Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call the Committee on Organization, Governmental Organization to order at 1:30pm and I appreciate our Member, our on time caucus Members and of course our author being here. Really appreciate that.

And then, so for today, each Bill, each author will have the opportunity to have two witnesses in support and two witnesses are allowed in opposition. And each will have two minutes of testimony. And sergeants, if you can call the absent Members, I really would appreciate it.

And we do not have a quorum, so we'll start as a Subcommitee since our first author is here. Senator Strickland, if you would like to come up. Thank you for your promptness, Senator. And you may begin.

Test, test. There you go. Sorry.

Okay. I'll try this last time. Okay. Madam Chair, Members, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for the hard work on my Bill, Senate Bill 364 dealing with outdoor advertising. I'm glad to accept the Committee's amendments as offered.

The goal of 364 is to speed up the process of granting permits for outdoor advertising signs and to spread out the workload for the Department of Transportation by clarifying that they can accept and act upon applications for roadside signage as segments of the project,

as segments of the project are finished, as evidenced by the public being allowed to access to use a new segment. Right now, the Department of Transportation waits until the entire project is fully completed before processing any applications.

Allowing Caltrans to proceed in applications as the project progresses will avoid large backlogs of applications that would otherwise be accumulated during what offers amount to month, months and months long construction projects. This Bill aligns regulatory action with on the ground realities, all while upholding existing safety and land use issues.

I recently amended the Bill to include short paragraph clarifying what is considered a customary maintenance of these outdoor signs which should not require new permits to perform. I have with me two witnesses.

Ms. Margaret Lee, who is the city manager of the City of Fountain Valley, which is in my district, and Mr. Ron Beals, General Counsel of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. And thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Welcome. You may begin.

Thank you.

There it goes.

Hello. Perfect. Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Senate Bill 364 concerning outdoor advertising displays. I'm here to highlight how outdated the regulation regarding the placement of the new billboards are negatively impacting local jurisdictions such as Fountain Valley.

Currently, if a freeway undergoes a new alignment or in case of the 405 freeway in Orange County, an expansion you cannot apply to place a new outdoor advertising display like billboards until the Department of Transportation officially accepts the freeway.

Although the 405 freeway has been fully open to vehicular traffic for almost two years, we've been informed that it won't officially be accepted for another three years. This rule made sense when entirely new freeways were being constructed to accommodate our rapidly growing population. However, our circumstances today are different.

The 405 freeway alignment and expansion were relatively small in terms of the impact to the city, like Fountain Valley. Two years ago, our City Council approved placing two billboards on the 405 Freeway. These signs together would generate at least $1.2 million each year.

This is much needed revenue to help us pay for essential services such as police and fire, which take up nearly 70% of our budget. However, the city and our outdoor advertising partners are currently precluded from even submitting an application for at least three years.

This delay is attributed to a required plant establishment period for a new landscaping along the freeway. It's worth noting that billboards aren't even allowed in landscape freeway segment, so we're being prevented from from applying for a billboard to ensure landscaping thrives in an area where there is no landscaping.

At the same time, every other type of construction project can occur adjacent to the freeway. Businesses can erect their own sign, new buildings can be constructed, and the city has even approved a new 650 new unit multifamily residential project next to the freeway. For some reason, billboards are the type of improvement being precluded.

To be clear, the freeway expansion is complete and fully functional. There's no ongoing construction and the property ain't within the freeways right away. Placing an advertising sign on these property with no possible impact on the freeway.

If SB364 is enacted, it would allow Caltrans to at least consider the merits of the application and the specific circumstances of each request and make a judgment based on its individual merits. Thank you for your time. We again urge you to support in favor of Senate Bill 364.

Thank you.

Next witness.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and the Members of the Committee. My name is Ron Beals. I serve as counsel for the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. We, our Members, own or operate over 90% of the billboards in the State of California. SB364 has two technical amendments to the Billboard Act.

In previous life, I was chief counsel for Caltrans, so I have some technical knowledge if there's any questions. But the staff did an excellent job of summarizing it and I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for talking about technical aspects of the Outdoor Advertising act. But I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

And we proudly urge a yay vote on this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there under any other witnesses in support, Members of the audience in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions, comments from the Committee? Assembly Member Ta?

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I'd like to thank the Senator for this amazing Bill. This is ongoing issue for many, many years in our area. And Senator Strickland, actually my Senator, so my Assembly District overlapped with his Senate district. And this is an issue that long time, even when it was mayor of the City of Westminster.

And we have a lot of issues. But I really appreciate your leadership that you introduced this Bill. I think this Bill is going to help a lot of city and the businesses. And I'd like to ask for your permission that I want to be like principal co author, if you. If you may.

I'd be honored. Thank you, Assemblyman. Thank you. Really appreciate it. I'll be honored.

Thank you. Any other Committee Members Questions? Comments? Yes. We need to establish quorum first. So if we can call the roll and then we can continue. Thank you.

On the quorum. [roll call]

Thank you. We have established quorum and Assembly Member Macedo, you wanted to move the Bill?

Second by Assembly Member Dixon. Thank you. You can... You're welcome to close.

Second.

Oh, Madam Chair, thank you. This is a pro business, pro local government, pro public safety Bill. I'd be honored to have your vote and ask for aye vote. Thank you so much. And again, thanks to your staff for. All the hard work.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Madam Secretary, can call the vote, please?

SB364 Strickland. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [roll call]

[roll call]

Senator, the bill has 13 votes. Enough to pass, but we'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I hope you have a great day. Thank you.

Thank you. We don't have any authors. If. If you are listening, if you can make your way down, we'll be quick, we promise. In the meantime, can we call the consent calendar? I have a motion by Assembly Member Davies, second by Assembly Member Soria. Can you call the roll, please?

On the consent calendar, items 5 and 6. SB855, Committee on Military and Veterans Affair. SB859, Committee on Senate Governmental Organization. The motion for both of these bills is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Recommend consent. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The vote is 13 in support, and we will leave the roll open for other Members to add on. In the meantime, we're looking for authors. And if Senator Wiener, Senator Laird and Senator Rubio are around, if you can make your way, I really would appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Senator Laird. I really appreciate it. If you can come up. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. Let's see. Yeah, you can open, please, and then you'll have. Your witnesses will have two minutes each, and you may begin.

Well, great. Thank you very much. It's rare that I get to walk in and sit right down, but I'm in the Rules Committee, so it'll be great to get back. Anyway, thank you. Madam Chair. I'm presenting Senate Bill 470.

It extends the sunset, that of SB544, which I authored in 2023, that sets up a new system for open meeting laws for state boards and commissions. And this bill would extend the current law to January 12030. This system has worked. This bill will allow it to continue. And there's an additional sunset that I just mentioned.

So if there are any concerns that materialize, there's a chance to deal with it in 2029 before the bill would expire in 2030. When the Bagley Keene act was adopted for open meetings in 1967, no one envisioned the computer age. The Americans for Disabilities act was still a generation off into the future when that was adopted.

And the idea that citizens could participate in public meetings remotely was not common. The Covid pandemic gave US a test and an opportunity to see exactly where what that was like, both the benefits and the drawbacks.

And this bill continues the previous one, takes advantage of what we have learned and takes the good pieces of the alternate accommodations. First off, this bill gives a choice. State boards and commissions can choose to use the existing system or the alternative that is set forth by this bill. So there's no obligation to use the reform.

It can be done. And if they choose to take the alternative and operate under it, they have to have a majority of their Members present at the main location. And if they allow remote participation, they have to allow remote participation by the public. And in doing that, there's just certain rules that came from the practices we learned.

If the system goes down for the remote participants, you have to pause the entire meeting. It requires that cameras have to be on for the people participating remotely. And I know in the one opposition letter it says it allows people to participate with their cameras off. That's not correct. This bill says it has to be on.

It no longer requires that the remote participants have to list their home address to participate.

And since this bill is designed to make sure that people with disabilities or seniors are able to participate if it's hard for them to get to meetings, this doesn't raise the security question of somebody that's a person with disabilities being home alone having to publish their address while they're there in the meeting. So it protects their security.

Advisory boards that have no decision making authority would be allowed to meet remotely, enhancing that kind of representation. And I know there is a separate bill unrelated to this one that's moving ahead on advisory boards.

So this really allows for seniors and people with disabilities to participate in a way that they might not be able to under the original system. I believe it's worked. There have been some concerns that have come up regarding the flexibility for Members of a regulatory board to meet remotely after quorum has been established.

The current language takes into consideration the other factors that could require someone to participate remotely, such as caretaking, less flexible work schedules, or the sheer size of our state. So SB 4 of 470 really takes into account disability accommodations.

All we've learned during Covid allows remote participation once a majority has been reached in person that otherwise people that might not participate are allowed to participate and who might not have been able to come to Sacramento.

And just given my experience, having presented the prior bill and this 16 or seven times, I just want to emphasize this is about state boards and commissions because so many times people speak about what Their experience is with local government.

This Bill is not about local government for those of us that lived in local government and know where that is. So at the appropriate time, I would like an Aye vote.

And with me to speak in support are Ethan Rarick, the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission, and Aaron Carruthers, Executive Director of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm Ethan Rarick. I'm the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. Our Commission is charged in statute with recommending changes in state policy that foster economy efficiency or improved service. In 2021, we surveyed Bagley Keen agencies about their experiences using remote meeting technology during the pandemic.

What we found is that 95% said they had experienced more public attendance at their meetings. More than 90% said they had saved money. About half said they had experienced greater attendance from Members of the board or Commission. None had experienced less attendance.

Based on those survey findings, we recommended that the law be changed to facilitate greater use of remote technology. And in 2023, as the Senator mentioned, the Legislature recognized the need for those changes. And by passing SB 544, this Bill, as you know, extends the sunset provision contained in SB 544.

Since that Bill took effect, our Commission has used remote technology for meeting extensively. We continue to see increased public participation and greater attendance by the Members of our Commission.

We have not had the resources to repeat our earlier survey, but we've heard anecdotally, And I believe Mr. Carruthers can speak to this, of other boards and commissions, and using this technology very productively, we think that this technology assists in making state government look more like California.

For many Californians, it's difficult to serve on a state board or Commission if you are responsible for elder care, child care, have a working job somewhere else in the state. It's hard to get to Sacramento. We think this Bill increases diversity and equity in state government, and therefore we urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Carruthers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm Aaron Carruthers. I'm the Executive Director of California's State Council on Developmental Disabilities. The State Council is an independent state entity that's funded by Congress, and we exist to be disruptors.

We disrupt systems to make them more agile, more accountable, more efficient for the people they're there to serve, which is people with developmental disabilities and their families. The council itself exists of 31 Governor appointed Members. A third of those are people with developmental disabilities. Another third are family Members.

And the council's been able to operate throughout the pandemic and afterward because of the flexibilities and provisions current law through SB544. Here's how we're able to do it with transparency and do it with accountability. Under the current law, the council meets six times a year. Half of those meetings are in person, half are by remote.

Using the remote option, during the virtual meetings, the council Members are on screen, cameras on anybody who enters the room with them. Often caretakers are announced to the public so we know who's there. The flexibility in the current law allows us various ways to meet, conduct the business transparently and remain available to the public.

Because of this flexibility, the council Members themselves are able to be the leaders the Governor appointed them to be.

Now, this includes our chair, who is a person with cerebral palsy, who uses a large motorized wheelchair and a caregiver to get her out of bed, dress, get ready for the meetings that she runs, even actually turn the pages of her meeting notes at times.

The flexibilities also include our Vice Chair, a father of three school age children. One has autism, one has down syndrome. Now, the amount of unexpected things that can go on in each of our lives are just innumerable. They're also multiplied in their lives, too.

The flexibility that exists in current law through SB544 allows them to continue to be the leaders that they are. We've seen increased public participation that's continued and we ask you to be able to continue the flexibilities we have now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

RB Kernan, for Leading Age California, in support. Thank you.

Tony Anderson, Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support. Thank you.

Patrick Smith, California Commission on Aging and support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kate Kreiner with the Alzheimer's Association. We're happy to support.

Thank you.

Jacqueline Mancia, Board of Psychology, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Welcome. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Committee and Chair. My name is Marshall Arnwein and I am the legislative advocate for the ACA of California Action and with our coalition partners, we respectfully oppose SB470. This Bill would weaken the Bagley Keene Open Meeting act by significantly reducing transparency and accountability. In person, civic engagement is an integral part of our democratic process.

However, SB740 is prioritizing the convenience of public officials over the meaningful in person participation of the public that is being served. To be clear, we strongly support the increased options for remote participation when it is for Members of the public and community Members. This Bill aims to support such as seniors and people with disabilities.

However, we must oppose this Bill because it's not narrowly tailored and will remove the long standing requirement of that public meetings be held in person in public places where the public can petition leaders and other government officials face to face.

Further, allowing for more the remote participation of board and Commission Members without the required public disclosures is not good for the public and should be narrowly tailored to issues involving Members with hardships, disabilities and with the proper guardrails to protect the public interest.

Further, instead of requiring that the public be able to remotely hear the meeting with the audio, observe the meeting and address the body and attend the meeting when a Member participates remotely, this Bill only requires that the public be able to remotely do one of those things.

Can you imagine community Members showing up to meetings like the California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and seeing mostly an empty dais or empty dais?

Or how much more can you imagine how difficult it would be for community Members to approach these elected and appointed Members before or after meetings so that community Members can connect and have the opportunity to face the elected officials? For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 470.

We hope to continue conversations with the author's office around striking the right balance between transparency and the desire of government officials for flexibility. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Brittany Barsati, on behalf of the California News Publishers Association, also here in respectful opposition. We have had so many conversations over the last several years about how the pandemic really pushed us forward and being able to have increased public participation and increased options for remote participation.

And to be clear, there's nothing in the current law that prevents anybody, state, local, what have you, from providing additional public access to these meetings. So as the gentleman from the Little Hoover Commission mentioned right, we really focus on the public access but also have concerns with too much flexibility for Members of a body.

Respectfully, Chair Rubio had an excellent Bill a couple years ago dealing in the Brown act space called AB 2449. That is our preferred structure. It allows for an in person quorum, but then also allows for extra flexibility for those in different spaces.

So anyone with a disability, we're very glad that that is still in this Bill, can participate remotely and count towards an in person quorum. Additional flexibilities like what was talked about, include caregiving needs or for a family or medical emergency, things of that nature.

So while I don't want to conflate the Brown act and the Bagley Keene act an overall structure that focuses on the in person quorum and then adds in the additional flexibility for those who need it, such as senior citizens or full time caregivers would be the preference. So that is why we are here in opposition.

But commit to continuing with the author's office to work on this and yeah, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else from the audience in opposition?

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Danny Kando Kaiser, in respectful opposition on behalf of the. Following organizations, First Amendment Coalition, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California, Freedom.

Of the Press Foundation, Media Guild of the West, National Press Photographers Association, Pacific Media Workers Guild, Latino Journalists of California, Orange County Press Club, Radio Television Digital News Association, and the Society of Professional Journalists of California. Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience? Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back to community or I'm sorry, to Committee. To community to Committee Members for questions. Assemblymember Dixon.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this Bill that's being extended over the sunset. I mean I'll take off my local government hat because that I think that was really, that really is helpful at the local government level.

But I will question the data that comes out of the pandemic mainly because people did, because they were all stuck at home, they could not go to the meetings. It was really the opportunity to participate was demonstrated. That's why the numbers in the data.

I've not seen the data how the numbers probably demonstrated how people who could not go to their city hall or their state agency or regulatory body. Took. Advantage of the opportunity to participate or observe online. My concern is for the public if they want to have that option.

I think that does help the people who have disabilities and have inability to get transportation to a meeting, an agency meeting. I think for the Members who are either elected or appointed, primarily appointed, I guess have a duty and obligation. I like the PUC example.

You show up to a public hearing by a regulatory agency and it doesn't require. Does the Bill require that the chairperson be present? I just think that that makes the democratic process a little less, a little tenuous. And I think people enjoy interacting with the other regulating body Members.

And I just think this discourages that democratic interchange of ideas and participation. So my I wish the Bill were just related to let the public if they choose.

Although I do think just on that point, studies are beginning to show in the education world, which may have some application to this, that attention to detail and focus on the transmission of information that's being conveyed in a virtual meeting is not as people are not concentrating as much as they would in person.

So just the whole aspect of democracy and encouraging people's participation. If there were a way to amend the Bill, just require the public, I'd be okay with that. But in the meantime, I think it still needs some work. So thank you. Appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Anyone else in the Committee questions? Comments? Thank you. Let's see. So, Senator Laird, I appreciate and I do want to make a comment because the Senator and I have been working on this issue for several years now. And I just want to be clear. One of the, the provisions is that the camera would.

Has to be on, correct? Yes. Okay. Because I think you stated that, that it's only the audio. That is not correct. I think one of the provisions of the Bill is that the cameras have to be on at all times for Members that are participating.

And then the other issue, and I, I, I know this because I was the author of the Brown act Bill. We were very specific, and I had a conversation with Senator Laird about doing this in tandem, not to have conflicting policies.

But the other requirement is that you must have a quorum present in order for the public, for the remote participation. So to the question from I didn't, from ACLU is we are requiring that there be a quorum present and then the other Members can participate remotely.

And the, we found that the pandemic ended well, you know, ended, and we have had more participation. The, the, There are several reasons why we decided to go this route. Specifically for the addresses, publishing the addresses.

I don't know if you're familiar, but the Brown act requires that if somebody, a Member of anybody, has to disclose the address. The reason that we started this process for the Brown act was because there were some stalking and some dangerous situations going on for a couple of Members of my, some of my boards.

And so publishing the address was the issue if they're away from, you know, from, from, from home, you're just, if you're at a conference, for example, and you're in a hotel or a random restaurant, then whoever was stalking that Member would show up.

And so we were very intentional about, you know, that in the Brown act, and I know that Senator Laird and I worked on this. You have to. There's a limited amount of times that you can do the remote participation. And so we did work on these.

And because of the work that Senator Lear did and the Committee did, the Committee consultants did, I'm comfortable moving forward with the Bill. But again, I just want to stress that there has to be a quorum. And I, and I say that. Because that was a sticking point for me when I was working with.

With the folks that needed the. The. The Bill. So just wanted to point that out because we have done that work previous to this. This is just an extension of the work that we had already done. Thank you. And with that, Madam Secret, I need a motion and a second. Senator Laird, you may close.

Thank you. And I want to take just basically what you said is a close and add a couple of things because you did make the correction that you cannot turn the camera off. The other correction I was would make is it was said somebody would come and face an empty dais.

You have to have a majority in person. You would never face an empty dais when that happens. And lastly, I would just remind you that this leaves the option for the body to go with the current law to not substitute this to go with the current law. And some have.

So I think that it is just worked and the fears that people have had have not materialized. But we have a sunset and in. In five years we can assess that again. With that, I respectfully ask for an iPhone.

Thank you, Senator. So now I motion or second Assembly Member Salache moves and Assemblymember Ramos is a second. Madam Secretary, can you call.

File item three SB470? Laird. The motion is due. Pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

You have 12 votes and we'll leave the roll open for Members that are not present. Thank you. Okay, I see. Senator Wiener, you may come up.

Thank you, Senator. Let's see. You will have allowed two witnesses, two minutes each in support of the Bill. You may begin. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. SB395 will allow the city and county of San Francisco to designate a hospitality zone in which 20 additional liquor licenses for restaurants will be authorized in order to provide a bit of a shot in the arm to the area downtown San Francisco.

Our financial district, Union Square area is recovering from the pandemic, but it's a slow and gradual recovery and it could use some additional economic vitality. And so I'm partnering on this Bill with Mayor Lurie, who's indicated a desire for the hospitality zone to be in the Union Square Yerba Buena area.

And having more businesses, more hospitality businesses in the area will help it in its recovery. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today to testify is Selena Sun with the San Francisco Office of Economic and Work Force Development and Marissa Rodriguez, the CEO of the Union Square alliance, who is also my Woman of the Year this year.

Thank you. You may begin.

Okay. Hello. Okay. Sorry. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio and Committee Members. My name is Selena Sun.

On behalf of the San Francisco Office of Economic and Work Force Development, thank you for hearing SB395, authored by Senator Wiener and sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, to allow the City and County of San Francisco to create non transferable affordable liquor licenses in a designated hospitality zone.

Mayor Lurie has made supporting businesses a top priority in his first months. He launched Permit SF to streamline permitting and cut red tape for businesses and housing development, and renewed our first year free program, which waives fees for small businesses in their first year.

SB395 builds on these efforts and sends a clear message that San Francisco is open for business. Existing state law limits available full liquor licenses based on population, capping San Francisco's number of licenses for the past 80 years.

That cap has pushed the price of a full license to over $200,000, making it nearly impossible for our new restaurants to get started, especially when paired with the high cost of tenant improvements.

Our hospitality neighborhoods, Union Square and Yerba Buena, are often called the beating heart of San Francisco and have experienced some of the most dramatic impacts from the pandemic. Revitalizing this area requires real tools to attract new businesses, nightlife and foot traffic. SB395 provides a smart, targeted solution.

Up to 20 liquor licenses issued over three years at ABC's application fee, usable only within the zone and non transferable so they won't disrupt the existing license market. These licenses will help fill vacant storefronts, support new restaurateurs and bring renewed energy, culture, and economic activity to our city's core.

And importantly, ABC will only issue them if local policymakers authorize it, allowing stakeholders to access the program. Assess. Sorry. Assess the program's effectiveness in real time and adapt implementation as conditions evolve over the next three years. We want to thank Senator Wiener for his leadership in revitalizing downtown San Francisco and respectfully request your aye vote on this important measure.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair, Madam Chair and to the Committee Members. My name is Marissa Rodriguez. I'm the CEO of the Union Square Alliance. The Union Square alliance represents property owners, businesses and cultural institutions in downtown San Francisco's premier shopping and cultural district. Union Square is the heart of the city but faces continued vacancy challenges.

It's been a real challenge coming out of the pandemic and we've been dealing with some other other issues that I know many downtowns are facing. SB 395 provides a vital opportunity to activate these spaces with new restaurants and nightlife.

The Bill would issue up to 20 new non transferable on sale licenses to bonafide eateries within a defined hospitality zone, Union Square and Yerba Buena. New restaurants and nightlife would help transform downtown into a 24/7 destination, driving foot traffic, boosting local business revenues and enhancing the district's appeal to residents, workers and visitors alike.

After further collaboration with the Golden Gate Restaurant Association Amendment, an amendment was adopted to include a seven year sunset provision. This offers entrepreneurs certainty. It brings clarity to the current secondary market and simplifies the program's long term implementation. Union Square alliance has a long standing commitment to nightlife led neighborhood revitalization.

And as our mayor, Mayor Lurie recently underscored at SB395's announcement and again at the launch of our Hospitality Zone task force. This energy between safe clean streets and vibrant restaurant bar scenes is vital for sustaining downtown's recovery. We urge the Legislature to pass SB395.

Its measured and temporary expansion of licenses with geographic restrictions, affordability and sunset provisions will deliver tangible economic benefits while maintaining responsible oversight to San Francisco's future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any others in support? Name an organization please.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members, good afternoon. Dylan Elliott on behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie of San Francisco, proud sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience and support? Okay, seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Okay, seeing and hearing none. I'll bring it up to the Committee Any questions or comments? Move the Bill. Okay, so motion by Assembly Member Solache. Oh, and second by Assembly Member Gipson. Yes, Assembly Member Dixon.

Hi, Senator, just a quick question. Did I hear correctly? This is temporary.

Yeah. So the. It'll sunset after seven years. That doesn't mean that their liquor licenses will go away. But in terms of... Because right now, if they get one of these licenses when they're, let's say they close, it would go back and then be re-lotteried off

Oh, it doesn't stay with the land.

No, it stays with the business. And that's why we're capping it. It's the basic fee that they pay so they can't sell it on the secondary market. Oh, that's good.

Yeah so this is really trying to get new, less capitalized businesses to be able to get off the ground who can't afford to pay 150,000, 200,000 for a liquor license.

And one other question is. I didn't see it. I didn't really look carefully. I guess the San Francisco Police Department, they support this.

The mayor supports it. I don't know if the, I mean, the Police Department's been very supportive of downtown revitalization. And this would have to go through the Board of Supervisors

The Board of Supervisors, do they support it?

Have they done a resolution?

I don't know that they've done a resolution. Our supervisor does. We talk regularly.

Usually the police weigh in on these kinds of things.

When. When this would go through the Board of Supervisors, if the police had input, they would provide input at that point in time. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yeah. And it's not. And it's restaurants. It's not. These are not bar licenses.

Assembly Member Gipson

I just want to say to the Senator, thank you very much. You. You're certainly in tune. And I've seen. I've been here 11 years, and you have time and time again tried to boost the business in San Francisco up even after the pandemic. You have been certainly in tune. You have your hand on your pulse.

You have tried so many times to boost tourism, the business community in San Francisco. And this is again, another attempt to one, provide the kind of tourism, the kind of foot traffic, the kind of business that San Francisco needs. So I commend you on one. This is a focus on your community, your district.

I would be added to, asked to be added as a co author. I'm not sure you need it. Sure, it's your district. It's not a statewide Bill. But again, just commend you and your efforts to again to champion the needs of your community. So thank you very much for being a leader in this space.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions and concerns? Okay, Senator, you may close.

Respectfully, as for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Can call the roll, please?

File item 2, SB395. Wiener. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [roll call]

[roll call]

Senator, you have 16 votes and we'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, everyone.

Yes. While we wait for another author, can you call the roll for missing Members.

On the consent calendar? [roll call]. Opening the roll on file item one. SB364. Strickland. [roll call]. Opening the roll on file, item 2. SB395. Wiener. [roll call]. File item 3. SB470. Laird. [roll call]. Opening the consent calendar for Assembly Member Wallace. Wallace. Wallace, aye. File item 1. SB364. Wallace, Wallace, aye.

Thank you. We're waiting for one more author, Senator Rubio.

Opening the roll for Assembly Member Gabriel. On the consent calendar. Gabriel. Gabriel, aye. File item 1, SB364. Gabriel, Gabriel aye. File item 2, SB395. Gabriel. Gabriel aye. File item 3, SB470. Gabriel, Gabriel, aye.

Wait. In Senator Rubio's defense, she is just closing her Committee. She was chairing the Committee right now.

Opening the roll for Assembly Member Alvarez on the consent calendar. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. File item one, SB364. Strickland.

Alvarez already voted on that.

Okay.

File item 2. SB395. Wiener. Alvarez, Alvarez, aye. File item three, SB470. Laird. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye

Do I go on the front?

Senator Rubio, you can come to the, oh. Thank you, senator. You may begin. You will have the ability to have two. Two witnesses and support. Two minutes each. And you may begin. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. And thank you for your patience.

Turn on the microphone, please.

We have a more sophisticated equipment in the other House, they haven't voted yet. We can do this all day long, right? I am so proud to be here in front of the chair. Madam Chair, thank you.

To present SB 783, an important bill that will support our local jobs and businesses and local governments by allowing existing regulations of outdoor advertising displays to continue until January 1st, 2029. I want to point out that I will be accepting the committee amendments. Thank you so much for your work on this.

Outdoor advertising displays play an important role in helping businesses attract customers. And the revenue generated by local taxes from these businesses and shopping centers is critical for community programs and services.

Existing law regulates outdoor advertising displays located in former redevelopment areas differently than advertising displays in other areas because of the special economic hardship that exists in those locations. But without legislation this year, these regulations will disappear,

starting January 1, 2026. SB 783 will extend that sunset date by additional three years on January 1, 2029, in order to provide time for impacted communities and stakeholders to discuss a permanent solution to this very important issue. It is important to pass this bill.

This bill is a reasonable approach to help support our local communities, which is why it passed with bipartisan support. 390. And with that, I will turn it over to my lead witness here, Jeff Sears, to present. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Try that again. Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Committee, Jeff Sears here. Today on behalf of In N Out Burger. I want to thank the author and the committee staff for their hard work on this issue. So, In N Out has signs all over, all over the state, over 300 stores.

We have one sign in the City of Glendora. And I think the, the sergeants were kind enough to pass around a map showing where it is. But this is next to an elevated freeway. This sign was constructed over 20 years ago through redevelopment. It served a very vital purpose.

Without the sign, nobody would even know this shopping market exists. We'd like to find a permanent solution and we've had conversations with Caltrans. We're looking for a little bit more help, but without an extension, they're going to force us to tear this sign down at a significant expense on January 1st of this next year.

So we need a little bit more time to come up with a longer term solution. And we appreciate your consideration of this issue. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Paul Gonzalves, on behalf of the City of Hawaiian Gardens. The City of Hawaiian Gardens we're in support of the bill, the City of Hawaiian Gardens is less than 1 square mile. So if you blink driving by, you will miss the city.

So this outdoor advertising display for them is vital for not only the businesses in the community, but for the community itself. So, so for those reasons, we'd like to thank the senator for her leadership on this issue. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in support?

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Hawaiian Gardens Casino, here in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Advocacy, here on behalf of the City of Inglewood in strong support. And thank the author as well.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis on behalf of California Cities for Self Reliance in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. And we represent 90% of the billboard companies that have signs in and around the state highways. Regrettably, we are in opposition to the senator's bill and our primary concerns are two fundamentally.

One is unfair market advantage that the state does require a great deal of regulations for the placement of billboards along state highways with respect to ensuring safety, aesthetic preservation and community standards. So extending the lifespan and the redevelopment signs that are out of compliance clearly creates an advantage for non compliant billboard operators.

The second issue as a result of that non compliance is one I think you've heard before, but it's maybe more serious in this day and age is that the signs that are non compliant are also out of compliance with Federal Highway Beautification Act. And the repercussions for that could be the loss of 10% of federal highway dollars.

And obviously given the unpredictable nature of what's happening, obviously it's not something that we want to continue to chant. So we do appreciate the chair and the author's willingness to try to limit the exposure there from four to three years.

And one of the things that, you know, we did want to emphasize and we hope can happen as part of this is to really take a look at, I think there's about 40 or so and the consultant would know for sure displays that are out there in these former redevelopment areas is to have Caltrans take a look at them.

And why are they non compliant and what would it take? There's a maximum allowable square footage for a display, for example, that we have to live with. But do you have to reduce the size? Is it a spacing issue? Then? What would it take to do that? It's not impossible.

And so we would hope to try to work with the committee to see if during this period that there could be some really some meaningful actions sort of taken to kind of bring these into compliance for the reasons that I shared. And Ron Beals is here today. He's legislative counselor for the association in case there's questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments?

Ron Beals just here to answer questions.

Thank you. Any other members of the audience in opposition? Okay. Hearing and seeing none members of the committee? Assembly member Ta.

Thank you, Madam Chair, really that want to thank the senator for introducing this bill. This is really, I think this is a really good bill. This is the second good bill of today about outdoor advertising.

And I think that really help the local community in the state and even in my district and help cities in my district as well. So I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask your permission for me to be co-author of the bill.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the committee questions or comments? None? would like to thank the author. And I know we've been working with the Outdoor Advertisement Outdoor Advertising Association. This I feel was a compromise.

After working with the Senator and the, the supporters of the bill, I thought that this might be a good compromise for the moment, as you know, and we've dealt with the Caltrans. It's a very difficult process.

And so I think this will give the billboards that are not in compliance or that are trying to get into compliance an opportunity to fix it. And that's why we did reduce the years from four to three. That at least will be some kind of in between timeframe.

So I really appreciate the author for taking those amendments and of course the committee consultants for working alongside with both the supporters and the position. So thank you with that. Can you call the roll, please, Madam Secretary? Call the roll. Well, I would like an opportunity to close, I guess. Wait just a second.

I also need a motion in a second. I also need a motion in a second.

Family members don't get that privilege, I suppose.

Okay. I have a. A motion by Assembly member Macedo and second by assembly member Dixon.

Senator, you may close. Thank you. I appreciate you guys entertaining this banter back and forth. Well, first of all, thank you for this. And I think some of us that were local council members during that time that redevelopment went away. We understand so much that was left sort of undone and a lot of difficult circumstances.

I've worked on both sides with both with your agency and on this site as well. And this is a good compromise. So we want to say thank you just for allowing us to continue this and figure out something in the future. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for the clarification. Madam Secretary.

Can you call the roll. File item 4, SB 783. Rubio, the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio. Let me think about it. That's a yes. Rubio, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Berman. Berman, aye. Brian. Brian, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Fong. Fong, aye. Gabriel. Gabriel aye. Gibson.

Gibson, aye. Macedo. Macedo, aye. McKinner. Win. Win, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos, aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Solache. Solache, aye. Soria. Soria, aye. Ta. Ta, aye. Valencia. Valencia, aye. Wallace. Wallace, aye.

Thank you. Thank you. 21 votes. And we'll leave the roll open for another five minutes for absent Members. Thank you.

We're opening the row for absent Members.

On the consent calendar, Brian. Brian aye. On the consent calendar, Berman, Berman aye. On the consent calendar, McKinner. McKinner, aye. File item 1. SB364, Strickland. [roll call]. File item 2. SB395. Wiener. [roll call].

File item 3. SB470, Laird. [roll call]. File Item 4. SB783, Rubio. [roll call].

You gonna meet me here? Yeah, I'm gonna come back from here. They have a little prize back. Okay, we are adjourned. At 2:45pm p.m. thank you.