unit in a multi family building or other similar situation can be sought if the address is not sufficient.

The amendments also place a limit on how often an agency can request information. Again, that's three months on the language in the Bill and specify that the bill's audit provisions only apply if the platform is also responsible for collecting the tax.

I believe these are three critical changes to ensure that we protect information on those in our communities that choose to rent out their properties and to ensure that we are not placing undue burden on short term rental platforms.

I urge you to continue working with the opposition as this bill moves to the next Committee with the amendments that will be voting aye. The motion is due passed as amended to the Judiciary Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed as amended to Judiciary

[roll call]

The vote is 3:7.

The vote is 7:0. The Bill moves on. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on.

Thank you. Thank you. Colleagues.

You also have another Bill you want to present your second Bill, SB635.

Thank you.

Okay, he's coming.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair and members for allowing me to present SB 635, the Street Vendor Business Protection Act. And it is a Latino caucus bill priority. This bill is a significant step towards ensuring that our street vendors have the support that they deserve and that they need as they participate in local government programs without fear.

Street vending is woven into our cultural and civic fabric of our communities, especially low income and immigrant workers. It's more than a job. It's the first step that they're taking towards economic stability and a better future. These vendors many times aren't just selling goods. They're building the dream that they have for their families.

We have witnessed unfortunate events unfolding across the state. And what we're trying to do is address a lot of those well founded fears. In the city of Hollywood, around mid June, Emma De Paz was arrested by immigration agents. She'd been selling in our community for over two decades.

She showed up rain or shine, to provide for her family. This is just one story, but it's painful. Our street vendors are being targeted and the livelihoods are under attack. As the federal government intensifies actions, this bill presents an opportunity to safeguard vulnerable communities in California.

This bill will safeguard micro business owners personal information to ensure that they can continue their work and peace through enhanced data privacy, clarifying local government programs and preventing sensitive information from falling into the hands of federal agency.

Today we have the pleasure of hearing from Shannon Camacho, Century, um, senior associate with Inclusive Action and Doug Smith, vice president with Inclusive Action for the City. Thank you. I don't know who's going first.

I'll take it away. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Doug Smith. I'm vice president of policy and legal strategy at Inclusive Action for the City. We're a community based organization in Los Angeles and a proud co sponsor of SB 635.

Let me start by saying that you weren't supposed to be hearing from me today. Typically, for a bill like this, you'd be hearing from the street vendors who are most impacted by these policies and whose lived experience and expertise. Expertise is most relevant and important. But the street vendor community is currently being terrorized as we speak.

With violent raids in Los Angeles and across California, families are being torn apart and fear is spreading throughout the community. Because of this, the two street vendors who were supposed to be here today to share their experiences and participate in our democracy instead decided that they could not risk the travel. This only underscores the importance of SB 635.

This bill will prevent street vendors personal data from being weaponized against them by federal immigration agents, making our communities safer and our economy stronger. I wish you could hear directly from the street vendors today, but they don't feel safe to work, let alone travel to our capital.

So my colleague and I will be reading statements that they asked us to share on their behalf. I'm going to begin by reading a statement from Adriana, who sells food in the Inland Empire. Good afternoon. My name is Adriana. I've been a street vendor in the Inland Empire for over six years.

My business is selling food, and it is very important to me and my family as we rely on it to meet our basic needs such as food, health care, and bills. Six years ago, when we decided to start street vending, we faced the pandemic, and thank God we made it through.

Today, my community of street vendors and I are facing raids and kidnapping without this administration seeming to care that children are being left without their parents, the very people who provide their daily livelihood. This is causing constant fear among us vendors who are forced to choose between risking our family's safety or not being able to provide for them at all.

That's why I'm sending this letter to our legislators so that they understand how important it is for us, the street vendors, to pass SB 635. This bill would better protect the personal information of street vendors since our livelihood is being seriously affected.

We are unable to meet our basic needs, such as paying rent, buying food, and covering bills. We do not currently have a law that makes us feel even a little safer. Our future is uncertain because we are being targeted for trying to provide for ourselves and our family.

We know our work contributes to the economy through the taxes we pay. That's why we need more protections, and we want to become formalized. We want to show that we do comply with laws.

We only ask that our information not be shared with other federal entities, such as ICE, I ask that you share with your colleagues how important this bill is as it would have a positive impact on our livelihoods. Thank you for voting in favor of SB 635.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Shannon Camacho and I'll be reading the testimony of Maria, who is a street vendor from Los Angeles. My name is Maria. With respect, I ask this Assembly Committee to support and approve SB 635, which would maintain our personal information as private and not be used for unjust reasons.

As a street vendor, myself and many of my fellow vendors, we have worked hard for many years and knocked on doors to strongly advocate to legalize street vending in California. I am a fruit vendor in Los Angeles.

I have been a street vendor for at least 10 years, starting out by selling hot dogs, sodas and bottled water in different parts of Los Angeles. And I became a street vendor because I wanted to earn an honest living and many of my previous jobs were constantly shutting down due to a lack of sales.

So becoming a street vendor was the perfect opportunity for me to become my own boss and support the tourism economy by selling healthy food.

I was motivated to get involved in campaigns initially to support a local leader in my area who was seeking support to challenge drastic changes to a city ordinance that would affect vendors in our area.

As I spoke with the local vendor leader and the organization that supported street vendors, I slowly began to learn about my rights and the city ordinance. I really enjoyed it because as a collective, we had the potential to make positive changes because our perspectives and opinions mattered.

Here in Los Angeles, we live in fear and panic, unable to go out to work. We have seen more than two dozen of our fellow vendors kidnapped and arrested by ICE and bounty hunters.

It is heartbreaking to see families being separated, to see people being beaten, and to hear the cries of children left without one of their parents. We are very afraid of being taken and that's why the approval of SB 635 is so important.

It would give us a little peace of mind and protection since many of our families rely on our work to move forward. We are honorable people and workers and we hope for your support. Thank you.

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

Matt Lajay with [unintelligible] California in support.

Hi, Rachel Muller. On behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, the California Association of Microenterprise Organizations, also here today asked to give me too support from Housing Trust Silicon Valley, the California Capital Financial Development Corporation, and California Farm Wing. Thank you so much.

Hi. Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA, Community Power Collective, Inclusive Action for the City, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and Public Counsel as proud co sponsors and strong support of SB 635. Also on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center and the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Zenit Yaya on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in support.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of three organizations, Oakland Privacy, The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Good afternoon, members. Orquillo De Roy Reyes with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center Carecen, and for Friends and Child Poverty California. Thank you. In support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chairmembers Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kate Chatfield with the California Public Defender's Association in support.

Cristel De Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Asian Americans Advancing justice in Southern California in support. Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez is with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the [unintelligible] center in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Committee members. Questions? Comments? A motion? We have a motion by Assemblymember Stephanie. We get a second. Second by Assembly. Ward and Assemblymember Ramos. Would you like to close?

Thank you all very much. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you for your work to protect our sidewalk vendors, mobile food operators and our immigrant communities. Now more than ever, we need to keep protecting our communities.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

We have a first and a second. You, please call the roll.

The motion is due. Pass to Public Safety. [Roll Call] The vote is 6-1.

The vote is 6-1. We leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

And the bill is out. We move on to agenda item number eight by Senator Stern. SB 499. Whenever you're ready, Senator, please.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, the bill before you today, SB 499, looks at the valuable role that parks can play in providing public safety and hazard mitigation. Parkland and recreational facilities have been in my backyard, at least places of refuge, buffer zones for wildland fires. In other communities. We've seen them be critical flood protection tools.

Here in Sacramento. We know that flood is always on people's minds. And the role that parks and trails play is not just a recreational one, that those pieces of land are crucial for making our community safer.

There was a provision in a bill passed last year by Senator Wiener that allowed for fees to be paid up front from new developments to certain facilities that had public safety dimensions to them. But we feel that that's actually a pretty broad and expansive provision.

So this Bill would actually provide some certainty and a little more granularity around it. We've been talking to the opposition about it. We actually feel that the current law is much more expansive and lets a broader range of parks get up front fees from project developers.

But in this case, we clarify that only those parklands and recreational facilities designated in a local agency safety element in its General plan or its hazard mitigation plan would be eligible for impact fee deferral exemptions when they're providing emergency services. We accept the Committee amendments. We appreciate the work with the staff on this.

And I want to turn to my witnesses in support from from my own backyard, a chair of our very successful Conejo Rec and Parks District, talk a little bit about how things have been in the Conejo Valley. Doug Nichols, as well as Matthew Duarte, who's Executive Director for the California Association of Recreation and Parks districts.

Thank you, Mr. Nichols.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator and Members of the Committee. My name is Doug Nichols and I'm the Chair of the Kaneo Recreation and Park District. We provide and manage extensive district owned parks, facilities and open space across southeastern Ventura County.

I was first elected to the District's Board six years ago after serving on the City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission for six years. I'm also a retired Assistant Fire Marshal with the Glendale Fire Department after 28 years we'd like to thank Senator Stern for authoring SB 499 and for his continued engagement in our community.

We are here today in strong support of the bill and respectfully request your aye vote.

During a four day period from November 7th to 10th of 2018, our global adult Community center served as a state and local election polling place, a hot meal distribution Center for low income seniors, a reunification facility for survivors of the Borderline mass shooting, and an evacuation Center for those displaced by the Woolsey Fire.

Senator Stern showed up to help and encourage the community immediately following these tragic events, despite the fact that he and his family were also evacuated from their home, which was unfortunately lost in the fire.

At the same time during the Woolsey fire, the Canal Creek South Soccer Complex, which is across the street from our Community center, was used as the initial Woolsey Fire Base Camp, accommodating hundreds of firefighters from across the state.

SB499 clarifies that only those parks and recreational facilities that are designated in a local agency's hazard mitigation plan or related General plan safety element are eligible for certain fee deferral exemptions under existing law.

SB499 is not proposed as an expansion to include parks Cart Lunch, but instead a very narrow clarification for those parks and recreational facilities and designated by a local agency for public safety mitigation purposes like those I've just mentioned. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

We respectfully request your aye vote and I'm available to answer any questions you might have.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matthew Duarte and for the past seven years I've served as Executive Director of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, or CARPD. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

CARPD is a statewide organization representing over 70 independent special districts that manage parks, open space and importantly, critical community infrastructure throughout the state.

SB499 is a critical measure that clarifies that public improvements or facilities related to providing fire, public safety and emergency services include parks and recreational facilities when they are identified in a local hazard mitigation plan or safety element for an emergency purpose. We are Proud to sponsor SB 499 in partnership with Senator Stern.

This legislation provides clear and practical guidance to local agencies and developers around when fees can be collected for public improvements that support fire, public safety or emergency services. These are projects that take years to design, Fund and construct, and they require ongoing upgrades and maintenance.

SB 499 provides responsible guidance by ensuring that facilities and parklands that serve as fire buffers, community resilience hubs, staging areas and cooling centers, among other emergency uses, are recognized for the essential public safety role that they play within a consistent planning framework.

We must ensure that our public safety infrastructure is in place before or at the very least in conjunction with new development. During disaster recovery. These areas play a vital role for repopulation, aid, distribution and equipment storage across California. Our Member agencies are already integrating emergency functions into park design, not for recreation, but to protect communities.

What we seek with SB 499 is to ensure that this kind of planning can be recognized and implemented with clarity and legal consistency. We respectfully request your aye vote on SB 499 and thank you for your time.

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

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Doug Huston, representing the California park and Recreation Society, we're in support.

Ophelia Segeti, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in Support.

Mr. Chair, Members, bear with me.

I have a little bit of a list here on behalf of the cities of Belmont and Rancho Cucamonga in support, as well as the Ambrose Recreation and Park District, the Auburn Area Recreation and Park District, the Cordova Recreation and Park District, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, Rio Linda Recreation and Park District, the Valley Wide Recreation Park District and Wasco Recreation and Park District.

All in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members of Ranco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition to on the record with that I see somebody coming. In opposition? Yeah, primary witness than me too.

Okay.

Thank you once again. See no one else in opposition. Committee Members Questions, comments Assembly Member Ward.

Thank you for your interest in being able to help facilitate more park and recreation facilities, especially for these intended purposes here. One of the fundamental challenges that I have is really harkening back to the Bill from several years ago as well with that broader discussion about when an impact fee should be should be paid upon.

And for me the impact occurs when we have occupancy because then you have a population that is really depending or is adding to the burden on a fire station on a parks facility.

And so I'm trying to rationalize, I guess, this exception that is here because the House doesn't have or the construction of that house does not have a direct impact today on that parks facility that you would want to Fund ahead of schedule. But so I'm having trouble like linking those two and finding that exception here.

And I guess could you, could you try to also help me understand a real world example about how, let's say I'm going to make up a number here, There is a $10,000 impact fee for a new home construction that would go into these intended purposes for these parks facilities that might also have infrastructure improvements to be able to support flood mitigation.

That $10,000 is a burden on that home, especially as we're trying to be able to build more, especially in the areas that we're impacted and devastated community wide. And we want to be able to get those homes operational as quick as possible.

But that $10,000, I'm unconvinced, is insufficient on its own to be able to build the thing that you want to be able to do anyway.

And so it's like we're funding an escrow account until you get to a decent aggregation that you can start to actually do work on the facilities that again, the population is maybe not there for another 12 months or so to actually be able to benefit from. So can you help me connect these dots?

You. Yeah, and I appreciate the sensitivities around that.

And I, you know, we saw in some of the opposition letters, I think maybe they're older letters, but nonetheless, point stands that there are certain jurisdictions that are assessing huge impact fees and sort of disconnected and disproportionate from the actual impact that they have as sort of just a General financing mechanism.

We're not trying to sort of undo or win that argument. I think the issue is the lead time that's needed to, to do public safety related improvements don't allow us to wait till after a project's done. That's why the Wiener Bill actually exempted these kinds of facilities in the first place. Right.

So it was seen as one of these areas for fee deferral exemptions because say you're trying to build, I mean, we have a project right at the intersection. They're trying to do a big new affordable housing project, good project, but right in the middle of a high fire severity zone where we.

The Woolsey fire burned right through there. And so now you're trying to stick a bunch of new housing in there. And they're saying yes. Right. That city wants to say yes, but they know that while they're doing construction on the Housing project. They also have an oak woodland buffer that has been decimated.

That if they can sort of get the work going while the project's going to restore that, that they're going to have a fire buffer around that so that they can get insurance. Right. So that the whole thing can start to pencil. So I would let the.

If you want more, I would go to the witnesses for other examples. But just it's a timing thing that we think that was it the 937 framework recognized.

That these do belong at the front end as opposed to the back end when they're public safety related just because it takes time to catch up. But that. Yeah, this. I still don't quite understand the opposition because I actually think the current law is much more expansive than this. I think for us putting.

Right.

And I would encourage you to just kick the tires cause you know your housing stuff well. But if we're requiring to actually be in the safety element or the hazard mitigation plan, that that's actually a pretty high bar to get through. Those aren't just like willy nilly. You throw any old park project in your hazmat plan.

Like it's got a. There's FEMA, there's insurance. Like there's a lot of other sort of preconditions to putting something in a plan like that. So I would argue that this Bill is actually narrower than the exemption from the previous Wiener Bill.

At least that's the intent is clear, guidance parameters and not to sort of get into this strange ambiguous world where you don't really know is that kind of project. Again, building a buffer zone around a new apartment complex. Does that work?

There was a West SAC flood project I think similar where they were trying to get housing built, but it was in a floodplain and they desperately needed a few more dollars to get to complete the levee restoration.

Senator Cabaldon was talking about this one and that extra bit of trails funding that actually allowed them to finish the grading and things like that. Got that. There were like 15 different pots going into the flood management thing. Right. You're trying to pull down FEMA dollars, whatever.

But that by getting that little extra bit of that trails money from an impact fee, it allowed them to get done and then the whole project starts to unlock. So we actually think we'll unlocked more housing if we do a better job on safety on the front end. So that's my pitch. I don't know if it.

I don't know if it lands processing. Okay.

I would just add, you know Emergency preparedness begins before occupancy. And our public agencies are really rising to the moment with respect to design and how that can be incorporated, particularly with wildfire response. At the design side, they're doing defensible, defensible space. These buffers that are being built in based off of unfortunate past experience recently.

You know, Paradise Rec and Park District, they have a State of the art design now for their, their new parks, anticipating public egress and ingress and for emergency response as well. But then also at the design component, these are also large scale response for firefighters.

So the infrastructure is being built in as far as electrical and all the plumbing and everything that needs to be put in so that that can be a launch space for these type of responses. So it's starting in the design component, which is why this is important as far as timing.

Okay, thanks. Anybody else? See? Nobody else. I'm going to open up to public comment again. Those that want to come in opposition, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Thank you, Chair. In good fashion, we're doing a delayed response. So Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY, we were one of the co sponsors to SB 937. Out of respect for the author, we would love to have continued conversations. We just want to have a clear nexus. So we look forward to speaking to you further.

Good afternoon. Allie Saberman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, also a co sponsor of SB 937, in respectful opposition. Really appreciate the conversations that's been happening with the author and the author's office. Really appreciate Committee staff and this Committee as a whole. And we really look forward to reaching a resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, Committee Members, any further seeing? None. Is there a motion? A second? We have a first and a second. Would you like to close, Senator?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you for presenting SB 499. Today. I will be voting Aye. The motion is due pass as amended. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call] I will follow up. Oh. Thank you.

6- 0. The bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you, Senator. We're going to go back to file order. Next on the agenda is item number four, SB 358 by Senator Becket.

Senator.

Great. Well, thank you, Chair and members, wonderful to be here with all of you presenting SB 358, we want to start off by accepting the committee amendments. Thank you for you and your team working with us. This bill is modernizing the Mitigation Fee Act to ensure traffic impact fees reflect actual automobile trip generation.

Really the, the bigger goal here is encouraging development of housing that reduces car dependence and promotes more walkable transit oriented communities. I know there was a long discussion in the Housing Committee today about another bill that you're going to hear around zoning around transit. And that's, and that's important part of the picture.

What we're here, this more practical bill, we're actually trying to make it more practical to build around transit by lowering those traffic impact fees. There's a number of pieces of this that I'm happy to go into.

In specifics, but generally requires that any deviation from lower traffic impact fees be supported by substantial evidence, burning transparency, and accountability in local decision making. With that, I'll turn it over. I have two excellent wonky witnesses here today and I'll let them chat a little bit and we'll catch up on anything else that you've questions on.

Great. Thank you Mr. Chair and members, Michael Lang with SPUR, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. Existing law says that walkable location efficient housing developments near transit and amenities shall receive a reduced traffic impact fee that reflects the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing.

However, there is no other guidance for implementation regarding this provision in the statute and therefore is often ignored. SB 358 provides greater clarity for both jurisdictions and developers and a framework for how the existing provision statute is to be implemented. We respectfully request an aye vote.

Good afternoon committee. Marc Vukcevich from Streets for All here. Candidly, I didn't expect to testify, but I will just add one thing. So the something that is important to understand about this bill is that the Supreme Court has already said that mitigation fees have to have what's called an essential nexus to what the fee is charging for.

So you can't put a mitigation fee to build a local spaceship for an example, because there's no nexus to the development and the thing that you're trying to account for and I think what we're trying to do with this bill is to ensure that that nexus is is closer and more salient that for development that is not expected to produce a lot of automobile traffic that that it does have the lower sort of requisite fees.

And we're trying to make sure that that nexus is honored according with the law and according with the precedent here. And that's all I have to add. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anybody else? And once in support of this bill, please. Your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Bob Naylor with Fieldstead&Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. an Orange County entrepreneur in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support

Happy to be on time this time. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Opposition at all? Seeing none. I see somebody coming.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, respectfully, on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Merced and Rancho Cucamonga, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, Committee members. Questions? Comments? Assemblymember Hoover.

Just want to thank you for bringing forward a bill today I can actually support. So thank you for that. Fewer fees, cheaper housing. That's what this bill to me, is about. I appreciate the goals and happy to be the first or only Republican to support it, but thanks for bringing the bill.

Thank you.

Anybody else? That sounds like a motion to me. Are you motioning? Okay. All right. Is there a second? We have a first. [unintelligible]. Senator, would you like to priority vote?

Yeah. Appreciate that comment. That's what we're trying to do, but, you know, practical solution to try to make it cheaper to build near transit. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you to you and your staff and the conversations we had on this bill. Thank you for working with us and with the amendments, we'll be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Yeah, we got a second, right? Yeah.

The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll call]. The vote is 8.

The vote is 80. The bill is out. Congratulations. We leave the roll open to other. The bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

We move on to agenda item number nine. SB5 15 by Senator Richardson.

That is wonderful.

A motion and a second. So it's all yours.

I asked for your aye vote.

That's right.

That's how you do it.

I got a ton of questions.

I know how to do this.

I got lots of questions.

Would you like to at least close?

No. If you were serious. I'm serious. I asked for your aye vote.

Please go ahead and present your bill.

All right, no problem. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to start off by thanking the Chair, Committee staff and our sponsor for bringing forward this very important issue. SB 515 addresses a critical gap by improving how local governments in California collect and report demographic data.

This Bill recognizes that without accurate, consistent and complete information, the unique needs of historically marginalized communities, particularly those most impacted by generations of injustice, remain invisible in our decision making process. As we continue working towards equity and public policy, it is essential that our data reflects the full diversity of our communities.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. On one form, we have the different data reflecting for those in Asian community: Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Vietnamese and other. Pacific Islander you have: Guatemalan, Native Hawaiian, Samoan and other Pacific Islander. However, on most documents it only typically will reflect Black, African American.

Without specific data, challenges and contributions of our communities remain overlooked. SB 515 ensures that their experiences are recognized and considered in policy decisions. Similarly, the State Controller's office in the Department of Human Resources provides more accurate data for ethnic groups which I just described for you.

And this Bill is simply asking for the other counties and cities and state entities to do the same. By allowing SB 515 to analyze this refined data, government agencies can make sure that the unique challenges of different communities are understood and more importantly, addressed. I do have an individual here, Mr. Chris Lodgson, who can answer any questions if they might be brought forward. But hopefully we're all good.

Okay. Mr. Chris. You don't see him? Anybody else that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Mr. Chris.

Morning, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Just here to answer any questions, if there are any about the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, anybody that wants to submit a MeToo in support? Seeing none. How about any primary witnesses in opposition? No one else in opposition. Committee Members, questions? Comments? We already had a first and a second. Do you want to close?

I respectfully asked for a motion and your aye vote?

It's already moved.

Thank you for presenting your Bill today. We'll be voting aye. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due Past appropriation. Carrillo?

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ta? Not Voting. Hoover? Hoover, not voting. Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rubio? Rubio, aye. Stefani? Stefani, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. Wilson? Thank you. The vote is 7-0.

The vote is 7-0. The Bill is out. Congratulations.

And I will see you on the other side of the mountain as you bring your bills forward. Look forward to seeing you. Yes, thank you. Thank you. We're getting our. We're getting our exercise. We already had our vote. We were good. Thank you.

Thank you. We still have four bills to be heard. Senators are still need to present on local government. Please make your way out to room 447. Senator Wiener, Senator Menjivar and Senator Perez, please head up to room 447. on.

Yes, sir.

Consent is 10-0. Those bills are out.

[Roll Call]

Vote is 8-0 bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Still at 8-0 roll still open.

[Roll Call]

Still stay 8-0. Still remains open.

[Roll Call]

7-1, the roll remains open. And that's all we have for add ons. Once again, Senators, make your way up to 447. Thank you. So, Chess, you know we're going to be taking a brief pause while we arrange Bill presentation by authors. Thank you.

Okay, we're going to go back to the agenda. Item number one, SB 76. Senator Wiener presented by Assembly Member Catherine Stefani. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Member.

925. Should I. Should I start all over? Good. SB 276 allows San Francisco to foster our thriving street vending scene while at the same time addressing the fencing of stolen goods on our streets, a practice that fuels retail theft and that badly undermines legitimate street vending.

Specifically, this bill allows the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to adopt a list of commonly stolen items that are sold on our streets and to require a permit to sell these commonly stolen goods.

If someone sells these goods on our streets without a permit, police would be able to enforce initially via citation and after multiple citations via a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor is designed to avoid immigration consequences.

The new criminal offenses in the Bill do not apply to the vast majority of street vendors, including those who are selling any goods with a permit. Selling goods on the list with a permit selling prepared food with or without a permit. In 2018, the Legislature passed SB946, establishing the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act.

The measure decriminalized sidewalk vending and established an administrative penalty system to replace the former criminal system. This law effectively barred law enforcement from conducting inspections or enforcing against violations based on local or state laws governing street vending.

SB946 has had many benefits for the street vending economy, ensuring vendors can sell goods to the public, activate public spaces, and earn a living. However, a limited number of bad actors in San Francisco have taken advantage of highly capable and sophisticated criminal networks to facilitate fencing operations.

A lack of law enforcement tools has left San Francisco unable to halt these criminal operations, many of which are tied to larger organized retail theft operations. Permitted street vendors in these areas are facing conditions that make it much harder to operate and thrive.

These criminal operations lead to harassment and intimidation on our streets, even violence, causing legitimate street vendors to be fearful. Administrative enforcement against these criminal operations has not been successful. Indeed, public Works Department workers have been assaulted and at 1.0 began wearing bulletproof vests. I saw them when I was on the Board of Supervisors.

They would come to public comment and they were in tears having telling us about the conditions they were facing, just trying to enforce the law and those that were violating the street vending administrative scheme. Administrative enforcement against these criminal operations has not been successful. Successful, as I said.

And the situation became so severe that San Francisco issued a moratorium on street vending in certain areas in the Mission In November of 2023, that moratorium was later extended and the city needs additional tools to maintain order when the moratorium is lifted.

A moratorium benefits no one, and SB276 provides the city with the tool to be able to avoid future ones. San Francisco's vibrant culture of street vending supports many families and showcases the diversity of our communities.

But that cultural richness is threatened when bad actors are allowed to openly sell stolen goods on our streets, often pushing out legitimate street vendors and undermining public safety. SB276 recognizes that a narrowly tailored surgical response, which accounts for the realities and benefits of these local economies is needed in order to adequately address the issue of illegal fencing.

This Bill is sponsored by Mayor Daniel Lurie and supported by local street vending community organizations in the Mission and Tenderloin neighborhoods. Senator Wiener is very mindful of the broad dynamics around street vending. He voted for SB946 and continues to strongly support our rich, diverse, wonderful street vending scene in San Francisco.

And he also wants street vending ecosystem to thrive and it will not thrive if it gets swamped with stolen goods and the resale operations. SB276 is a narrow focus, light touch response that will help solve this problem while also fostering successful street vending.

We worked closely Senator Wiener worked closely with Mission Street Vendors and other community organizations to craft this focus response, and he and I both believe it deserves your support.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Senator Wiener and with me today to testify is Alejandro Del Calvo, Senior Street Inspector at the Department of Public Works, and Rodrigo Lopez, President of Mission Street Vendors.

Thank you.

Buenas aires mi Pros El comite Del Senado Del Estado California Minoma Rodrigo Lopez, Persiente De La Mission and San Francisco Estamos aquipoyaremente Municipalesia paracer complete La Leyes Vigentes este projector sincere excessivamente punitivo est hospital Actol mente LA falta difficult. In. Samosa nostro funcionario municipare locales este projectivo municipalis Local case criticion linstamosion.

Hi, Rafael Moreno, here with the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Economic Workforce Development. It's going to be translating for Rodrigo's statement today. So esteemed Members of the California State Senate or State Assembly Committee, my name is Rodrigo Lopez, President of the Mission Street Vendors Association.

We're here to support this bill, SB276, which offers much needed control to our vending environment as a vendor selling daily for over eight hours I see firsthand the difficulties city workers and police face enforcing current current vending laws. This bill will clarify the permit process and create accountability for those who don't comply.

Without being over overly punitive, this is vital. Currently, a lack of clarity hinders enforcement creates an uneven playing field. This legislation ensures individuals know there's a process to bend legally and consequences for not doing so. However, the bill success requires city resources and your support.

We we urge our local city officials to help provide the infrastructure and personnel needed for effective implementation. Their assistance and this bill is needed in helping new vendors become legitimate by streaming the process and providing guidance. Many want to operate legally but need support navigating the system and clear guidelines.

This builds significant step toward a fair, more organized vending environment. Combined with city resources and your support helping new vendors become legitimate, we believe this will help solve a critical local problem. Thank you for your time and consideration. We urge for your support for this important legislation. Thank you. Rodrigo Lopez.

Good afternoon. My name is Alejandro Del Calvo and I've been working as a street inspector with San Francisco Public Works for the past nine years. I'm here in strong support of SB 276. Let me be clear, permitted vendors are not the problem. They're a vital part of San Francisco's neighborhoods.

We have an affordable, accessible permitting system and we work closely with community groups to help follow the rules. SB 276 is not about food vendors or punishing people trying to earn a living. It specifically addresses illegal merchandise vending, which is creating serious public safety issues on our streets.

Right now, entire sidewalks are being taken over by illegal vendors, many selling stolen goods, some directly tied to organized theft and the fentanyl crisis. The result is chaos, blocked sidewalks, trash piling up and unsafe conditions for everyone, especially the disabled and elderly. Our only enforcement tool is administrative citation and it's not working. These tickets are ignored.

I've seen the same vendors come back hours later, setting up again like nothing happened. After one impound, a vendor laughingly told me, all you did was make me steal more. Meanwhile, we inspectors are put in harm's way. I've been threatened. I've been assaulted just for doing my job.

We are not law enforcement, but we are being sent into situations that are increasingly dangerous. We wear ballistic vests. I want to thank the San Francisco Police Department. They've been incredible partners and have helped protect us in the field. But even they've told us they wish they could do more. Without SB 276, their hands are tied.

This bill is about safety, accountability and protecting both the public and the vendors who are doing things right. I urge your support. Thank you.

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

My name is William Ortiz Cartagena. I'm a Commissioner for the Office of Small Business in San Francisco and I'm in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Alma Castellanos and I am a Director of a small business nonprofit in San Francisco and I am strongly in support.

Hi, my name is Crystal from plecha. I'm the senior business navigator in am in support.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association and we are happy to support.

Good afternoon. Eileen Mariano, on behalf of the bill sponsor San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie in support.

Juanita Valdez. Yo support.

His name is Juan Mendoza, part of Mission Street Vendors Association and he's in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Milagros Lopez. I'm a Member of the Street Vendor Association and app support.

Street vendor Mission.

Street vendor and support.

Catherine Charles, on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Support.

Good afternoon. Wu Chung, San Francisco Public Works Code Enforcement. Showing my support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? See no one. Any me to see in opposition? See no one. Committee Members. Questions? Comments? The motion?

Some. Some. I'll second.

Re. We have first and a second. Before we move on, I just want to thank those that came to speak in support and I will do it in Spanish. Gracias. Rodrigo Portenera, El Valorazo Estaraqui De San Francisco. Basically, I just thank all of those that came here from San Francisco to voice their right to be here.

And I thank them for their courage for being here. With that, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close on behalf of Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to say it's an honor to present this on behalf of Senator Wiener and I want to thank all those that came from San Francisco. The street vendors deserve some relief here. And thank you to Rodrigo for coming today into Alejandro for all your work with public works.

And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote on behalf of Senator Wiener.

Thank you for presenting SB 276. On behalf of Senator Wiener, I will be voting aye. We do have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass to the Public Safety Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to public safety. [Roll Call] The vote is 9-0.

The role is. The vote is 9-0. The bill moves on and we leave the roll open to add ons. Thank you, Assembly.

Thanks.

We are gonna go, moving on to agenda item number seven, SB 485 by Senator Reyes. Presented by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Chair and Members, I'm here today to present SB 485 on Senator Reyes behalf. SB 485 will limit a Board of Supervisors authority to remove an appointed county public defender from office to neglect of duty, malfeasance or misconduct in office or or other good cause and requires a 3/5 vote by the board to do so.

In the act of duty, public defenders take unpopular stances to advocate for those who may not be politically popular and occasionally draw the ire of other county departments or even the Members of the Board of Supervisors who appointed them.

The At-Will employment status has led to the fear of termination for public defenders who have taken up controversial causes which interferes with their ability to adequately fight for their clients. Chief public defenders play a critical role in ensuring a fair and equitable justice system.

They uphold the Constitution by guaranteeing access to due process for all, regardless of financial status. SB 485 models provisions for public defenders after those for county councils that have been in place since 1959, which allow a board to only remove a county council for neglect of duty, malfeasance or misconduct in office or other good cause.

By eliminating the At-Will status of Chief Public Defenders, SB 485 will protect their independents and allow them to serve with integrity. With me today testifying in support of this Bill are Kate Chatfield from the California Public Defenders Association and Natasha Minsker from Smart Justice California.

Good afternoon. My name is Kate Chatfield and I represent the California Public Defenders Association. Senate Bill 485 strengthens the integrity of public defense by protecting public defenders from politically motivated dismissals. Public defenders are essential to a functioning justice system.

They ensure that no one faces the power of the state alone, that the constitutional right to trial is not theoretical but real and accessible, no matter your income or background. Yet under current law in most counties, public defenders can be fired at-will by the Board of Supervisors for reasons entirely unrelated to misconduct or poor management.

This means a public defender can be removed simply for standing up to law enforcement abuses, defending an unpopular client, or challenging systemic injustice, exactly what we expect them to do and what the Constitution demands. SB 485 doesn't insulate defenders from accountability.

It simply requires that the removal be based on good cause, things like misconduct, neglect of duty, poor performance or ethical violations, and that the decision be made by 3/5 vote of the board. Now, in most counties with five supervisors, that's just a simple majority.

But the meaningful reform here is that the requirement that there be a legitimate, documented reason for removal. At a time when we're seeing politically motivated firings of public officials across the country, California should lead in affirming the Independence of those who serve the most vulnerable in our courts.

When we protect public defenders, we protect the right to a fair trial, we protect the Constitution and we protect public trust in the idea that justice does not depend on your income or your politics. We urge your support for SB 485. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker Smart Justice California. Smart Justice California has made improving public defense a priority because we believe that access to justice should not depend on where you live or the size of your bank account. That is why Smart Justice California is a strong supporter of SB 485.

This Bill will help ensure that public defenders have the protections they need to do their job well. Public defenders are different from other county employees because they bring they draw their mandate from the Constitution.

To make that mandate meaningful, public defenders must be able to protect and defend and speak for their clients and for the constitutional rights of all of us. This Bill does not make public defenders untouchable.

It simply requires that if they are going to be fired, it be based on something actually related to their job performance and not the winds of political change. The first public defender, the concept of the public defender was invented by the first woman lawyer in California, Clara Shortridge Foltz.

The first public defender office in the country was Los Angeles County. We were the innovators, but since then we have fallen behind. SB 485 is an important Bill to bring California back into the forefront as a leader in making public defense a quality, quality defense for every person. Thank you. We urge an aye vote.

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

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy, in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon, Zeenat Yahya on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

All right, well, good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, Committee and staff, Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties. And we represent all 58 counties here in respectful opposition.

Get close to the microphone.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Closer.

Can you hear me there? Is that better?

Yeah.

Um, we're here from CSAC in respectful opposition to SB 485. And so first, I'd like to make it clear that our position is rooted in principles of good governance, organizational consistency and process clarity. And it is not about appointed public defenders.

Rather, it's about any non elected department head that serves under our 296 county boards of supervisors that are elected by their voters. Second, in our view, it's still a bit unclear as the necessity of this bill.

Speaking with county councils, there are very few examples to even draw from where the at will authority to remove a public defender was exercised. The most recent example provided was back in 1999 in which removal from office was handled like any other high profile employment action.

There were allegations of misconduct and an investigation commenced that demonstrated the allegations were well founded. So despite existing law establishing at will status, there still is a process in place. That said, this is the reason why we're not opposing solely based on the elevated employment protections, but instead proposing reasonable amendments that provide essential checks and balances.