Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee on Local Government will begin in 60 seconds.

Thank you for joining us. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we're holding our Committee hearings here in the Capitol building. I ask all Members of the Committee be present in room 113 so we can establish a quorum. We currently do not have a quorum, so we will proceed as a Committee. Subcommittee. We have 10 bills on today's agenda, only one of which is on consent.

That is file item number three, AB 385, Assembly Member Ramos. Please note that although file item number one, AB 87 by Assembly Member Boerner was proposed for consent, it was pulled for discussion today. We don't have a quorum. Okay. Now let's hear from the Assembly Member, please. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. First, I want to thank the Chair and her amazing staff Committee staff for working with me on this Bill. I accept all the Committee amendments. I introduced AB87 to clarify that density bonus law is being used for residential purposes in my district. A pro.

A project application was submitted that allowed the development to exceed the city's height limit, a proposed 238 foot tower and adding 139 hotel rooms and only 10 affordable units. The state's density bonus laws were intended to contribute to affordable housing, not to expand hotels. Concessions from density bonus law should not be used for visitor serving purposes.

This is a Tosha B. Special. There are no witnesses. I don't know if there's support or opposition. It's just me. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. It's 9:30 in the morning. Just for the record.

Thank you very much. No witnesses for you. Any witnesses in opposition? zero, okay. I just took for granted she said. I don't know she was telling the truth. Okay. Any witnesses or others in support? zero, you have a lot of witnesses here. Look at that too. Yeah.

Good morning, Claire. Good morning.

The City of Carlsbad in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Aaron Gilbert for the City of Encinitas in support. Thank you.

Hi. Rick Bates Unite Here International in support.

Thank you.

Have faith. Okay. And anyone in opposition. Okay. Seeing none. Members, you're. Yes. Senator Seardo.

I just want to thank the author. We've had several of these type of bills, but this one was the one that actually kind of did what it needed to do and appreciate that. And I will move the Bill as when we have a quorum. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no other comments Ma', am, you may finish. Yes, close. Closing remarks at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move on to item two. AB367. Welcome, Assembly Member Bennett.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. AB 367 is a district bill. It only applies to Ventura County. All of the legislators that represent Ventura County have either been, are either co-authors of this bill or have voted for this bill in Committee.

The bill is really a simple bill and it comes out of the tragedies that we've had in Ventura County. Over the course of a number of years, we have had fires that have destroyed hundreds of homes. And in each situation, the fire hydrants stopped operating way before they were had the potential to operate.

We're not trying to get the fire hydrant system to operate and put out 500 wildfires at the same time. It's not designed to do that. But it also they should operate as long as they reasonably should be expected. And three things need to happen.

The tanks, when there's a red flag warning and we know we've got this high risk of a wildfire, they should not have let the tanks get all the way down to virtually zero, which is what happened in one of our fires. They should have backup generators because always the power gets shut off during these kind of wildfires so that they can keep filling those tanks during the firefight. That did not happen also in two of these fires.

And then the third thing is they need to harden those structures so that they don't burn down if they're located in the high fire risk area. We've had some of these structures in 50 year old wooden sheds and it just doesn't make sense that you have many million dollar homes burning down in Ventura County because they have a little tiny wooden shed protecting the generator.

So with this, I'm happy to answer questions. But the one thing I would say is that there is no question the residents of Ventura County want this. When the fire is over, the big question everybody ask is did the fire hydrants work like they should. I know that they're the only real opposition out there are I think essentially coming from people who are saying we're concerned this is going to become a model for state legislation.

And I would offer to you that I recognize state legislation on this issue would need to require many more conversations and be very different than what I know and I'm confident can be practically applied in Ventura County because we began this legislation by contacting every water supplier in Ventura County, 145 of them. We have lots of small little water districts, and we asked for their input early.

We've been working with them. We still have some concerns from some water districts, but we have taken many amendments and I think when you talk to the opponents, they will tell you we're making a good faith effort to make this a practical implementation. And out of respect for your time, I didn't bring any other witnesses to bother you, and happy to answer any questions, but I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. We will ask now for anybody who is in support of AB 367, please come up.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the County of Ventura here in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else. Anyone in opposition to AB 367, please come forward. You can have two minutes each if you want.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies, including in Ventura County. I want to thank Assembly Member Bennett for the several rounds of amendments that he has taken on this bill, including, amongst others, allowing water suppliers to establish emergency response plans to address the water tank level concern. I also want to thank him for his continued conversations with ACWA and with other interested parties on this bill.

ACWA still has several remaining concerns and suggested amendments and we respectfully maintain an opposed unless amended position on this bill. We have concerns on the high cost to water suppliers, the lack of consideration of the challenges and unpredictability agencies face when responding to emergency events, and the precedent that this bill would set for future statewide efforts.

The bill would impose significant costs and lacks sufficient funding. Backup power sources, such as stationary or mobile generators, are very costly. Several agencies have estimated that upgrades to a facility in their system would be in the millions, and this is exacerbated for agencies that have several facilities that would need upgrades.

Without sufficient state funding, the burden of these costs would fall onto ratepayers, undermining water affordability. This is an important consideration as agencies are faced with a multitude of climate adaptation investments. A budget allocation would be needed for agencies to comply with the backup power requirements of this bill.

Additionally, water systems can be impacted by the unpredictability of a wildfire event that can prevent them from meeting the overly prescriptive requirements of the bill and could increase their risk to litigation. Further amendments are needed to add liability protections and consider operational realities for practical implementation of this bill. For these reasons, ACWA respectfully asks Members of the Committee today to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and respectfully in opposition to the bill. On the financial side, I do want to point out the Committee analysis for highlighting some of the concerns for... For the City of Thousand Oaks, to put some context to this.

Our water system serves approximately 17,000 customers and to meet the infrastructure upgrades envisioned in this bill, the city would need to invest approximately $16 million. To fund this, the city would be forced to initiate a Proposition 218 to the ballot to increase water rates by approximately $78 per month or 47.4% rate increase.

Should the ballot measure fail, the city would be left with no choice but to divert 16 million from its general fund, resulting in the deferral or cancellation of other critical infrastructure projects. The bill's 18 month compliance window fails to reflect the real world complexities of infrastructure implementation.

This timeline does not account for to conduct and approve a 218 rate process, procure necessary equipment and services, obtain required approvals and permits from IOUs, and complete design, construction, and testing. And so, for example, approval of micro grids or backup generators by utility providers typically require extensive technical studies that can take up to two years alone.

Municipal water systems like ours are engineered primarily to address localized structured fires, not the scale or intensity of a wildland urban interface fire. AB 367 would require post-fire evaluations of water delivery system adequacy, a provision that, while perhaps well intended, could significantly increase litigation risk for public agencies.

Such evaluations, if misinterpreted or viewed as admission of a system inadequacy, could open the door to costly lawsuits, regardless of whether or not the system functioned within its design specifications. In sum, AB 367 presents a costly and unrealistic and risky mandate for the City of Thousand Oaks and other similar local water suppliers. It imposes deep financial burdens without providing funding, demands compliance on expedited timelines, and is simply not feasible. With that, we ask that you respectfully oppose AB 367.

Thank you. Before we move on, we're going to establish quorum.

[Roll Call] You have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Okay, anybody else now wanting to speak in support? Oh, all right. Opposition. Got it. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Thank you, Chair and Members. Max Perry on behalf of the City of Camarillo. Echo the comments from the two primary witnesses and also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank Water and Power. Echo the concerns and appreciate the recent amendments, but still remain opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Sarah Musiker with California Water Association. We echo the concerns of ACWA and appreciate your time.

Good morning. Lily Mackay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and United Water Conservation District. Share the same concerns. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Simi Valley and the San Gabriel Valley Water Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no more in opposition, we'll bring it to the dais. Comments, questions? Senator Seyarto.

A little bit of something about water systems and fires. So a lot of times we have an incident like this and everybody rushes to try to find solutions to what happened. And there's a multitude of things that happen, and especially when it relates to a water system.

And when we kind of rush into that, we wind up compounding issues. I liken it a little bit to some of the issues with our PSPS shut offs. They probably didn't think a whole lot about when you shut that off, it shuts off pumps, which makes water not pump uphill.

And when you're talking about residential structure fires and areas that are in WUI areas, those are, when they're backing up to where those are, it makes a difference a little bit there. But when you're talking about the type of fires we had, this is not going to fix that. All this is going to do is add to the costs and the cost burdens for the ratepayers in those areas for something that can be addressed through those local agencies knowing what part of it their shortfall is. And because they do.

You know, I know in our area, our fire department and our water district, they work very closely together. When we had a fire approach from the south of us from a very brush area into neighborhoods, they were able to supply the water, they turn up the pumps. All of that is very coordinated.

And that's what it takes is regional coordination. And I understand this is something you think is just for Ventura, but my concern is that just like everything else that starts out like that, next year we see the bill that says it applies to everybody no matter what.

So, you know, for those reasons and the reasons so eloquently stated by the water agencies, who are experts on water and water delivery, I'm not going to be supporting the bill. I would like us to allow them to address the issues and come up with solutions rather than us.

Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair. I know fire issues are important and to protect our properties. And what this bill requires should be also concern of water supplies locally. Why aren't they haven't taken any actions like this bill requires?

Well, that's exactly my concern is that eight years after that first incident where we had very clear examples of a city water system that simply chose during red flag warnings to let their tanks drop down because at midnight it was less expensive to, the electricity was less expensive to fill their tanks.

So when the fire swept into town at 10:30 at night, they had almost no water in their tanks. And their tanks ran out in minutes of water rather than in hours, which is what the fire officials would have told us. So you would think that after that happens, we would have clear regulations, clear implementation by water districts.

When we, eight years later, we ended up with water districts that did not have backup generators eight years later, this is a small water district. Backup generator was estimated to cost about $300,000. And yet we lost hundreds of homes, hundreds of million dollar homes, right, in that fire. And lack of water is an issue. And so I certainly respectfully disagree with the statement that for the types of fires we have this bill wouldn't make any difference.

We lost 500 homes in my district to that fire. And the fire professionals that I talked to, they said we sent our trucks up the hill. And when we sent those trucks up the hill, this is at the very beginning of the fire, they had cracked less than 12 fire hydrants and they were already out of water. They said if those tanks would have been full, if the generators would have been had backup power, we would have been able to operate for hours because...

Was a lack of backup power or lack of water was the essential issue?

Combination of both. The tanks ran out really quick because of a lack of water and the backup generators meant that they couldn't fill those tanks. And the reason that you don't need that much water, some people say that takes a lot of water to put a big structure out. These are spot fires that we're catching all over the hills of Ventura. Spot fires don't take a lot of water to put out, but you need to have water for hours because an ember blaze like that keeps popping up for hours and hours after that.

So I feel very clear that the science and the professional firefighters in my area have made it very clear that it was a heartbreak for the citizens down at the bottom of the hill to watch the fire trucks go up, and 15 minutes later, while their houses were burning, those fire trucks came right back down and left because they said, we don't have any water in the fire hydrants.

We're going to go someplace else where there is water. I think there's no question. And we've heard some cost issues being raised here. Number one, there's a number of things I could do to address those, but I would guarantee you this. The public has not raised that as the issue. They want that water to be available. Not talking about designing the system to put out all the wildfires. We're talking about having the system function like it is currently designed. We're just trying to make sure it actually does do that.

I heard several times that cost issue is the issue by the opponents. I wonder, other than if there's any other reasons from water supply agencies from your Ventura County in the audience among the opposition group, is there anyone who can testify on that? So primarily, cost is the problem. Is there any... Your bill addresses who's going to fund for the necessary funding?

Yes, I'm very... I don't want to get our water district sued. I don't want to cause our rates to go through the roof. I represent the same citizens that the water districts do. Right? So we're doing everything we can. Number one, I've shown all of the water districts in Ventura County and I've told them about this immediately. But right after the Los Angeles fires, FEMA had a program. FEMA has a program that will let you harden all of your systems, all of your water systems.

And that program is under subscribed. One of the rare moments when a system is undersubscribed. And so everybody could apply and get the money to harden those facilities. That's the first. Second, I have a bill that's moving that allows the Prop 4 grants, Prop 4 grants from the wildfire to be used for water infrastructure.

Now, that's not a guarantee that you're going to get the funds. The third thing I would offer to you, respectfully, is that I contacted the City of Thousand Oaks right away when we were beginning this. The initial conversation I had with the City of Thousand Oaks official was they were planning on doing a major upgrade of their system because they want to have backup power for everything in their city. I applaud them for that.

That's this $20 million, you know, issue, and that they were concerned because they only supply one third of the residents in their city. There are two other water districts that supply the other two thirds. They were concerned that they couldn't even get the information about whether the other water districts were going to have backup power because they're private systems and don't have to provide that information. That just doesn't make sense in a county like Ventura that burns burn so regularly.

And when we have 145 water districts, you talk about cooperation between the water districts and the fire department. The fire department is asking me, fire officials are asking me. We can't hold these water districts accountable unless we have some kind of legislation. This legislation is a temporary...

Water is essential for firefighting. So I mean, it is. I know it's predicament, what is necessary at the same time in high cost, and unless we need to come up with some measures to prevent the skyrocketing water rates for the area. I think that is a summary I hear from opposition group, and I'm torn between. Thank you.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So the water tank issue, if it's half full and they're out in 10, 15, 20 minutes. And then you say if it was all the way full, they'd last for days. That doesn't make sense.

Number one, that's not what I said.

What happens is water runs out really quickly and all it does is it refills from wherever the tank is, usually by gravity. That's how those, the big, the big water tanks do that. And they don't all, they don't just keep them full or empty for a reason. There's reasons they have different levels.

And when you're talking about spot fires, most spot fires are up in the hills. And the reason that they leave those is because those are uncontrollable. You can't lay enough line to go up in the hills and stop the spot fires before they are full blown fire front.

And if you want to run into a fire front, you're going to burn up. Okay, so I spent 35 years doing this and I'm pretty sure I know what the heck I'm talking about. So, you know, when you want to challenge the firefighting part of it, I would suggest that you go start a career and do that for a while. But I'm telling you this is not going to solve that problem over there.

We have a lot of things that need to be looked at and a lot of it has, you know, fuel management and all that other stuff. But mandating things from the state for that are very expensive for local agencies to do or impossible in some cases, which sets them up for fines and lawsuits is not the way that I think this should be handled. That's why I'm voting no on it.

Anyone else?

I would just say that I'm on the Natural Resources Committee, which was the first stop for this bill. And we vetted all these issues at length and we passed it out 6 to 1. And I became satisfied after that discussion that you deserve the right to try to work this all the way through. So I will be supporting this bill. And at the appropriate time... Is this the appropriate time? I will move the bill.

Yes. Yes, we have. Okay. Anybody else with comments? Questions? Okay. Hearing none. I think you've satisfactorily answered for me leading up to hearing, but also today I think you reinforced it. So I will be recommending an aye vote. Closing remarks.

I certainly respect and appreciate the support, the support of the Chair for amendments that we've been trying to work with water districts, et cetera, on. That was something the water districts actually supported also. So thank you very much for that.

And I would just offer, with regard to the issue of cost that is out there. Very fascinating that if you ask everybody, I think essentially certainly all the people whose houses have burned down, their number one issue is, yes, they think that these basic things should happen with their water districts, and when they don't happen, they're disappointed.

And I don't think you're going to find very many water districts are going to want to say, hey, we don't want to have backup power. We don't want to do these basic things. And we will keep working with these water districts to keep working this out. We want a practical implementation of this bill. And I respect, and we've had great conversations with people, and I think you've heard that testimony. This is not a hostile effort by any means in Ventura County. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for your last remarks. Call the vote.

The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Three to one.

2-1. We'll hold that on call. We're going to go ahead with a consent calendar. Do I have a motion? Moved by Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

The bill's on call. Okay. Now, Assemblymember Wicks, item four., AB 671. Good morning.

Hi. How's everyone doing today? This chair feels a little short. I feel like I'm like the kids table or something. Okay. And I think my witnesses are coming. Okay, great. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members and staff for all of your hard work.

Today, I'm proud to be presenting AB 671, which streamlines restaurant openings to help our local businesses. Restaurants are the heart of our economies and our communities. They're spaces where we celebrate graduations, birthdays, where we catch up with friends, where we have our first dates. Everyone loves their local restaurants.

The restaurant industry provides critical first jobs, and it creates pathways to business ownership for immigrant entrepreneurs and historically underserved communities. Everyone loves their local restaurants, but right now, it's simply too hard to get these restaurants up and running. In California, restaurant owners are faced to pay dead rent on unopened restaurants, even as they navigate complicated permitting processes—processes that for small businesses owners can create difficult, even insurmountable hurdles to opening restaurants.

And all the while, communities can't access these important venues for food and connection. AB 671 responsibly reduces barriers to opening new restaurants in California by fast-tracking front-end plan review.

It authorizes qualified professional architects and engineers to self certify plans for restaurant projects that convert an existing facility to a new use. These restaurant retrofits are often completed by small restaurants, and this new permitting pathway means that these small business owners won't have to wait as long to start generating a profit from their restaurants.

Under the framework, randomized audits ensure compliance with health and safety code, and the approach does not exempt restaurants from mandatory construction inspections. So, AB 671 creates a process to facilitate timely restaurant openings while maintaining public safety standards.

We've worked with the Committee to amend the Bill to clarify that architects and engineers are not allowed to certify food safety plans under the purview of environmental health departments. The amendments also strengthen the liability provision in the Bill, allowing local governments to acquire their own qualifications for professional certifiers and exclude large chain restaurants from using the framework.

AB 671 has bipartisan support and has no state costs. Major American cities, including New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago have already seen success with similar streamlined permitting programs. AB 6—with the AB 671, we have the opportunity to do the same in our state.

We can lessen the burden on many small restaurants by allowing these businesses to open faster. I am here presenting today and have testimony from Matthew Sutton, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Public Policy, at the California Restaurant Association, and Alan Koo, owner of Zinfandel Grill and Prelude Kitchen and Bar, local restaurant here in Sacramento.

And we also have Silvio Ferrari with Axiom Advisors, presenting Hard Scale Eats, and he's available for technical questions.

Great, you may.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Matt Sutton, with the California Restaurant Association, here in strong support of the Bill. We appreciate your work on the Bill, as a Committee and as a Chair, and certainly, the author. We continue to survey our members on the hottest policy issues.

Permitting has come up for over a decade, and so, it has been an issue we have heard from our smallest and largest restaurants across the board. I understand this Bill excludes the larger restaurants and, you know, we object to that. But we support the overall effort here.

Just because your experience with bottlenecked regulatory processes or permitting, in this case, are not necessarily connected to the size of restaurants you have. So, this is just an issue that we've seen in every metropolitan area throughout the state. And so, we're very excited about getting some of these chokeholds removed.

It's often the case that mayors are calling us at CRA asking if we can help get restaurants cited in downtown core areas. A lot of that is because of the sales tax revenue generated to the state and local governments. We're among the top generators and we look forward to getting back to that.

And streamlining permitting will certainly be helpful because we can get to hiring people faster, get people on the payroll, and start generating state and local sales taxes at a faster clip if we can remove some of these burdens in the permitting process. So, we thank you for your work and we're in strong support.

And I'd like to hand it over here to Alan Koo, who can tell you a little bit about his firsthand experiences. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony with you today. My name is Alan Koo. I'm the owner and operator of Zinfandel Grill in Sacramento and Prelude Kitchen and Bar, just across the street. And I'm currently working on a new location in Elk Grove called Interlude Kitchen and Bar.

I'm here today in support of AB 671, which is a Bill that will help neighborhood restaurants like mine avoid costly permitting delays, which will allow us to open our doors sooner, start serving our customers sooner, and start providing jobs sooner by introducing sensible permitting reform for approving restaurant tenant improvement projects.

Under this Bill, qualified architects and engineers would be allowed to work closely with local building officials, following a process to certify building plans, thereby saving restaurants, like mine, both time and money, and again, allowing us to serve our community sooner, provide jobs sooner.

For example, when I opened Prelude Kitchen and Bar, it took about eight months to get permits, even though it was almost strictly cosmetic improvements. It delayed our opening by roughly six months. That cost us about $100,000 in various expenses, including dead rent, which is rent we had to pay before we could operate.

It also cost us about $1 million in sales. And I think permitting delay causes a lot of strain for local and small restaurant operators and it also creates a large financial burden for them as well. And I truly believe a lot of restaurants that fell in the first year, one reason is these delays can put a lot of financial strain on them and then they come out of the gate in a very weak financial position so they don't have the ability to, you know, grow their business and spread the word of mouth.

These delays can, again, mean fewer jobs and economic activation that would otherwise be a benefit to local communities. And just as importantly, AB 671 creates strict requirements for professionals and proper oversight by local building departments to ensure all the plans meet building health and safety codes.

So, for these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote yes on AB 671. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other support among the audience? You can line up. State your organization and the name and organization in the support position, position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus here not on behalf of a client this morning, but on behalf of my brother Jonathan Rupert, a business owner, restaurant owner in the Assemblymember's district. So, thank you. In support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Norland Asbrick with Axiom Advisors, registering support for the following restaurants and organizations: Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce, Hiho, John and Vinnies, Matsu Sushi, Inazawa, and Yuvo. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, is there any main opposition witness? Okay, can you vacate the seat in the front?

You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Amanda Bloom. I'm the executive director of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. I want to start by thanking the author, the sponsors and committee staff for the recent amendments. They've gone a long way in removing our opposition. We certainly also really value our working relationship with the restaurant industry.

However, we do still have a couple concerns with the bill, particularly relating to the 10 day submittal requirement. As we read the bill, there's two different permitting processes that are being covered in this, both the building permitting as well as the food safety permitting. Our concern is obviously on the food safety permitting.

While we recognize the need particularly to expediate building permits, we believe that food safety permitting is actually functioning efficiently. We currently have a 20 day requirement, unlike building permitting, to process resubmittals.

We think that the 10 day requirement is likely to increase local staffing needs and necessitate fee increases, which we suspect may go against actually the goals of the bill. So we're asking that the 10 day requirement be removed from the food safety permitting. And certainly, you know, we do continue to have constructive conversations with the author and hope to do so moving forward. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other opposition group in line up? Okay, back to Dyers. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Let me just ask the author. It's clear that you have met a lot of the concerns and you're still working just how you would respond to the remaining concerns that they just expressed.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the question. You know, our bill retains the requirement that a local health department approve or deny a resubmitted plan within 10 business days of receipt, rather than 20 business days as noted.

And by retaining this requirement, we ensure that the restaurant tenant improvement projects are reviewed in a timely manner in line with the 10 day review of resubmission requirement in the bill for all local building departments. Thus, we can get our restaurants in California open faster. That's the rationale for it. But we're happy to continue to keep meeting.

We've had a lot of very productive conversations on this, and we're trying to sort of strike the balance here of expediting and also following models in other cities where we've seen this work without obviously jeopardizing any health or safety issues or any of those concerns. So we can certainly keep discussing with opposition.

Well, you've moved a long way and you're still discussing. And I think the only concern I usually have, having spent a lot of time in local government, is I'm always nervous when there's these automatic triggers on days because it just, that there just inevitably will be some strange thing that happens and something will automatically be approved.

That, that was not the intent. But if it's, if it's 20 days and this changes it to 10, it's already in practice. It's just a question of what the number of days are. So for me, this is a good bill, good direction. I will be ready to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Go ahead. Senator Cabaldon, thank you.

So I have maybe a little bit of the opposite concern. I just want to be sure that the bill is going far enough. I mean, this is a challenging area because it's one of the few things that in local economic and community development that does have a non-city agency that is single purpose.

So it looks a lot more like state government. So it's as we know, state government is a bunch of cohabitating absolutist agencies. They're like, no, your water temperature cannot go down by more than half a degree. And at city hall and at city council, you're able to balance and assess and balance the risks as well.

And our food safety system works very, very well. The counties and the public health officers and the environmental health officers do a fantastic job, but they exist outside of that ecosystem.

And so I just want to be sure that it isn't only about the building side, that it is about the food safety piece, that we aren't tackling that.

Because in my experience as mayor for 20 years, that's always, always the number one challenge, both in terms of time, but also in terms of, oh, go back and do this. You know, your refrigerator needs to move over a half a foot or whatever.

There's always one more thing and it's never the last thing that you had before that we, that we're, that we're, we're staying on this. So I appreciate the direction. The bill I think is in good shape.

The continued conversations are important, but I don't, but let's not lose the purpose here, which is to make sure that we're getting that risk. We're assessing that risk profile but properly, because there's always one more thing that we can do, but it comes at a cost like everything else. And so we should be making judgments that fit within that context.

I also appreciate last I think, I don't know if it was this committee or last in housing committee last week we had the conversation about the architects and engineers signing off on stuff and my concern that I.M. Pei is a great architect he's done a couple commercial buildings, but that's not the same as a Chipotle or as prelude.

But the bill has been amended to include some very thoughtful, sound policies around making sure that there's guardrails on that as well. So I think I appreciate the work. This is a very real problem and it's mostly a government design problem.

It's not that anybody in the counties are trying to mess with projects, but it is this difference between place based on policies that cities are doing to try to promote economic development, equity, access to food, all of that, and then single purpose agencies that are trying to do the best job that they can, but they don't fit in that ecosystem.

This bill goes a long way to help achieve that balance and I'm looking forward to supporting it as well.

Thank you.

Any other person. Okay. I will be supporting this bill because I'm always on the side of the businesses and I've been struggling myself. Why a city or county takes any permit process, tenant improvement or safety, anything else such a long time.

And we heard from the witness getting the permit alone was six months, which really is the money for the business people. So I think this will be good compromise to protect the public safety in the building area and the public health area at the same time.

Qualified this as a qualified certifier will certify the permit, the necessary permit process for the food industry, restaurants and so on. I think it's a good direction and I'll be supporting. And the motion has been made by Senator Laird. Please call the close to bill.

Appreciate your support, Mr. Vice Chair, and the conversations from colleagues here on the dais. You know, we're just trying to make it easier for our small businesses to operate. Many of them, our small restaurants coming out of COVID had a very difficult time.

And so anything we can do from a government point of view to be part of the solution and not the problem, we should be doing so with that respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

The motion is, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. [Roll call].

Five to zero for now and leave it open for absent members.

That bipartisan bill right there.

So now we are moving on to item number five. AB 1156.

I'm sorry. Yeah. When you're ready. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee and staff. Let me begin by agreeing to a series of proposed amendments which have been shared by my office with the staff of each Members of this Committee. They are the result of numerous conversations with your hard working and tenacious Principal Consultant, Madam Chair who is not here.

But yes, principal consultant is still tenacious and hardworking who raised a series of concerns in the Committee's analysis which this language is crafted to address. Because the legislation is double referred, assuming it moves on today, I would take the language before the Environmental Quality Committee next week.

Briefly, these amendments impose a strengthened mandatory community benefit component that is in addition to any community benefits required by a local government, provide more clarity on what constitute a water constraint and remove any ambiguous reference to commercial viability require an advance notice to any relevant workforce before a local government votes to grant a solar use easement easement and outlined a process requiring that the state make a specific determination before an easement can be granted on prime farmland.

With that out of the way and onto the bill, AB 1156 updates California's existing solar use easement statute, allowing lands with significant water constraints to transition from a Williamson Act contract into a locally granted easement which would permit the siting of renewable energy projects on the property.

The state's current solar use easement program is crafted to allow for solar development on Williamson Act land that is constrained by adverse or contaminated soil conditions. To be blunt, the program simply isn't working. State data shows that only three projects have been permitted since 2011, so in the last 14 years, only three projects.

My goal with AB 1156 is to update that framework to catalyze clean energy projects on lands which for the foreseeable future will no longer be farmed.

An uncomfortable truth California must reckon with is that we are facing a significant lack of access to water across many of our rural counties, and whether this bill passes or not, between 500,000 to 1 million acres of Farmland is soon going to be followed.

This legislation provides a voluntary, locally driven option to communities and farmers that are wrestling with this stark reality.

Any projects permitted under its framework would have to undergo a full CEQA analysis, be subject to mitigation as required by a local government be subject to mandatory community benefits that would be on top of any benefits required by a county and pay full property taxes to that county for the length of the project, adding millions of dollars into its much needed budget.

Finally, AB 1156 does not propose that a Williamson Act contract be rescinded or cancelled, but only that it be suspended the length of the solar project. This means if water conditions change, land can be returned to production in future years.

As you will hear today, there is significant disagreement among landowners, local government and agricultural interests over this proposed policy. Some opponents of the bill have been very clear. Changes to Williamson Act are unwelcome. This policy is an existential threat. If passed, could lead to the Act's unraveling.

The enactment of this bill will lead to the Wild west of solar speculation.

Those are some of the conversations we've heard and we've had so many conversations with opposition and we will continue to do so because I do think this is an issue that many of our farming communities and our local governments are really grappling with on what the potential solution is.

I'm grateful so much of what the Williamson Act has done for our state, not only benefiting agriculture and open spaces, but preventing miles and miles of endless sprawl, incentivizing communities to build more densely. AB 1156 will not be the Williamson Act's undoing. It will at most impact no more than 2% of all the land under contracts.

It will at the end of the day provide private landowners and local governments in water constrained regions of the state with a choice entirely voluntary, to adapt to harsher economic realities that we currently find ourselves in.

Either let the land sit fallowed because it's not agriculturally viable or place it under an easement, generating clean energy and preserving the option to return it to agricultural use when the solar contract expires.

With me here to testify in support is Cameron Moore representing Renton and Terry Farms and Kara Martenson on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association.

Okay, go ahead. Two minutes each person. Good morning Committee. My name is Cameron Morris and I represent Renton and Terry Farms LLC. Proud stewards of 648 acres of farmland near Cantua Creek within the Westlands Water District.

I speak in strong support of Assembly Bill 1156, a critical piece of legislation that offers hope and stability to California's agricultural heartland by creating new dependable source of income for landowners in the face of mounting challenges. Fresno county is one of the workhorses of California's agricultural economy, creating over $8.6 billion in 2023.

Connected to its AG based economy. Our family has been stewards to this land for four generations. Now we are connected to its potential and its deep roots. Agriculture has played in the lives of families, workers and communities in the economy here. But today that future is in question.

While we aren't opposed to the shrinking water supplies due to sigma restrictions, we believe, which we believe are reasonable to preserve the most precious resource for generations to come. There remains increasing uncertainty, whether it be agricultural workers shifting tariffs and politics, thus creating an unprecedented amount of pressure is being placed on farmers and the land they work.

Meanwhile, valley growers, families and many businesses connected to agricultural both directly and indirectly are left with fewer viable paths forward. We need options and AB 1156 creates optionality and future hope.

This legislation creates a meaningful opportunity for our land to remain productive for California and for our family, even if it doesn't continue producing food and fiber at a scale we've known but for a defined term.

By streamlining a path for clean energy development, AB 1156 allows landowners to partner with renewable energy providers in ways that generate jobs, stabilize local economies and contribute to California's clean energy goals, which are bar none, ahead of almost every other state in our union.

And when the offtake agreements term, a remediation bond held by the county will have the renewable energy developers return the land back to an equal or better condition of its prior use. Our region is ideal for solar development. We have reasonable land prices, meaning we aren't in a sphere of influence.

Hoping that a single family home developer approaches us to change the land use once and for all, but are looking for something else to farm. That being abundant sunshine, which has the proximity to key centralized infrastructure to deliver clean, reliable energy across California, both north or south.

That means our land can continue serving the people of the state just in a new way. One that supports a decarbonized grid, reducing air pollution and builds economic resilience for generations.

Wrap it up please. Okay.

Yeah. AB 1156 is a rare win win in that it respects the legacy of farming in California's Central Valley, but in a new way, while offering a responsible, realistic path forward for land, the workers, the developed solar power plants and the people of California, the families like mine who own land and the future of a decarbonized grid.

Thank you. Any support witness or you have also your presentation?

One more. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kara Martenson. I'm here today on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association in strong support of this bill.

I won't reiterate the comments of the author or our other witness here, but really what we're looking as a fully discretionary voluntary tool where we're trying to align state policy goals.

We're going to need to triple the grid by 2045 and much of the available land for solar development, which is 60% of the gigawatts needed to meet our climate and energy goals, are looking for a place that is prox, has proximity to transmission and has a low species conflict.

At the same time, our state is trying to come into compliance with our sustainable groundwater management laws by 2040, which means a lot of water, particularly south of the delta, will be experience constraints. So we see this as a unique opportunity to align additional economic opportunities for farmers with potential for solar developments.

And the reason why the Williamson Act is really at the central point of this is that it's a very difficult contract to get out of even if you have water constraints and aren't able to fully farm the land. There are two options currently.

A non renewal process that takes 10 years to wind down or a straight cancellation process that includes a significant fee, but also requires the city or the county to make public findings that say it's within the public interest and it's in the furtherance of the Williamson Act, which is really difficult to do if that land is transitioning to other purposes outside of ag.

This is meant to be one tool for landowners and for solar developments. It is not the solution to the entire problem. But is it a voluntary option that we see as also a win win? And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other support groups in the audience can line up.

Samuel Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Margaret Gladstein on behalf of NextEra in support.

Arlene Asbrick here on behalf of INVENERGY in support. Thank you.

Awa Kidani representing Clearway Energy in strong support.

Lily Mckay on behalf of Terra Jen in support. Thank you.

Martin Vindiol on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees in support. Thank you.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Bob Garou on behalf of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades in support.

Erin Nimula with Nimala Pappas on behalf of Intersect Power in support.

Good morning. Aaron Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance and we're very supportive of the concept and the bill in print. We're still reviewing the amendments from the Committee analysis, but very supportive. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Gail Delahant with Western Growers Association. Our Members farm throughout all of California. We grow fresh produce and tree nuts and we are supporting concept and we've been working with the author on amendments and we're going to take the proposed amendments back to our Members. But we are in support and concept.

We would really like this program to work.

Thank you. Is there any main opposition? Witness, can you vacate the witness seat, please? Each person will have Two minutes. Go ahead.

Morning. Vice Chair and Members, my name is Peter Ansel representing the California Farm Bureau. Regarding the Committee's amendments, we'd like to thank the chair and the Committee consultants work for engaging stakeholders on this complex issue. But we respectfully must still oppose AB 1156 unless the bill is further amended.

Today, landowners have a clear pathway to cancel contracts to pursue solar projects or any type of project. They pay an early cancellation fee that they've made as part of a contractual obligation. This includes a full cancellation or under SB618, a partial rescission for solar use easements.

SB618 rightly prohibits solar on prime ag land lands of statewide importance and farmland security zone lands. Those are our best soils and make up a small percentage of what's available for growing in California. Instead, it expands solar use easements to these lands at no cost to cancel the contract.

That is an attack on the stability of the Williamson Act. That is only restored by replacing the cancellation contract obligation that's in statute today. We support the Committee's goals of ensuring that developers provide meaningful benefits to displaced agricultural workers. But we urge caution.

These are going to be permanent conversions of industrial scale solar with batteries on transmission lines identified by Caso. These are not going to be temporary conversions. So any benefits need to be substantial and meaningful.

The early cancellation cost today is a repayment of the reduced property taxes that a landowner has received while benefiting from being enrolled in the Williamson Act. That's fundamentally different from funding workforce development and training programs. But we want to recognize the suggestion raised at the Assembly Committee on Agriculture would be to have the repurpose.

To repurpose those cancellation payments to fully Fund community benefits. It's an interesting idea. And if the bill moves forward, it's one that deserves serious consideration.

Finally, the bill still has some vague definitions around insufficient water supply and commercial viability that we think could be tightened up so that the bill really only applies to the landowners that specifically need relief and doesn't create a scenario where developers will be able to go out and cherry pick development opportunities for land at the lowest cost.

Because conditions are changing with our groundwater. As DWR and the Governor's office noted just two weeks ago, with millions acre feet of new groundwater being stored in the Central Valley. Thank you. Thank you. Therefore, we respectfully request an aye vote or an abstention. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me. A no vote or an abstention?

I'll take the aye vote. Yeah, we'll close with that, actually. Senator [unintelligible].

Okay. Your position is no, right?

A no vote or an abstention. Thank you.

Okay, second witness, please.

Good morning, distinguished Members of the Senate Local Governance Committee. My name is Tom Stein. I'm the California Regional Director at American Farmland Trust. And thank you. We received the amendments late in the day yesterday and haven't had a full chance to do analysis on that. Unfortunately do remain in opposition unless amended.

We agree with the points taken by the California Farm Bureau and the requested amendments related to water scarcity, commercial viability, cancellation payments, siting considerations. With importance of a thoughtful approach to such permanent land use changes affecting our agricultural lands and the communities that depend on it.

I'd like to just embellish a little bit more emphasize on the importance of California's prime farmland. AFT was founded on the principle that we must save the land that sustains us and for 40 years have been working to protect the country's most productive version and climate resilient farm and ranch land for being permanently converted to other uses.

Less than 9% of all of California's land is considered prime. We're in a sweet spot where only 3% of the global land mass has a Mediterranean climate. This stuff is truly special. Irreplaceable. Takes millennia to develop and once it's gone, it's gone forever. And so.

And yet we're also losing 50,000 acres of ag land per year in California with 60% of that land in the San Joaquin Valley designated as prime. So at the same time, we recognize the urgency of transitioning to clean energy. But we believe we can achieve renewable energy goals and become carbon neutral without sacrificing prime Ag land.

For this reason, AFT developed smart solar principles. We have a smart solar team working to site solar thoughtfully ensuring food production is having. We're working in concert having the both and situations of these in these spaces. We have a team across the country implementing the strategy.

We urge the Legislature to amend the bill, build in a more thoughtful approach with meaningful definitions, improve siting considerations and retain the fees supporting Department of Conservation mapping programs.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition would like to come forward? Give your name in your organization.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the California Certified Organic Farmers and the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We also received the amendments late in the day yesterday. We do align our comments with American Farmland Trust and we will, you know, continue to have conversations with the author's office, but opposed unless amended.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Okay. Seeing none come to [unintelligible]. Senator Laird.

Thank you. It seems we have a whole series of conflicting Values and conflicting realities that exist the state. I did a whole series of Williamson Act bills when I was in the Assembly, but then during the Great Recession, the state backed out and left it to local governments.

And I have always wanted the state to get back in, but we haven't. And we develop the Sustainable Ag Land Conservation Program to try to do permanent protection in the absence of the Williamson Act, with grants to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

And in part because of Sigma, but in part because of a changing climate, there isn't enough water to support the acres that have existed in ag, particularly in the Central Valley and in the Westlands Water District. And we heard from a farmer, they are fallowing land for both those reasons. And so that is happening.

And I get the opposition witnesses, because the idea is not to give up one acre, and that should be, in General, our goal. However, the climate and water are changing that to some extent anyway. And the.

The climate is such that there was this recent article about my home area saying, the new climate in Santa Cruz, it'll be the new San Diego. And it was like, I love San Diego, but I want their climate to remain there.

You know, I love the fog in a temperate coastal environment, but the climate is changing in a way that it's actually changing where we can farm and how we can farm. And if we don't take actions to deal with the changing climate, we will not have the same conditions on the farmland that we are trying to protect.

And so I think this bill tries to thread the needle in the best possible way. It makes it voluntary, and it isn't an override of the Williamson Act, it's a pause. So it comes back. I don't believe that it's a permanent conversion.

I think we're going to have this bizarre thing that I will live to see, that we will get to the natural life of a lot of solar panels, and we will have not considered how to replace them adequately or whether to replace them or dispose of them. And that is in the future.

And if there is a way that these farms don't continue, then there will be a way that the Williamson Act restarts on these parcels. And so I think, given these conflicting values, this bill threads the needle in the way that it should.

And I'm sorry that people couldn't have vetted the amendments in time to tell us the impact. The. The one thing that, that I heard as a criticism from the opposition was that there were still vague definitions in some things. And I wondered if you would respond to that concern.

Yeah. And I'm also going to have my witness testify as well. But we took a much more detailed definition of water constraint. That was one of the things that that came up. We required the state to examine and make a determination before prime farmland could be eligible as well, which was another issue that came up.

We tackled the kind of commercial liability piece which was also raised by the opposition. And so a lot of that I think is in the new language which again will be that we worked with the Committee on the Consultants on that'll be in print for the Next Committee but driven by a lot of these conversations.

So my hope is that we've addressed a lot of the concerns, probably not all of them. And I think you're right. I think there's a reality where we may just be in opposition with some of the opposition all the way through. But we will continue to have those conversations. And I think you're right, Senator.

We're trying to thread the needle here on dealing with our current realities of climate while still honoring the need to have as much productive ag as possible. And so those are the things that we're trying to thread here.

And it has been through a lot of conversations that we've landed where we are and I suspect we will continue to have more of those and I'm certainly open to them.

Okay, I appreciate that and I think that one last comment. One of the issues we have in development, and I know you've been at the forefront of of some of the housing issues, is trying to do our best to guide additional delve development to infill or the existing urban footprint.

And that is important for the protection of of ag land. And I think some of our programs are designed to protect the prime ag land.

I mean I have a city that is now in my district, King City, where one side is a river, two sides are prime ag land, the fourth side is range land that is the least productive. And the goal has been to do conservation easements on the prime ag land and then know if there's any development.

It is the land that is of lesser agricultural value. And it is just in I was reading the analysis and running this by to see if there was anything that might speak to that in how you do this.

But as it is, it's interesting that it was a farmer from Westlands that testified for because and that a representative of Westlands said they could even consider supporting this bill. That is a monumental revolution given past places that Westlands has been.

And yet it's the reality that they don't have enough water to Farm all the ag land that is within their, their district.

So I just appreciate you taking this on as somebody that takes on hard bills and, and I know this is a hard bill and I hope that if there's any option of continuing to work, you will. But I look forward at the appropriate time to making a motion and voting to move this bill forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator C. Madam Chair, and.

Thanks to the author. This is a, this is a, a key issue and I share the objective and the goal and also the consult. The Committee analysis does a good job of, of teeing up the Williamson Act, which is we must do everything we can to save it and rescue it. Also, it doesn't work.

Both things are true. And I appreciate Senator Laird sort of pointing out for my urban friends that the Williamson Act is basically the redevelopment of rural California, which the state withdrew all of its participation and they just expected that the world would go on in both instances.

And we've seen the impact of the redevelopment change on HOUS and we're seeing the impact of the Williamson Act as well. So I, I represent six agricultural counties, none of which are in the San Joaquin Valley.

And, and so we have a different view about agriculture than I think some of our friends in Westlands and, and to some extent Western growers as well, in that we don't think of the only, the only valid way of farming is with huge amounts of irrigation.

That isn't our, that's not our definition of what viable agriculture is that folks in Solano have been range farming for generations with no water either, you know, either imported or groundwater in Yolo and Napa and Sonoma and even East Contra Costa County where their groundwater basins would qualify under this bill.

But it's not news like we've known for generations that we have limited water supplies there and therefore agriculture has adapted to climate supportive climate appropriate growing, whether that's rangeland or agave. Now, you know, we are adapting.

And so I think I just want to first take issue with this notion that if it's not prime farmland and irrigated with like million, like millions of acre feet of water, then it doesn't count as ag.

It's sort of wasteland that should just be turned into something else because that's not our experience in the communities that I represent. So to me the issue here is really are there changed conditions? Right.

So I get the, you know, and that's kind of what is already in the existing law with respect to plumes of selenium or, you know, something. Okay, we just we were farming here and now we can't.

We were farming here, but the, you know, all the water contracts just got canceled or it just went from Sigma, you know, no problem to Sigma, my God. And now we can't farm anymore. That I think is a very valid approach. That to me, that's a much more appropriate way to thread the needle.

Is, has farming, has agriculture become not viable? But if it was already viable, but not just not a big water hog, that to me is not enough to say, yes, it's okay to convert at scale. And it matters because we're, you know, we're talking about the agricultural ecosystem in these communities.

And so if in rangeland In Solano County, 20% of the of the Williams not contracts convert to solar use easements, there's no longer enough of the lambs and cattle to support the rendering plant or to support the hay farmers or the. So the rest of agricultural agriculture collapses in that area. And so it really is about.

To me, it is, is there, is there change in the conditions, whether that's San Diego climate, is now what we're experiencing in Napa, or it's gone from Sigma, find a Sigma. My God. That.

I hope you'll think about that more, that more tailored approach and not sort of accept this notion that if you're not heavily irrigated growing almonds, then you don't count.

Because I think although there are plenty of communities in my district where they want to and should be aggressively deploying solar in exactly the way that this bill anticipates, I would not want to see overnight these entire communities, entire agricultural ecosystems convert because we played with the economics and we didn't get the incentives exactly right.

So I appreciate the work on this. The Williamson Act does need. It doesn't work like the value of development is now much higher than the penalty. In many, many cases, it's serving a function of supporting farmers in the work in what they're doing, but it's not really an effective land use strategy for California.

So you're definitely onto a right topic here and I think there is a place to go. I'm not ready to vote for the bill today, but I do think we could use some work to make sure that we are valuing all of productive agriculture in the state, even if it isn't heavily irrigated.

Madam Chair, just respond. I appreciate, Senator, the comments and would love to have you in the conversations as we think more stuff in the future as this bill moves forward and on into next year. Should there be other bills as well. I would also just add, you know, I think that's also why we made this entirely optional.

Right? We're not requiring it. We're making it sort of as an option. But I hear you on the validity and agree with a lot of the comments you raised and would love to pull you into this conversation should you so desire.

Okay. Any other Members comments or questions? No. Okay. Seeing none. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Assembly Member for working with us. I really appreciate my colleague's comments. I'm sorry I wasn't here for your presentation. But here we are trying to protect our food supply or food source.

Really important to Californians, but also important to the whole nation. So we're taking on something that really impacts way far beyond what I think sometimes the issues that we take that we deal with here, we have to protect our farm workers, the workforce who are so devoted and so committed to agriculture and then renewable energy.

So we're trying to tackle on all these three, and I think we came up with something that's fair and hopefully it shows some. It shows some results that we went in the right direction. So with that, I will be supporting the bill today and we can take the vote. I'm sorry. Closing. Okay. Okay.

We'll be voting on AB 1156.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Next, we'll be moving—next, we'll be moving on to AB 735, Assemblymember Carrillo. Okay, Assemblymember, you may start.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 735 which is a follow up to AB 98 from last year. Our state in our world's economy is increasingly relying on the movement, storage, and delivery of goods from all over the world.

The logistics industry has boomed over the past 15 years as the rise of e-commerce and our constituents' expectations for rapid shipping has grown. For nearly a decade, the Legislature has grappled with how to protect impacted communities from the risks that come from living among heavy duty diesel trucks. This fight predates my time here in the Legislature.

But last year, at the request of the speaker, I dedicated much of my time to helping find a trust compromise to address this issue. Myself and hydro logistics facilities and the surrounding communities across the state, we met with stakeholders and consulted experts in public health, labor, and the logistics industry to find a dedicated balance.

But I believe we'll both keep the industry and the thousands of jobs it creates here in California and also, improve the quality of life for community members and our constituents.

The delicate balance we struck in AB 98 creates the following: increased sustainability and air quality standards for warehouses built within an existing community, it requires developers to design new warehouses with community members in mind, and it requires local governments to develop and enforce meaningful truck routes that minimize the impact of trucks coming to and from these facilities. As with all isolation of this magnitude, there is more work to do.

Our joint author, AB 98, Senator Reyes, and I have introduced identical bills to clarify a number of outstanding issues. We have held dozens of meetings with stakeholders on all sides to get to this point.

The Bill in print addresses a number of issues including the following: it ensures existing affordable housing requirements are not replaced by the affordable housing language in AB 98, makes clear that AB 98 provisions do not apply to certain port properties or agricultural uses, provides more time for small cities and counties to update their circulation element, and gives the Attorney General direction to work with local governments that are working in good faith to comply with AB 98.

Senators, this is a very challenging issue with passionate stakeholders on all sides.

We have elected not to have a lead witness here in support, but instead, I would like to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders that have come forward with their concerns and their ideas to help us ensure we get this right. Finally, I would like to be transparent that we're not done yet.

We will continue to work through the summer recess to address some of the outstanding issues which are the following: rehabilitation of all facilities and truck route enforcement. We sincerely hope that there are at least five—a few more issues we reach consensus on before the end of the year.

And if we are successful, I look forward to bringing this Bill back to your Committee in August for a final review. Thank you. No witnesses, that's correct.

Okay. Anyone else in support of AB 735? Okay. None. No? Okay. Are you a tweener? Okay. Okay. Then please come up. I know—go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Skyler Wannacott, here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and our members, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and NAOP California. We currently have a no position, position, and we'd really like to thank Assemblymember Carrillo and his staff.

He really has diligently been putting a ton of work on into cleaning up AB 98, I'd like to say probably the day after the Bill was signed law, and he's continuously been working with all stakeholders on all sides. So, really want to thank you for your hard work thus far.

Lots of things have been taken care of that we have support. There's a lot of good things that have been done, meaningful clarifications, fixing timelines, technical corrections necessary for implementation. But we're at a critical juncture at this point and key amendments still need to be made.

Most importantly, ensuring that already approved projects can move forward as originally intended and addressing technical issues that make AB 98 workable and in practice, implementable. AB 735 and SB 415 must move together to fulfill the commitments made last year by both the authors and to actually make them workable and implementable for all of us land use folks.

We urge and continue partnership across and hopefully get these across the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable. Completely align myself with the comments of the previous speaker on the need for those additional changes, but just want to emphasize how incredibly grateful we are to the author and his team for hearing us out and really engaging with us in a good faith effort to get this right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, are you a tweener?

Continuing the tweener train. Lauren De Valencia, on behalf of the American Planning Association, also really want to thank Assemblymember Carrillo and staff for the engagement on this. Our members are the folks that are going to be implementing this at the local level.

And so, we have raised some concerns that we are continuing to work with the author on. We would really like to see the change of the general plan changes currently proposed in, or currently in the law. We'd like to move that to an ordinance for implementation purposes. It makes sense.

It actually is better on timing and it is something that is a very big undertaking to update the general plan, especially under the current timelines in the Bill. The other thing I just want to flag is there is safe harbor protections in the Bill, as far as implementation goes currently.

There's been some changes to that language that we do have concerns with, and we've addressed those or discussed with the authors office, and we'd like to continue discussing that because we're concerned that it actually kind of flips the safe harbor provision on its head.

And so, it's not particularly something that we think will protect the Inland Empire jurisdictions, in particular, that have to meet an aggressive timeline. But we continue those conversations and really appreciate all the efforts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. It's nice to not actually be up on testifying, but Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, stepping in for my colleague today. Just wanted to thank the author's office for continuing to clean up legislation, for clean up legislation to AB 98.

We continue to express our perspective to not require the circulation element if a city does not have a warehouse project, allow cities to meet the circulation element requirements through local ordinance.

And while we support a good faith enforcement provision, we are continuing to work with the author to address the recent amendments to that language and appreciate the continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Michelle...with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the City of Visalia, and we would align our comments with Cal Cities.

Thank you.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California, also a tweener. We really appreciate the efforts that you've made in the Bill to make this implementable in agricultural areas. We do have very serious concerns with some of the changes that have been incorporated with respect to the Attorney General and cost recovery.

Look forward to continuing to work with you on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody who's like a real opposition? No, no real oppositions. Okay. Okay, let's move on. Members, anybody, comments or questions? Senator Cabaldon.

I just, I wanted to join the tweeners and thanking the Assemblymember for the hard work on this and the honest brokering and how important it is that we, that we get it right.

I represent, not in the Inland Empire, but I represent the most industrial city in the Sacramento region with the port and all the main rail lines and all the highways converging in the city. There aren't actually a lot of areas in the city that are not—that don't meet these definitions.

And so, the sort of how, and I'm not proposing it for the Bill, but how we grapple with that, where every place in the city has similar trucking and air implications.

I know when we proposed at one point to open a child care center and then a preschool for the workers in the industrial part of the city, the challenge because of the sensitive receptor language, not in this Bill but in a previous version, in the previous statute, was it caused all of the employers and the Chamber of Commerce to come out in opposition to the childcare center and then two years later, to the preschool, because they didn't, you know, they were worried that then they would never be able to expand or grow.

And that's obviously not the purpose here. But as a professional planner, you know that that dynamic that sometimes when we're, when we're trying to create protections, we also, we flip the politics on local land use, in a way that means we don't necessarily get the services that workers and employees and customers and citizens need as well.

So, that, as we go forward with implementation, both as it is now and with the changes that you're doing, for me, that's one of the things that I know I'm paying attention to is how is this actually playing out in planning commissions and in communities around the state to make sure that we're getting those trade offs right, so that we're not denying people who are already impacted by some of the EJ issues that you've been tackling, that we're not also denying them housing and childcare and schools and everything else that they need to be able to thrive in their communities too.

But very much appreciate the work that you're doing.

Definitely going to be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Seyarto.

As a leftover from last year, when we heard this Bill at the last minute and it was on death's door on the floor, it was short five votes. I remember we took six or seven votes before they finally were able to convince people to get it—give you—enough votes to make this Bill go through this, Prop or the Prop, the 98.

So, promises were made that we were going to fix the issues. One of the big issues was local communities that have no logistics center, that have no plans to have logistics centers.

I have a few of those and I also have cities that have some logistics centers. Why are they being made? Why has that not been taken out? That was one of the, that was one of the main points, that cities that aren't involved in this shouldn't have to do a circulation element for these developments.

I believe that's in the Bill, that cities that do not have any plans to have logistics uses, they don't have to update their circulation element. And also, to address even further concerns, instead of having the circulation elements being updated, there's negotiations going on to have them be done through an ordinance.

Had it done in the ordinance. And those should have been done before we got here because now, we're making another decision on a Bill that we hope is going to floor with these amendments. So, I need your assurance that those amendments are going to happen.

The ordinance, because if it doesn't have an ordinance instead of the general plan amendment, because we've had 10 general plan amendments in the last 10 years foisted upon our local governments and for them to try to navigate that is next to impossible. And then, we can talk about the finance structure after that.

So, if I have your assurances that those elements are going to be part of the Bill, number one, that those local governments that aren't planning on having any don't have to do this. And number two, that it's an ordinance, it can be done through ordinance, not the general plan.

As you heard from the APA representative, those are conversations that we had from day one after the Bill got signed. But also, to keep in mind, the joint author, Senator Reyes, would also have to be part of those conversations. But on myself, I can assure you that we will continue to have those conversations with APA.

And yes, the goal is to now have those cities that don't have any vacant land or don't plan on having any logistical uses to be able to be exempted and again, at the very least, not be able to do the circulation element, which again, those are the conversations we're having.

But at the same time, again, I want to remind everybody that the joint co-author, Senator Reyes, who will be having a meeting later today, I will have that conversation with her.

With Senator Reyes?

Yes, we're going to have a Zoom meeting later today to talk about this. Yes, sir.

The AG part, that they need to be able to do their due process through court, not AG comes out and fines them $50,000.

And it's been practiced, I believe, through the AG's Office to warn cities who are violating of whatever it is they do—warn them, they tell them that they need to comply with whatever it is. In this case, it's the same approach.

That's why we took that 50,000 fine out of the provisions of the Bill so that the AG's Office has an opportunity to talk to those agencies, local governments, and that those local governments, again, that are acting in good faith will have an opportunity to comply with whatever provisions on the Bill that are going to be subject to.

I think they still want their day in court. They want that handled through court. The AG can file against them and they can go have a, have it adjudicated in a court, instead of have the AG just come out and find them.

Well, I cannot speak to the AGs.

Yep. Well, that's—now, that's part of the Bill. That wasn't part of it before.

But not the fine, correct?

The fine was up to the AG. It's an administrative process, so that's—it should not be. I don't think the cities think that that's, that's a good idea. Let's see that, the—let's see, last thing popped in my head when you were talking.

Well, I can't remember the last thing for right now, so.

If you want to reach out to me later.

No, I just, I just want to make sure that the promises that are made to get a Bill over the line are kept and they're not, they're not kicked aside, and then, we go through another process to fix things and the main things they wanted fixed don't get fixed, that's—if we do that too much, nobody's going to trust what we do up here, which is already an issue.

Understood, sir. That's why I said we'll be back here if necessary.

All right. Thank you.

Any more comments, questions? Seeing none. I do want to thank the Assemblymember. I know you've been working really hard and there's some changes still, still to come, and you've struck that balance so far on the implementation issues, the real implementation issues, without tipping it in favor of one side or the other.

I know that's been very difficult, but you've done it. Thank you for bringing the Bill back. If you make these significant, any significant changes, I'll be supportive of the Bill today and we may see, may, may not see you again, and give you an opportunity to close.

I want to thank you, Senator, and every Committee Member because you do have my commitment. And as stated by the speakers, we started working on this right after it got signed. You continue to have my commitment to work on those issues. And again, if necessary, we'll be back here soon to get your support.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank You.

All right, call the vote. Oh, motion. Motion by Senator Arreguin.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 4 0 on will remain on call. Thank you. And Assemblymember, we have another bill, AB 1154.

Thank you again, Madam Chair and Senators, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1154. AB 1154 works to create parity between small ADUs, which are a maximum of 500 square feet, and JDUs by eliminating owner occupancy requirements for small ADUs.

Specifically, this bill will remove the owner occupancy requirement for JDUs with their own bathrooms, which would allow property owners to rent out both the main residence and the JDU. Over the years, the legislature has made strides in expanding ADUs and JDU's law to create a more streamlined and enforceable process to building these units.

This increases access to affordable housing in the state and provides Californians with an incentive to maximize their property's potential by building these units. These units can provide homeowners with the opportunity to generate rental income, house multi generational families and provide more rental options that are affordable and within an established neighborhood.

In my experience, I built both an ADU and a JDU in my property and I was able to provide to my daughter while she was attending college, ut then she came back from college and decided to live in the ADU.

However, there is a lack of clarity between what regulations apply to small ADUs and JDUs due to an overlap in similarities between the two in law. This creates confusions and limits homeowners from building these units on their property.

Current requirements for owner occupancy for JDUs limit opportunities for homeowners to create rental units, leading to a lack of investment and availability for affordable housing. Joining me today in support is Esmeralda Lopez, California state director of Unidos US. With that, I call it to the missus. Esmeralda.

Okay. Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Esmeralda Lopez and I'm the California state policy director for Unidos US. We're the nation's largest Latino civil rights advocacy organization.

And in addition to an office in Los Angeles, we have staff here in Sacramento and an affiliate network of 76 community based organizations throughout the state of California. Those affiliates invest more than 3.6 billion, employ more than 20,000 staff, and provide direct services to approximately 2.6 million Californians a year.

And I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of AB 1154. Since 2010, Latinos have added a total of 672,810 net new households in the state of California. This is about 82% of new household growth in the state. Given the demographic shifts in the state of California, home ownership growth will primarily come from Latino households.

And Unidos US has been long committed to increasing the home ownership rate and generational wealth of Latinos by creating financial stability. In a report by Unidos called Building California's Future, we found that incomes are not growing at the same rate as home appreciation.

We also found that entry level homes, specifically condos or townhomes, are among the most under built. Accessory dwelling units however, have increased by 80,000 units or about 15,000% between the years of 2016 and 2022 to meet this growing demand. ADUs provide low income homeowners the opportunity to build generational wealth, increase property value and create additional income if owners rent it out, rent out their ADUs or the primary dwelling.

In California, Latinos represent 40,000%, 40% of the state's population. But Unidos US Home Report also found that Latino home ownership rate was about 20% lower than that of Non Hispanic white homeownership.

Can you wrap it up please?

Okay. We appreciate the Assemblymember's leadership on this issue and his commitment to expanding home ownership opportunities for California's population. And we can, we hope that you can support. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead sir.

Good afternoon. Sorry. Good morning. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a policy manager at California YIMBY. Recent UC Berkeley analysis found that most California cities reserve more than three quarters of their residential land for single family homes and that about 95% of the state's residential land is zoned single family.

This zoning is at odds with how Californians actually live. Our households have fewer people than they used to. Married couples with children have declined from 40% of all households in 1970 to only 19% of households in 2015. While one in two person households have grown from 46 to 62% of all households over the same time.

However, the square footage of new single family homes has almost doubled since the 1970s. Simultaneously, the proportion of Americans living in multi generational households has risen from 13% in 1970 to 20% in 2016. With multi generational living even more prevalent in our communities of color.

California's nation leading 80 year reforms have helped homeowners resolve this housing mismatch by giving them much needed flexibility to adapt their homes to fit their needs. These reforms have produced tens of thousands of new homes, with ADUs growing from less than 1% of new construction in 2016 to fully 1/5 of new homes today. These homes blend into existing neighborhoods, adding housing without disrupting their look and feel.

Small Junior ADUs have been a key part of this success, giving homeowners an inexpensive way to create an independent unit from existing floor space in their home so that grandparents, adult children and caregivers can live by can live close by without giving up their privacy or dignity.

AB 1154 will help us keep our momentum on this by giving homeowners additional flexibility to add junior ADUs while empowering local governments to ensure that they are used for long term residential use. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1154?

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate San Diego, SPUR, Fieldstead and Company, and Student Home Coalition all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis as a proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no more in support. Anyone in opposition? Yes, please come forward. Okay. Yes. If we could ask one of you to let one of you.

Go ahead.

Hello. Thank you for taking up this important issue.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Two minutes. Thank you so much. My name is Rachel Finlay Ginis. I'm the senior construction project manager for Hello Housing's Hello ADU program. We work with jurisdictions and owners every day to help people create accessory dwelling units, including junior accessory dwelling units. I'm a licensed California general contractor and I was also the original sponsor of the bill for junior, for junior accessory dwelling units.

Junior units represent a very special tool and product in California's housing toolbox. It is important to understand that these flexible, small in law apartments are not considered separate under California building and fire code. That is because originally they remained connected to the home through an interior door. Junior units provide housing for our parents, for our children, and caregivers as so many of us wish to age in place in our homes. Junior units originally repurposed bedrooms, so they represented no expansion to the occupancy, so no additional utilities were needed and no new parking was needed.

The Wieckowski amendments in 2022 eliminated the requirement for an interior door. So revision, recommended revision number one is fire separation must be required if there is no interior door. This is a major public safety issue. Recommended revision number two is owner occupancy must be required when there is an interior door because junior units that have the interior door do not require fire separation, a fire assembly between units.

The Wieckowski bill also eliminated the inclusion of a bedroom, so junior units now can represent an expansion of the home's occupancy, requiring additional utility usage and parking. We bring this to your attention because we are seeing major pushback in the, on the second conversion ADU across all the jurisdictions we are working in. They simply are not...

Wrap it up, please.

Okay. They simply are not recognizing it. Our concern is the passage of this bill will further inflame pushback and we may lose junior units. Throwing out the baby with the bath water. These small, nimble units represent the most affordable housing product in California. Hello Housing opposes this bill unless revisions are made. And we respectfully request your nay vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Comment? Any others in opposition? Seeing none. Members, questions or comments? No. Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close? Oh, you do?

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this bill. And I do support it. Owner occupancy requirements, I know in theory can seem really good. In practice, they're a complete mess. First of all, determining what, you know, like who is an owner, who isn't. But it's also it's just not how like housing works in the real world.

And we see this in various housing laws. And again, it's sort of like a, I feel like it's like a, you know, a little bit of a Leave it to Beaver kind of this is how things are supposed to be and it's not aligned with how the real world works. And so I think this is a really important bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward.

Can I... Is it possible to respond to that?

No, unless you... Okay. All right. Anybody else, comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none. You may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the comments from the Senator. Just simply ask for an aye vote on this proposal in front of us today.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Choi. And we'll call the vote.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. [Roll Call] 6-0.

The vote is 6-0, on call. You have one more.

I have another bill.

Yes. AB 1276.

1276.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators again for allowing me to present my last Bill of the day in this Committee. And that is Assembly Bill 1276. First, I'd like to thank the Committee and Chair for working on this bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. And the amendments are as follows.

Clarify the definition and use the Housing Accountability Act HAA definition of housing development project. Apply the reasonable person standards only within the Permit Streamline act. Specify that SB 330 vesting rights do not include local or state building standards. To allow for measures that are adopted as safety requirements to address safety concerns.

Explicitly exclude hotel projections from the reasonable person standard. Consistent with the Chairs. SB838 clarify that the hotel carve out does not affect short term rentals after a certificate of occupancy to prevent misuse by local governments. Again, I will be accepting those Committee amendments and I thank the Chair and the Committee for working with us.

AB 1276 is part of the Fast Tracking Housing package, a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent and unable to achieve homeownership.

This Bill builds on the prominent success of SB 330 in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins the entitlement process, it isn't subject to sudden regulatory changes except for essential updates related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant sequence environmental impacts, among others.

As a permanent city planner myself, I've seen firsthand habitat hurdles and inconsistent regulations sell projects for years, driving up costs and making housing unattainable. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state to build multifamily housing, largely because of long approval timelines.

Projects in California take over 22 months longer to finish than in Texas, for example, which greatly increases the cost for California. housing. If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing investment to other states with offer a more predictable and efficient approval process.

A strong, reliable housing supply is critical to keeping workers in California, supporting local businesses and fueling economic growth. Without enough housing, employers face hiding challenges. Commutes become longer and more costly. AB 1276 addresses these challenges head on by increasing transparency, providing certainty and ensuring fair, timely project approvals.

With me to testify and support today, Steve Cruz and Nick Camorata with the California Building Industry Association.

Good Afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, AB 1276 builds on the most important housing reforms California has enacted in recent years in SB 330. SB 330 brought much needed clarity to how housing projects are evaluated by local governments by establishing clear rules of the road.

It gave developers predictability by locking in the rules and standards that apply to a project at the time time of a preliminary application is submitted. And just as importantly, it clarified how the rules would be interpreted by applying a reasonable standard to prevent arbitrary denials based on overly subjective plan consistency arguments.

SB330 has worked and delivered predictability, accountability and results in moving forward much needed housing in California. It also included some strong comments and safeguards, including exemptions for legitimate health and safety concerns and for projects that have significant environmental impacts under CEQA.

However, as the Assembly Member stated, SB 3330 only addressed local governments and as the Select Committee on Permit reforming emphasized in 2025 final report, this leaves a massive gap gap at the state level in California.

As you know, housing projects often require approval from dozens of state agencies and these same problems that SB330 solved at the local level still apply. So this is where 1276 comes in. Very briefly.

It expends extends those protections to the state and regional level and also ensures that when a state and regional agency assess whether a project is consistent an adopted plan, they must follow the same objective standards and now applies to local agencies.

As the Senate Member stated, we took a number of amendments at the Committee's request to limit the application of the reasonable Standard in closing 1276 is a practical evidence based extension of a policy that we know works limits imposition of new standards midstream and improves predictability and the housing approval process.

For these reasons we ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Nick Camarano, General Counsel for the California Building Industry Association. Only here to answer questions if it's necessary. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else in support of AB 1276 please come forward.

Good afternoon Madam Chair, Members. Skyler Wannacott, California Business Property Association and our Members Building Owners Managers Association of California and NAOP California and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium and support.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Divya Shiv, with Housing California in support.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members. Raymond Contreras, with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate San Diego, SPUR and the San Diego Housing Commission in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition?

Welcome.

Senators. Anthony Tannehill, with California Special Districts Association. We took a concerns position so a lot of our concerns were part of the dialogue in this hearing and prior about the reasonable standard being broadly applicable and to what items that were being vested.

While special districts don't have land use authority, they are part of the ecosystem of providing infrastructure and services and they themselves are subject to ever changing regulations and mandates from regional bodies and state and federal bodies. And so we really look forward to seeing the amendments in print and revisiting.

Appreciate all the dialogue with the Committee, the Senators and of course the author and stakeholders and we'll continue the dialogue after we see the amendments in print. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to cast an aspirational Aye vote for the bill because I very much support its what it is attempting to do. I don't think the bill works in its current structure at all. We had the conversation in housing Committee and that was just a week ago.

So the author and I haven't had a chance to dive in more deeply. But the challenge here is that the process of vesting that exists in the Housing Accountability act is essentially a two way vesting. It's a two way agreement between the local agency whose standards are in play and the applicant. And it's a sensible approach.

It's messy sometimes, but it's a sensible approach. The challenge for all other public agencies, because the Bill is very, very broad. It applies to all public agencies, and it applies to any rule, regulation, determination, or other requirement adopted or implemented by those agencies. It's a very, very bright, broad net.

But that set of public agencies, it does include the special districts. So your local cemetery district, your local mosquito abatement district, it includes your regional transportation agency, it includes the regional water quality control board, the air district, and innumerable state agencies that may have some responsibility.

They may not issue permits, but they are issuing rules, regulations, and some of the other things that are purported to be vested here. So they're not at the table. They're not at the desk at the counter when an applicant submits their complete application to trigger vesting.

So they are neither part of that transaction in any way, but they all, nor do they know about it. They will be completely unaware.

The jurisdiction itself, the City of Palmdale or West Sacramento, cannot notify all public agencies in the world, sort of in General, that just as of today, no one else may make any changes to their rules, regulations, or standards.

So that is so problem number one is that the vesting is happening without any of the agencies that are to whom it's going to apply even knowing that has occurred, much less having been aware of being able to say, hey, but you know, we're one week away from adopting this policy or what have you.

So that's challenge number one. Challenge number two is that many of these policies from state and regional agencies are required elsewhere. So the Bill purports just by one sentence saying it's vesting. It doesn't do the hard work of saying, notwithstanding the Porter Cologne Water act, vesting occurs. Notwithstanding the Clean Air act vesting occurs.

It doesn't do the homework of actually waiving anything in these other statutes. And so you're setting up a very major legal conflict between what the Bill pretends to do and what the other agencies can do.

Because if you are the regional Water Board and you must execute the Porter Cologne Water act for purposes of a project, the fact that somewhere in the housing, in the government code, it says, this will not absolve you as an agency of your requirement to make sure that there isn't too much arsenic or too much suspended solids in the retention basin right next to the housing project.

So you're dealing with those issues. But another source of a lot of this is legislation. So if you go in and invest and three years later, the Legislature passes A.B. well, you're a Bill Assembly Member and now you have to deal with sensitive receptors because it is the state law.

And so other public agencies are required to execute and implement those state laws. But the developer will say, zero no, no, no. Palmdale vested us five years ago. No law, no new changes can apply to us ever.

And so I'm very much supportive of what is what's going on here because state agen regional agencies are can be a significant barrier and developers do need certainty. But I don't think the Bill right now is legally or administratively implementable.

And so I'm committed to continue to we've spoken just today again, I'm committed to work together to try to get in shape because I really want this Bill to be signed into law so that state agencies are partner in this area.

But I don't think in its current form that we're there yet and look forward to trying to, trying to perfect it so that it will actually deliver the very important policy goal that you're trying to get to. So thanks, Madam Chair.

Okay. Senator Seyarto.

You know, kind of on line with what our Senator was saying. I have a little bit of a difference of opinion based on what I've seen in local government. Basically all these regional agencies, state agencies, they all have their requirements and they give them and make them available to the cities.

And it's the cities who's holding the bag that says you guys have to comply with all these things if you want to build such and such.

And they go through their checklist and if there's not an update from the state at that time, I don't see why we should be compelling the people that are have gone through the process, done everything they wanted to, and now find out at the 11th hour that the state wants to move the goal posts.

And I think what your Bill is trying to do is saying, no, you don't get to move the goal posts. Once we've got to a certain state, a certain line, then they're protected with what they've vested themselves in and won't be subject to additional dollars.

Different studies, all these different things that all of a sudden come into play because somebody at the state changed their mind or the Legislature decided to put it in a new law. You know, the line has to be drawn somewhere right now. I mean, given this, why not apply all our laws to existing buildings?

When's the line drawn for them? Well, the line was drawn when they finished their building or when they were going through the process and nothing changed. So for me it's incumbent, this is a state responsible or any agency to be communicating with the people that they had put in charge of making sure all this stuff gets done.

And once they've said yes, you have complied with everything that we know that the state and everybody else wants, they should be protected. And so I applaud your efforts on this Bill and I'll be supporting it.

Thank you, sir.

Senator Choi, thank you.

I have a simple question. I know the intent of the Bill, very simplified. Once that's pre approved, then as of that date the project has been approved. No new law after the approval shall deter my process. That's basic understanding of your period, right? That is correct, sir. Yeah.

And then now, once the approval has been received, is there any timeline, is that permanent? For whatever reason, the project or developer or individual original plan is not implemented in a reasonable time to me, maybe six months, a year, or can it last five years, 10 years?

I'll ask Mr. Cruz to answer that question for you.

Thank you, Senator. Good question. And is that it's not an infinite sort of window of where your vesting rights are protected. There actually are limitations on both ends. Once you file your preliminary application, that's when the clock starts and you have 180 days from then to actually file your complete application.

So there's a, a timeline in the front end. On the back end, after you get your project approvals, you have 24 months in which you're protected. Two and a half years. I'm sorry, two and a half years.

That all local agencies, local cities all have a different timeline. Same law applies. Two and a half years. More than two and a half years. They should build it. So if and when they, for whatever reason that will start, then this law would not apply. Yeah, those vesting rights would. Okay, thank you. Then I'll be support.

Did you say again?

I'll co author this bill. I will move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator.

Senator, would you like. I mean Assembly Member, would you like.

zeroOhappreciate the conversation and you know, we feel strongly that this will help us get more housing in the state that we need. I simply request an Aye vote from you. Thank you.

Well, that's what we all want. Thank you and thank you for working with us on the amendments. You. I think we preserve the critical parts of your Bill and well respecting the public agencies. If the. You heard other concerns today about the impact and so hopefully after the amended version goes into print, they're dealt with.

So I urge you to continue working with them. And that's it. So thank you. Move on the vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, thank you.

Six to zero on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. We're moving on to AB 1061. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Welcome. Okay, go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee consultant for working with my office and accept the committee amendments. Today I'm presenting AB 1061 which ensures the California Home Act applies in historic districts.

In doing so, this bill seeks to balance the goals of maintaining historical integrity and allowing for additional missing middle housing development. Individual landmark properties would remain ineligible under current law. The California Home Act legalized and streamlined the development of duplexes and small scale lot splits across California , including in historically exclusionary single family home neighborhoods.

Small urban lots and additional duplexes add density in existing neighborhoods, increasing housing supply and affordability. However, the exclusion of historic districts has created a loophole that opponents of new housing exploit to block development. Local groups frequently misuse historic preservation designations to prevent homeowners from using the California Home Act, significantly limiting the law's effectiveness.

Early implementation data shows that the California Home Act has been severely underutilized. AB 1061 closes this loophole without compromising the integrity of truly historic structures. With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any question is Max Dubler, policy manager with the California YIMBY sponsors of this bill.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. Hello again. After AB or sorry SB 9 passed in 2021, exclusive enclaves around the state attempted to undermine the law by having their neighborhoods designated as historic districts.

AB 1061 addresses this issue by ending the total prohibition on SB 9 duplexes and lot splits in historic districts and replacing it with reasonable standards developed in conversation with historic preservationists. California has three levels of historic designation: individually listed historic landmark properties, contributing structures in historic districts, and non contributing structures in a historic district.

AB 1061 allows SB 9 duplexes and lot splits while maintaining the prohibition on SB 9 projects at individually listed historic landmark properties and the alteration of contributing structures. Further, it preserves local government's power to set design standards for non contributing properties in historic districts.

We believe that this bill strikes a reasonable balance between housing production and historic preservation and so we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1061?

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members, Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate San Diego, SPUR, and the Student Home Coalition, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1061? Good morning.

Good morning Chair and members, Brady Garden, on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition, did want to first commend the Committee's office, the author's office and the sponsors for having conversations. We appreciate some of the changes that have been made. We do remain concerned for a variety of reasons that I'll discuss. And the main ones are this.

Four years ago, we with SB 9, we were heavily involved in the conversations and had negotiated these protection for that. And as we've seen with housing laws, historic districts have been had those protections and this bill would take a one off and exempt SB 9 projects from that.

So going back on an agreement from three years ago is very concerning. The other big issue is SB 9 projects have not happened and it's not because of historic designations. The market just isn't there for it. It probably still needs time to go considering the bills are relatively new.

But the idea that the historic designations is the main reason that SB 9 projects haven't arisen. I think there's a lot more to the story than that, whether that's materials, whether that's building costs, et cetera. So I think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse and looking at other approaches.

And we recognize that some of our cities have taken some drastic experiences. We're not here to defend those, but we do think it is really important that we have a good balanced approach to that. So we look forward to continuing those conversations on that.

One of the other things to keep in mind is as we go through the state housing element process and come up with our plans for housing, we take into account historic designations and make sure that we have our sites that are viable for development.

So this would essentially say you would have to do objective standards and you would have to ministerially approve them. So that's very challenging for us considering we already planned for those types of locations. So with that, we are in respectful opposition.

We'll look forward to reviewing the amendments in print and talk with our members, but and look forward to continuing conversations with the Assemblymember and the sponsors on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. No one else in opposition or yes. Okay. Please come forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in opposition. Yes. Senator Wiener.

I thank you. I want to thank the Assemblymember for pursuing this bill. There's a broader issue around SB 9, which was such an important bill and step forward, but during the negotiation process to be able to advance that bill, there were a number of different constraints that were put on it that have made it really hard to implement in terms of the focus of this bill, historic preservation.

You know, I, as is often the case on these debates, it's people are sometimes put into. You're either way here or way there. I'm someone who, I believe strongly in historic preservation. When I was a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I legislated San Francisco's first new historic district in 10 years.