Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Okay. The Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government, the first of this session. The Senate welcomed the public in person, and we are holding our Committee hearings in the Capitol building.

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 112, so we can—we have our quorum, we have quorum, don't leave—and begin our hearing. We have six bills on today's agenda, and so can we establish quorum, please?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Well, we'll start with our first author, Senator Cabaldon, and that is SB 828.

All right, thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Last June, seven of my constituents in Esparto died in a massive fireworks explosion that never should have happened. Families in our district, in our communities, are still grieving, still recovering, and still wondering what went wrong and how we could make sure it never happens again.

Esparto actually was not isolated. In May of 2023, authorities seized over 100,000 pounds of illegal fireworks in the city of Commerce, and across California, illegal fireworks and the constituent chemicals are being imported and stored at levels we've never seen before. One of the significant problems in this domain is the mismatch between state and local enforcement.

And that turns out to be one of the quick early lessons from this tragedy. The state fire marshal licenses fireworks businesses of various types, but local governments issue storage permits and land use zoning to permit the storage of the fireworks and some of the constituent materials. But too often, these systems don't talk to each other directly.

They rely on the applicants to self verify that they have the opposite permit or license. And that's what SB 828 is principally intended to correct by closing that loophole, so, requiring that anybody that's applying for a state fireworks license to disclose to the fire marshal all the storage facility addresses and proofs that they have the local permits.

Not simply say that they do but prove and demonstrate that they have those permits. And then, the state in it, in turn, would then be required to notify local agencies if applicants can't provide proof that their licenses have been denied or revoked.

This helps to ensure that state and local agencies work together and not in silos, and closes this loophole. There are a lot of things that went horribly wrong with this particular incident, and there is much more legislative work to be done. There are many ongoing investigations. There are criminal cases and others that are involved as well.

So, this is only a small part of the step forward. But this is an obvious gap in the system that we've created and it's a challenge for local communities.

I want to emphasize that Esparto is a tiny community in Yolo County, and what we expect from small local agencies here is kind of a big—it's a big responsibility for an agency that has very limited resources and it depends on its coordination with both other local communities, but also with the state in order to get that job done.

So, I want to thank the Committee staff for their thorough analysis and raising some of the key questions and the burdens and what the right balance is, like who should be doing what and who has the capacity, who should have the capacity. And so, thank you for the analysis work in that space.

And I also want to now introduce Steve—Steve Aubert—who is the Deputy Fire Marshal for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, to speak in support of SB 828. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. On behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association, the Fire Districts Association of California, and the California Fire Marshals, we respectfully urge your support for SB 828.

The Bill closes critical gaps in fireworks licenses and storage laws that limited the ability of local fire marshals to effectively oversee high hazard fireworks facilities. We have seen real world examples where fireworks and explosives were stored without local permits, without inspections, and, in some cases, without fire departments even knowing the hazard existed until an emergency occurred.

Those gaps place firefighters, first responders, and surrounding communities at serious risk. SB 828 reinforces the central rural local fire and building officials by requiring verification of local land use and permitting approvals as a condition of state licensure.

The local permitting process allows fire and building officials to review proposed structures, construction features, and fire protection systems before any explosives are stored. This proactive review is critical to ensuring the compliance with fire and life safety codes and to prevent unsafe conditions that could otherwise result in catastrophic incidents.

The Bill also improves notification and coordination related to firework shipments, storage locations, and giving the fire prevention bureaus information needed to conduct inspections and assess those risks. Just as importantly, it provides fire departments the advanced knowledge necessary to preplan emergency response to these high hazard facilities so firefighters are not responding blindly to explosive hazards.

SB 828 is a prevention focused, common sense measure that strengthens oversight, supports firefighting operations, and enhances public safety. For these reasons, the California Fire Chiefs Association, Fire District Association of California, and the California Fire Marshals respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any other primary witness, principal witness, that will be coming forward? Okay. Is there anyone in opposition? No.

Anyone else in support? Me toos? If you could come up to the microphone, please. Me toos in support.

Dennis Revell, Revell Communication, on behalf of our client, TNT Fireworks, in support.

Thank you.

Mark Newberger providing comments on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and RCRC. We don't have a position on the Bill currently. We do have concerns with the Bill related to the liability components for local governments. We had productive conversations with the sponsors yesterday. We look forward to productive conversations with the author's office.

Wonderful. Glad to hear that. Okay, anyone in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any me toos in opposition? Me too with nobody. Okay. Seeing none. We come here to the dais. Yes, Senator Seyarto.

All right, thank you for the bill. This is something that's needed for, especially for the illegal fireworks industry that's out there. You know, I guess, my question is who in the heck is not doing this already? They should be.

And the legal fireworks industry, wherever I've worked, we know exactly where they're storing their stuff and all of that that's already done. So, this is really something that's aimed at people that are operating under the radar and usually with the illegal higher grade explosive type fireworks.

And that is an enforcement issue that the state seems reluctant to take on people.

And so, you know, I think if we follow our laws and maybe send a good message with this one, the people that are doing the good work out there that are doing what they're supposed to and selling the appropriate fireworks for whatever their local community says to do will continue to do that.

But when we do weed out the people that are operating on the radar, because they're not going to, they're not going to go and get a permit for their illegal fireworks, so, they will, if they have a storage facility somewhere, they'll store them without anybody knowing it. And that's—I think that's what happened in that.

I think that one that did blew up, or blow up, that was a—was that an illegal fireworks storage or did they have a mix?

So, the investigations are ongoing.

Oh, okay.

So, and I think you're exactly right that the issue here is statewide is not principally the fully approved, safe, and sane fireworks that most Californians are familiar with.

But there is also a lot of gray area about the importation of the Chemical constituents that you can use to make explosives that will then wind up on the black market. There are the export of storage here, of fireworks that are not legal here, but to be potentially exported to other states.

So, there are other elements of it as well. And all of that seems to have been implicated to some extent in Esparto.

Yeah, local agencies should already be charging for the permits and things that help them do the enforcement and stuff. And if that's not happening and this Bill helps with other agencies that have somehow decided it's not as important, you know, I'm perfectly fine with that.

The other thing I wanted to point out was a little bit of contradiction in what we do as a state when we allow, say, could you imagine one of these in a zone, an area zoned for commercial buildings sitting next to previously zoned commercial area, so it wouldn't have incompatible uses, and now it's the home of a five story apartment.

So, that's some of the things we have to take into consideration as we're considering these other housing bills that we have that exclude cities from intervening or having these zoned areas. That's one of my—one of my red flags on this type of issue is our own laws are helping create a problem and this is one of them.

So, thank you again for that. Sorry to take up the committee's time, but I want to make sure that we know that we're talking about illegal fireworks versus the legal fireworks.

The legal fireworks I've never had a problem with. I used to do those inspections, and they've always been very cooperative. So, thank you.

Thank you. Senator Choi.

Thank you. Any measure for preventing fire, I would support that. This is one of the bills preventing prevention of that, any accidents and causing the fire. Only question that I have is that I wonder what the difference will be—significance of the statewide bill like this one, versus local ordinance and controlling similar way.

Why state we have to mandate throughout the state rather than leaving decisions to the local governments?

With the permission of the Chair. Thank you, Senator. So, this Bill isn't—is intended to be crafted to maximize the continuing local responsibility and control here, divert some more of the fine resources to support that work, while also understanding—I'll just give an example.

In the Esparto explosion, just weeks before that, there was a raid in the city of Commerce, of a facility there of, of non-safe and sane fireworks, some of which appear to be marked for shipment to Esparto for storage.

But there's no—under the existing regulatory framework really the likelihood that Esparto and Commerce have any sort of common information system is essentially zero.

And so, the role of the state here is very important in making sure that those local enforcement actions connect to how the, how the "industry" is undertaking them, where these, these materials, the chemicals, the fireworks themselves are being produced, stored, in various locations around the state. And so, a local regulatory regime alone can't solve it.

But this Bill doesn't, doesn't, doesn't preempt local regulation. It simply says, look, you know, at a minimum, you have to do a certain amount of inspection so that you know what's happening in your community. And I should be, you know, clear.

For the most case, for the most part, in the larger jurisdictions of Contra Costa, it's not as massive of a concern because they're dealing with many of these facilities on an ongoing basis, but you put yourselves in the shoes of an Esparto, you have one facility, lots of local conflicts of interest involved.

You don't develop the expertise, the capacity. And so, this Bill is trying to create the framework for that to work on a statewide basis while also moving some resources, but it does not prevent local communities from enforcing on their own terms and adding additional requirements as well.

And it does not preempt, in any way, their zoning or their activities. But in this case, the state licensed—the state license application was what they were told, well, they have a permit in Yolo County. For the site, the site is permitted and zoned for fireworks storage. It was not, and vice versa.

And so, the bill is really intended to try to make sure that both the state and the local communities, they have their own roles to play, but they must talk to each other, and there must be evidence and documentation to back up the claims that many of the folks on the edges or in the heart of the black market are exploiting today.

Okay. I understand that this one will give them the framework of work to build on local ordinances. Okay.

Oh, sure, go ahead.

You know, the other clarification I wanted to make is a lot of these storage are temporary because they're large fireworks companies that are hired to do the big fourth of July displays for communities. And so, I would imagine that's what you're envisioning. That is kind of the other problem.

Because we have our illegals, then we have our displays that are legal displays, but not for the public to be engaged in buying and firing off, even though they do. And then, we have the regular safe and sane fires that you buy at the fireworks stand.

This is more that temporary permit that they get to store things locally, because that's what I think was the problem there, too, is several communities had contracted for fireworks displays. They didn't get to have them because they all blew up in this place.

So, if that addresses—that will address this problem, I think it's a really good bill. So, thank you.

Thank you. And that is correct. I mean, the Bill is not principally focused at the Rotary Club selling sparklers. We're talking about demonstrated cases of massive losses of life as a result of exactly the kind of fireworks that you're talking about, Senator. Thank you.

So, maybe you should limit it to the sparklers.

Pardon? The sparklers alone.

Thank you again for bringing this, introducing this Bill. And there's all sorts of things that can happen, the dangers around fireworks. We had a situation in LA where there was a massive explosion in a very dense residential area.

Not that this would fix that particular problem, but the danger behind it is, I think, what everybody's looking out for. So, thank you for introducing this. Do we have a motion? Yes. Senator Choi makes the motion. Please, roll call.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Okay.

Senator Allen will be presenting SB799.

Well, thank you so much. Let me just begin by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for work working with my office on this Bill.

We have all sorts of affordable housing challenges, especially acute in the South Bay cities in my county, Los Angeles, because we have such high cost of housing there, even in formerly affordable communities.

So this builds upon a Bill that we did a couple years ago, SB 1444, which authorized the establishment of the South Bay Regional Housing Trust, which is a joint powers authority. And the intention for the trust was to Fund planning and construction of affordable housing and receive public and private financing and funds and authorize and issue bonds.

So the trust is in the process of being established, but we've seen that there are a couple of revisions to the original authorizing statute that need to be adopted to help the trust operate more effectively. So this Bill is doing just that. It adds some flexibility to the timing of appointing the chair and the vice chair.

It allows for alternatives to participate in meetings. It ensures that the Housing Trust board Members are selected pursuant to their joint powers agreement. And so here we have David Ledger, who's the program manager with the South Bay City's council governments to speak on behalf of the Bill.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members. As the Senator mentioned, I'm with the South Bay Cities Cog and we represent 16 really diverse cities in the South Bay, from Inglewood south to the Palace Verdes Peninsula, from the coast inland to the city of Carson.

And like many regions throughout the state, we've been grappling with affordable housing and homeless issues. And one thing that's common amongst all of our cities is the high cost of land.

And that leads to most developers proposing primarily market rate develop projects which at the end of the day doesn't do all that much to address those core issues that we've been working on. And over the last several years we've been studying and working with Senator Allen on developing the South Bay Regional Housing Trust.

And we have great news. In December, the city of Lawndale actually joined as our first official Member. We have a handful of cities that are looking at joining over the next several weeks and months. So hopefully by later this year we'll have an officially formed joint powers authority.

And as the Senator kind of touched on, SB799 gives some important flexibility to the Trust Board. The way the SB 1444 was written, it put a lot of that decision making on the South Bay City's cog.

And as a separate joint powers authority, we feel that that agency should be making its own decision, more of its own decisions, deciding who its board Members are, et cetera. One of the, I think the biggest changes that we're asking for is the allowance for non elected alternates to the board.

And this has been really helpful for other joint powers authorities. As you all probably know, City Council Members are primarily volunteers. They have their day jobs and their Members to many, many, many other outside boards and have commitments as part of their council positions.

And one of our Member cities is a Member of the Clean Power alliance, which is a joint powers authority. And one of their former council Members serves as their alternate. And he developed a really in depth expertise on Clean Power over his time as an elected official and then continuing on as that city's alternate on that board.

And not only has that benefited the city and their representation at the Clean Power alliance, but it's also benefited the Clean Power alliance itself by having a really knowledgeable, informed board Member helping make these, these kinds of decisions.

And so we're hoping that with these, the amendments in SB 799 that that same kind of flexibility would be allowed to our Member cities of the Housing Trust.

So that should the elected official delegates not be able to attend a meeting that they can have an alternate in their place who may be a fellow council Member, but should that not be the case, the ability to appoint a non elected alternate.

And so we urge you to pass SB 799 and thank Senator Allen again for sponsoring the Bill.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other primary witnesses in support? No. Okay. Anyone in opposition? Primary witnesses? Anyone else opposed? No. Seeing none. We'll come to dais. Questions? Senator Laird moves the Bill. Questions? Comments? No. No seeing none. Just if you could maybe add to.

I think you started to address the issue and I commend you for looking for ways on how we make sure that we get the resources for housing. So that's great. But the issue has, I think at the core of the issues is how do you hold non electeds accountable for decisions that involved taxpayer money.

And you know, that's a pretty high level of responsibility and accountability. So if you could get it explain a little bit more. It's different from just this is nice, let's do it just to let others have the experience.

But there's something deeper in there and I know you've addressed a lot of that through the amendments, but if you could talk that through a bit because it is a very serious change.

Right. And we understand that. I think the likelihood that non elected alternates be appointed is slim. The COG itself, our two county supervisors who are on our board, they're allowed to appoint their high level deputies as an alternate.

And it really helps keep the county in that situation informed on what's going on at the COG and so that the elected officials can be informed and help make those right decisions.

And being that affordable housing is sort of a niche subject area, that if there is somebody either on staff in the public part of a the city's commissions or public bodies that that council has the ability to publicly appoint, this would be all done through like a resolution or something at City Council to appoint that person as the alternate so that the city still is represented at the trust can still be informed on what's going on at the Trust and ultimately make their own decision on when an important item is on the agenda.

Does the elected delegate go? Does the elected alternate go? Or would in an emergency situation perhaps the non elected alternate go? And so.

So that's still part of the process, correct?

Yeah.

Okay. Senator Odeguin.

Well, very excited that this new JP is formed. It builds on the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority which we created in the Bay Area and it is not uncommon for supervisors or elected officials. To designate Members of the public to represent them as alternates. I serve as the Senate rep on the Bay Conservation Development Commission.

Many elected officials have staff people or subterranean experts who serve as alternates. I'll just note that my understanding, the Committee amendments limit the number of meetings that the alternate can attend, so they can't participate 100% of the meetings. I think it's like 7075% of the meetings. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

And so I support the Bill.

Great. Thank you. Yeah. I was asking a question because there's a difference between representation on the board and actually voting. Yeah. In terms of alternates. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any. zero, close. But did you have. I see the. Okay. Senator Allen, would you like to close.

Appreciate the thoughtfulness so many of you have experienced similar models and respect for astronaut.

And just to clarify that you do accept the amendments. Okay, thank you very much. All right.

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate floor. Senators Durazzo.

Aye.

Durazzo, Aye. Choi, Aye. Choi, aye. Araguin. Aragin. Aye. Cabaldon. Cabaldon. Aye. Laird. Laird. Aye. Searto. Aye. Wiener.

Remains on call.

Sam.

Our next presenter will be Senator Araguain. SB762. Buenos dias.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, it's my pleasure to represent to present Senate Bill 762, which is a district specific Bill to address the unique revenue needs of the City of Hercules.

Hercules was founded in 1900 and its history as a company town and later as a residential suburb, I think highlights the unique needs of the City of Hercules. Over the years, the city has struggled to generate sufficient revenue to meet its community's needs due to status as a low to no property tax jurisdiction.

And the lack of funding jeopardizes continuing services such as public safety services, youth and elderly support services, and parks and infrastructure improvements. SB 762 authorizes the city of Hercules to place on the ballot a sales tax increase of up to 1% that intends to ensure services and infrastructure maintenance can continue.

And this is similar to other legislation the Legislature has passed to allow for an increase in the sales tax cap for jurisdictions to adjust their unique needs as well. I'm here to testify on behalf of the City of Hercules is Niccolo DeLuca with Towson of Public Affairs.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Nicolo DeLuca here on behalf of the City of Hercules. I'll be very brief to respect the rest of your time. Very grateful for Senator Arraguini and his leadership on this Bill. Very grateful for your Committee staff for working with us on this Bill.

As the Senator said, the city of Hercules does not have a lot of revenue opportunities due to having low, low, low property tax. We have high demands from our residents and want to make sure our services such as fire, public safety, parks and rec address in the unhoused affordable housing are met due to their high standards.

And just to highlight, as the Senator said, this merely allows the voters to decide if they want to move forward on this or not. So thank you very much for your time and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more principal witnesses? Okay, seeing none. Any more witnesses in support? Okay, seeing none. Any opposition witnesses? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Senator Laird.

Thank you. When I was a kid, which was a very long time ago, and my father was a teacher in the adjoining school district, Hercules was nothing but a gunpowder or a dynamite factory. So hooray for all the progress that's been made in Hercules. And I authored similar bills for San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz.

And I just want to clarify that this just gives the voters the option. This isn't an Increase itself. People seem to campaign against these bills, thinking that it is the actual increase. No, the voters get to decide. So I would move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Suardo.

You know, I think everybody agrees with the concept that local government. I mean, local communities should be able to vote on these things. I think where the difference of opinion comes in is I've seen a lot of these.

And when those go to their ballot, the information that's given to the local communities is all about, you know, well, if you don't do this, we're gonna wind up not having enough firefighters, you know? Cause we always start with the firefighters.

And so it's about how it's presented to the public and making sure that when they are making their decision, they have a full slate of what the implications are. This, I believe, for the city of Hercules. You're already at, what, 9.5 or 10.5% sales tax right now?

We are at. I want to say it was 9.75.

Yeah, 9.75. So that has the potential to push them up to the 11%, which is about the third highest in the whole state. And they need to know that. And so while I don't say, I don't argue the point that the local cities should be.

The populations should be able to make their decisions on this, I do admonish cities that don't give them the right information they need to do that. And I hope you guys will take that into consideration when the Bill. When you guys. I'm sure this will pass. Just want to make sure that that's.

My concerns are on the record about these sales tax measures, because a lot of times they don't produce what they are told they're going to produce.

Okay, anybody else seeing none? Senator Leard made the motion.

zero, I'm sorry. Closing. Thank you. Once again, this Bill will give the voters of Hercules the opportunity to consider a sales tax increase to Fund essential community services. Hercules is doing a lot to build up commercial and residential development, so hopefully someday it will be able to increase its tax rules. And.

But at the present time, it really needs this authorization to be able to generate the revenue necessary to Fund essential services. And I agree with Senator Sierra's point. State law already requires specific financial information to be included in the ballot question. There's also information that's included in the tax statement in the voter information handbook.

But I hear your point about being clear about what the voters are considering. Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, call the vote.

The motion is due Pass to the Senate floor. Senators Durazzo, Aye. Durazzo, aye. Choi?

No.

Choi. No. Aragin. Aragin, aye. Cabaldin. Aye. Cabaldin, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, Aye. Searto. So no Wiener.

The vote is four. Two remain on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Senator Wahab. Senator Wahab will present SB722. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Well, first off, I just wanted to thank the Members and I will also be thanking the Committee staff for working with us on the amendments. Obviously, this is a effort to protect some of the most vulnerable people we have in our state. As many of you know, mobile home are.

Mobile homes are a vital, naturally occurring source of affordable housing, and to battle the ongoing housing crisis, we need to preserve housing at every single level.

And I want to be very clear about this, is that, you know, as much as we pass a lot of the bills for development, we also need to prioritize to preserve the homes that we have today as well as the different levels of housing.

And, you know, I think many of you guys have heard I have talked a lot about homeownership, and again, those people that are on fixed incomes. Mobile homes tend to be a way for a lot of individuals, our veterans, our disabled community members, our seniors on fixed incomes, our immigrant community members, to be able to purchase a home and be able to afford it ongoing.

Just to be clear, we are trying to protect the housing and ensure that mobile homes with regard to anti-demolition protections consistent with other land use bills by the legislature. Half of the ten largest mobile home parks in California are in my district, and three of those are in Sunnyvale, including the largest mobile home park in the state with 900 spaces, and all three will be vulnerable to redevelopment without these exemptions that we agreed to last year.

Thousands of people in my district--women, seniors, veterans, and families--could lose their homes. That doesn't even include the mobile home parks across the state that are vulnerable because they are within a quarter or half a mile of a train, light rail, or bus rapid transit. These are our constituents, neighbors, friends, family, and the damage this mistake and oversight can cause, if not fixed, will be irreparable.

We have a duty to make sure the laws we pass lift people up, not necessarily push them out. So this is very much an urgency effort in preventing the actual harm that this oversight will create.

With me to testify in support of this measure is Jodi Johnson, a mobile home resident of Petaluma, and is here on behalf of Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League.

Jodi Johnson. I live in a mobile home, and I am the president of the GSMOL super chapter in Petaluma. On behalf of the Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, representing seniors, veterans, immigrants, and other Californians of modest means living in mobile homes throughout the state, we strongly support SB 722.

The bill ensures protection for mobile home residents and homeowners from the housing developments authorized under SB 79. When SB 79 passed last year, it left most of us vulnerable to displacement by failing to extend anti-demolition protections to mobile home parks not covered by local rent stabilization ordinances.

In our initial assessment of these impacted in California, approximately 5,442 mobile homes in 36 mobile home parks are exposed and vulnerable. This lack of protection threatens existing affordable housing stock that SB 79 seeks to increase. The remedy in SB 722 is consistent with other laws already on the books and protects us from losing our mobile homes. For these reasons, we ask for your consideration.

Anyone else in support? Any other principal witnesses? Is this principal or are you--

No, I think that's it for our principals.

Okay. Okay, go ahead. Come on. Go ahead.

Just wanted to do a #MeToo.

Can't hear you.

My name is Marie Cuneo, and I am a mobile home owner, and I vehemently support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Jeffrey Lake. I live at Bella Vista Park in Yountville, it's a mobile home park, and I strongly support Senate Bill 722.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Tim Porteous. I'm an owner at Youngstown, and please, we're right next to that station and it will ruin us. Please let this pass.

Thank you.

Malcolm Sibley, mobile home owner in Petaluma, California. I also support SB 722. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Just good first step. We look forward to the conversations on the other SB 79 cleanup, but appreciate the work of the senator. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, committee members, Niccolo De Luca, on behalf of the City of Sunnyvale. Strong support. Super grateful for the senator and how quickly she responded to this issue, so thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, anybody in opposition? No opposition. Principal witness? Any #MeToos in opposition? Seeing none come to dais. Senator Laird.

Thank you. I would just say that I know this committee, when we were dealing with the issue of mobile home rent control, made sure that we restored a rolling system so that parties weren't excluded if they were built in any way after 1992, and it put this committee on record for affordable housing for mobile homes in a good way.

I appreciate the author bringing this forward as a cleanup because the stated purpose is exactly right. People should not be in harm's way just because of where they're located, and in relation to this bill, and this bill fix it, and it's important to note in our analysis that there's no opposition that's been submitted, so I would move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and huge kudos, and thank you to the author for identifying this at the end of this session because this part of our housing stock is almost always overlooked. It's the most fragile. Let's be honest. Our state and the mix of our state and local policies don't work. They're not effective at protecting people, and this was absolutely necessary.

I'm very grateful. Jodi, thanks for coming up. I do represent Petaluma, but-- I do represent super Petaluma, Cotati and Sonoma and other communities that are going to be deeply affected if we don't pass this bill.

I'm glad to see there's an urgency clause here, and we have to get this done quickly. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. This is a common sense but urgent need in order to protect the mobile home residents of our state. Thank you.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the author, of course, at the end of the session. I think you were approaching me at the end of the session to flag this issue, and of course, we-- you and I immediately agreed that this needed to happen.

It was too late to get it into the bill last year, and so I submitted a letter to the Journal with my commitment, and I'm grateful for you advancing this. And I believe I'm a joint author, right?

Yes.

I'm a joint author, so I'm, of course, happy to support this. Thank you.

Great. Okay. Thank you very much, Senator Wahab. This is a wonderful bill. Thank you for being on top of it and thank you for all of you who came to speak who are residents of mobile home parks.

We appreciate you showing your organizing skills and coming and presenting and talking about these issues and informing the rest of us about what you face. Thank you very much. This is-- would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

This is urgency bill that needs the two-thirds, and Senator Wahab, just want to make sure you accept the amendments.

Yes, I do.

Okay, great. Call the roll.

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

Thank you.

The vote is seven/zero. The bill is out. Thank you. Okay, we move on now to SB 222, Senator Wiener.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Chair, colleagues, I'm here to present Senate Bill 222, the heat pump Access act, which will make cost saving heat pump, water heater and HVAC installations faster, simpler and more affordable by streamlining the permitting process.

I want to start out by accepting the Committee amendments as they are set forth in comments three and five. So I'm accepting the amendments and comments three and five in the analysis. I want to thank the Committee staff for its hard work and thank you, Madam Chair.

Heat pumps are a highly efficient zero pollution option for HVAC systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer and more affordable.

They're so energy efficient that they can reduce electricity use for heating by up to 75% and allow customers across the state to see significantly lower energy bills at a moment in time where cost of energy is a major weight on a lot of families.

Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump eliminates as well harmful pollutants and those systems that those systems release into homes. And people are more and more aware that there is internal inside pollution that is very, very harmful to people, particularly to children. And so that is another benefit.

Streamlining permitting for heat pumps is critical to ensure that calculation. California can meet the Governor's goal of installing 6 million heat pumps by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. We are currently at 2 million heat pumps of that 6 million goals, so we are not currently on track to meet the goal.

SB222 is not a silver bullet, but it will help us get there by making it easier, faster and less costly for people to install heat pumps. The current permitting process for heat pumps is very fragmented. There are some cities where it is lickety split, where you can get instantaneous, easy, fast, inexpensive approval.

There are other cities where it can take months, it can cost an enormous amount of money where inspections are very routine, requiring contractors to be physically present. So you have to spend eight hours of contracted time, which is expensive.

And so what this bill will do is it will move towards automatic permitting, allow for asynchronous inspections so the contractor can be available by phone or by video and will really set some ground rules for heat pump permitting.

Cities will still have a lot of flexibility and ability to ensure safety and so forth, but we will have some guardrails to get get these permitted more quickly. So I respectfully ask for your.

Aye vote with me today to testify as Sam Fishman with spur, which is one of our co sponsors, and then Mitch Bailey, a Modesto heat pump contractor with Bailey's Heating and Air.

Good morning Chair Members. My name is Sam Fishman and I work with SPUR, a nonpartisan public policy research organization in the Bay Area. We're co sponsoring SB222 to help Californians smoothly and affordably replace health harming, climate warming gas appliances with high efficiency heat pumps.

Unfortunately, as the Senator mentioned, obtaining permits and inspections for heat pumps in California is often time consuming and costly for contractors and homeowners.

Gas for gas swap outs usually face minimal review, but heat pumps for gas swap outs face significant barriers, in part due to the slow pace with which standards and building departments have caught up with reality. The result is that 70 to 90% of heating equipment installations are actually completed without a permit at all.

Simply put, many contractors do not want to go through the hassle and they often do not. Installers who do follow the law, including those working with state and local incentive programs, often face thousands of dollars in extra costs.

SB222 will address these challenges with several common sense measures already taken by many cities across California to make the process more affordable, predictable and transparent. The bill would require an automated and instant permit issuance process for simple swap outs.

It would require cities to create consolidated permits for heat pumps so that installers don't have to seek multiple permits for a single appliance. It would require a more equal enforcement of the state code limiting onerous rules that can make siting and installing heat pumps impossible on many properties.

And the bill would require cities to provide sufficient justification for high fees and maintain consistent fee rates per equipment type, while not limiting jurisdictions from still conducting cost recovery measures.

The California Legislature has already taken action to streamline permitting for solar PV and EV chargers, but no state action has been taken to guide permitting for heat pumps, despite their centrality to the clean energy transition.

And SB222 would take that action and ensure California is ready to permit and install heat pumps quickly and without imposing additional costs on consumers. This in turn will make it possible for hjs to increase compliance, ensure greater safety, and obtain greater insight into installations in their communities.

So thank you for your time and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote on SB222.

Additional principal witness in support.

That's me. Mr.

Thank you. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Mitch Bailey. I'm a second generation heating and air conditioning contractor with 50 years of experience, President of Bailey's Heating and Air in Modesto, and I also serve as the Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for ihacky.

I also teach over 70 classes a year on heat pump installation and work closely with contractors and technicians across the state. My company alone works over 40 building departments within 50 mile radius, so I see the full spectrum of permitting practices every day. Here are some of the key issues. Permitting varies widely from city to city.

Some departments are efficient and transparent. Others are expensive and overregulated and slow requirements often unclear up front. Contractors frequently have to go back and forth with the city just to figure out what they want. This delays installations and increases soft costs for homeowners. Permit fees are unpredictable. Some Cities charge under $100.

Others charge over $800 for the exact same heat pump replacement. Customers have no idea what they're being charged until the permit is actually pulled. Standardizing and streamlining permits are a form of deregulation that removes unnecessary barriers and makes it easier for Californians to adopt heat pumps and meet the state's electrification goals.

When permitting is predictable, transparent and consistent, contractors can install systems fast, fast customers pay less and the state moves closer to its climate goals. SB222 addresses the real world problem contractors and homeowners face every day. It will make heat pump and heat pump water heater installations faster, more affordable and more accessible for Californians.

By supporting this bill, this Committee can remove barriers, improve outcomes and help California continue to earn the reputation as the Golden State. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote for SB 222. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any #MeToos in support of SB222?

Thank you madam Chair. Members Jason Schmelzer on behalf of Alameda, Stop Waste and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members, Martin Vignola on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. We are not officially registered in support yet. We are waiting on some amendments in. Print but after they are we continue to work with the author and we'll be in full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Glen Garfunkel on behalf of Climate Action California, Climate Reality, Silicon Valley and Mothers Out Front- Silicon Valley we support As a resident of San Jose, I would like to remind the Committee that the City of San Jose has also come up come out in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair Members Matt Kloppenstein on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy and Support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Rewiring America and support.

Margieli Sampson, Advisors on behalf of AO Smith Corporation in Support.

Good morning. Scott Cox from Series here in support. And submitting a letter later to the same effect. Thank you.

Good morning. Ada Welder with Earth Justice in support of SP222. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, Beverly U on behalf of DYKE and us in support. Thank you.

Alan Abs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, co sponsor of SB222, in support.

Good morning. John Kapke on behalf of the Green Building Initiative, also in support.

Good morning. Sophia Quach on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy in support. And a letter is incoming. Thank you.

Good morning. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Good morning. Madison Vanderklee on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition as a co sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you. And can we have the principal witnesses in opposition? Oh, can we can have you up here, please.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Damon Konkon with the League of California Cities, Cal City supports sustainable building practices. But we're disagree with the premise of this bill. How and why permitting at the local level of havoc and water heaters is now a statewide issue concerns us. We don't know where this bill originates from.

Not from a report or a study. This Legislature last year or last legislative session had informational hearings. We had a report. Nowhere in there was the provisions of this bill related to hot water heating or HVAC systems. The arbitrary established fee caps in the bill in perpetuity don't have any adjustments for inflationary or have any inflationary adjustments.

We don't know where these fees were originated from. Are they from the lowest, the median, the high? And on that point, the approval process required by Senator Cabaldon's Senate Bill 430 meets the definition of automated decision systems. And in that particular bill, a person is required to make the final determination for the permit.

So if this bill were to move forward, it would exasperate the costs and fees and really undermine and defeats the entire purpose of an online instant permitting process for licensed contractors. The population exemption contained in the bill, we understand it's pulled from Senate Bill 379 triggered at 5000, but we're unaware of like the rationale for this number.

And given the option of using solar versus the necessity of hot water heaters, we think that we should have a better rationale for this number. And then Are we using U.S. census numbers? Are we using Department of Finance numbers? Because those are two separate numbers.

And then under liability, unlike 379, the measure fails to address any liability protections for local governments since permitting decisions are now being made by software programs, not building officials. And just lastly related to barriers, upfront cost is still the most insignificant barrier to helping people heat and cool their homes and their water.

The air conditioning and heating refrigeration news and reports there's three studies I have data just recently this last year all conclude that 50% of homeowners say that upfront costs are the biggest roadblocks. Most of those costs can be triggered exponentially with upgrades to the electrical panel that is required.

With this transition, nowhere is permitting doesn't even meet the top 10. And then according to CEC's website, as of last week, Jan. 7, the Home Electric electrification yes ma'am, thank you. The single family home retrofits for central and Southern California are fully reserved. There's no money.

So the lack of state and federal investment is the biggest barrier, not local permitting. For those reasons we oppose. Thank you. Go ahead.

Morning Chair and Senators Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee representing 13 million Californians and 55,000 homeowner associations.

The bill would essentially void HOA governing documents that restrict the installation of heat pump water heaters or HVAC systems, regardless of whether that building can safely support that many older condominiums and townhomes buildings were not designed to support this kind of upgrade or equipment.

Installing heat pumps often requires significant electrical upgrades, panel upgrades, rewiring increased service capacity and these can be significant costs to the homeowners, especially those on fixed incomes, seniors and moderate income families. By making HOA governing documents unenforceable without regard to building capacity, SB222 removes an important safeguard that protects residents safety system reliability and affordability.

Now we understand the author's intent and associations aren't trying to block any type of energy upgrades. Rather we want to ensure the installations are safe, that they're feasible and affordable. At minimum, the Bill should allow associations and building officials to deny or condition installations when the existing infrastructure cannot reasonably or safely support them.

For those reasons we are in opposition and we look forward to working with the Senator to hash out some of these concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone #MeToo and opposition.

Good morning. Mark Newberger, providing registering opposition for the California State Association Counties and the Rural County representatives of California.

Thank you. Seeing no one else would come to Dias. Questions? Comments? Senator Cabaldon, Senator Arreguin thank you.

Madam Chair, this might be a minute. So this bill is heard in the Housing Committee as well and I raised one of the issues that I want to raise now there but then a new one has emerged from the amendments in between the two committees.

And first, I want to say I fully support the policy objective here and the importance of, and the need to expedite the installation of heat pumps and related technologies for a variety of reasons. But I also. The Constitution does matter in the Constitution. There are two provisions here I want to highlight, and they're.

And I'm not picking on this bill. I'm raising this now, like almost every day with other people's bills as well. The Constitution bars. The Constitution has deep respect for home rule and the role of charter cities. And we do, too. And in fact, we insist on it when it's the Federal Government dealing with us.

And so when the Federal Government says, hey, we want to, we're going to take responsibility and preempt for artificial intelligence policies because we want to, we fight back and say, that's not, that's not your role under the Constitution.

Or when the Federal Government says we want you, we're going to tell you exactly how you manage your public universities. Even though the Constitution reserves education to the states, we fight back. And the Constitution is very clear on home rule for charter cities as well.

And it's a statewide matter of statewide concern isn't just because, because it's an issue that is of concern to us. It has to be a not municipal affair in some way. Like, is there a regional dimension to it? Is it something that's not actually not municipal? Reproductive freedom or civil rights, you know, those, those sorts of issues.

It can't simply be that it's because we're interested in it. And so a bill that, that requires all cities to offer yoga at the community center only on Tuesdays and Thursdays and never on Wednesday is not constitutional. Even if we put in the legislation our declaration that we that it is, that it is a statewide concern.

And so just as with urgency clauses, we recognize that we are required under the constitution to specifically state why a bill is urgent. We cannot simply declare in the bill, this bill is urgent because it's urgent. And the same thing is true on the matters of statewide concerns. So I think there's a way.

I mean, I haven't worked on it, but there's a, there's got to be a way, given some of the state's interests here. But it can't simply be, as we heard in some of the testimony.

Well, you know, there's, you know, cities have different permits and it costs different things in different places, and it's kind of messy and it's kind of a hassle that's true for virtually everything in local government. In fact, that is the point of local government. And so that. That's not enough.

There has to be something that would allow us and a court when they're reviewing our declaration that is a statewide concern to say, yes, you have identified the specific climate action plan or, you know, something that's.

That makes this a matter that, that is no longer a municipal affair, but is a statewide issue and why HVAC is. But the composition of your wall is not. So I think that. So that's the, that's the first issue and it's the one that I raised in the housing Committee.

The second is the state, the Constitution's prohibition against unfunded state mandates, which was not an issue in the prior Committee. But now we've got language that, that says that the local agencies can recover their costs. So there's no. So there isn't a mandate. And I just want to interrogate that.

And there's, I think, an attempt to try to make sure it doesn't apply to the micro cities. I represent a bunch of cities that are, you know, 800 people, 900 people. It doesn't apply because this bill only applies 5,000 or higher in terms of population.

But I represent a lot of cities like that too, and so do others. Canyon Lake, Gonzalez in Monterey County, La Puente, others. So the use case here is this bill requires you to create and put online an automated process. If you are the town of Canyon Lake, then.

So that is a mandate that you have to do something. You have to have your web coordinator. There's a good chance your web coordinator is also your HR Director and maybe your dad jeopardy Police chief, because that's what happens in small cities. You say you have to do this work to put this online. Okay.

Or the bill contemplates, well, maybe you don't do that. Maybe you contract with another firm in order to actually operate the portal, which makes a lot of sense. We don't need to be building 450 different online portals at once. But to do that, you can't.

And the bill specifically says, and this is good work on it, very much appreciate that the technology fees that you might pay that company for the processing don't. Aren't subject to the fee cap. Right. So that's good. But first I have to reach an agreement with that company.

So I have to tell my deputy police chief, slash web coordinator, slash HR Director, because state law requires it, we have to enter into a contract with this company. So you're going to prepare the RFP, we're going to schedule it for five city council meetings, meetings to be heard over and over and over again.

Then we have to enter into it, we have to monitor, we have to evaluate. We're going to have to report to the state on the, on the, there are significant costs that are there that the bill expressly says you cannot include in the fee in addition to the fee cap.

So the declar, the disclaimer that's in the bill that says don't worry cities of 6,000 or whatever you can, all cities can recover their costs through the through fee mechanism is just not true. True.

So yeah, it's true for la, it's true for San Jose, it's true for San Francisco that have web development departments and offices of civic innovation. It is not true for La Puente, Gonzalez Canyon, Lake Dixon or other communities across the state. And so that disclaimer fails and that one's easily solved.

You could just erase that disclaimer and say yes, you're eligible to go to the community commission on state mandates and file a claim. It doesn't mean we're, we are required to pay for it, but at least we are not making a declaration of something that is not true.

This language both in both cases has become almost routine in, in our legislation. I've been on this Committee for a year. I think I've, it's like in 85% of the bills includes these two provisions but.

And I've been kind of slowly raising it more and more but I think just the, you know that our, our Constitution constitutional, I mean the Federal Government's proving constitutions don't self execute like we have to keep faith with them. And in both of these cases these provisions don't meet constitutional muster. I think they're solvable.

They haven't been and I think it's important that we, that on this and future bills that we, we take both of those provisions, the home rule provision and the state mandate provision as seriously as the constitution and the people of California expect it of us. Thanks Madam Chair.

Thank you. I also support the policy goals of. This Bill and I did vote for. It in the Senate Housing Committee. First, a question I haven't seen the Committee amendments. There was a comment on part four on page six of the analysis that talked about liability to local governments. Is that included in the Committee.

Amendment that we are not taking that amendment today? We're open to it. That's going to be part of we have various things that we're going to be talking with the local government groups about to try to come to a resolution, and that will be one of them. Okay. But there are.

There's like a list of things that we want to say. We're accepting all the other amendments and that one. And the Chair and I have had a conversation about this. My hope and goal is to reach a resolution with the local government groups. For the record, they did not oppose very similar Bill last year.

Everyone's entitled to change their mind, but we are going to really engage meaningfully with local government groups to try to reach a resolution, including on this issue.

Okay. Yeah, I think. I think a legitimate point was raised in the Committee analysis. When you automate the process, it seems reasonable to afford the same liability protection.

Yeah. And I take that very seriously. So. Yeah.

And then I just want to reiterate the concern I raised around the fee caps that I expressed in the Senate Housing Committee. And I mean, different cities do permitting differently. Some have already implemented systems and expedited processing. Some have to hire staff or invest in the technology. There are real costs associated with that.

And I hope that's something that will be a subject of continued discussion as well.

It will be. Yeah. We want to make sure the goal here is that. And we see this with fees on like housing and a million thing where you have cities that are all over the map. And I, by the way, I do represent the best city on the planet, but it is not. But it is not perfect.

And in San Francisco we see that first example, just outrageously high fees. And so the goal here is to really make sure we have some rational rule. And that'll be a topic of conversation as well.

Great, thank you very much. I'll move the bill at the appropriate time.

I had a question and this is one of those bills that while you can approve it in one, you know, one like housing, it makes sense. But then there are some questions when you're talking about the local gov.

And this is local government supposed to make sure that we're not over intruding on the ability of local government to control and also, you know, make decisions that make sense for their residents. And also, you know, in the. In respect to an HOA, kind of the same thing. So my question is do the heat pump.

Does the equipment on the heat pump mirror the equipment or is it combined into the HVAC system? So you have an air conditioner? Because right now the heater, you got the HVAC, you have the heater, the furnace and all that's all in one. And you have one condenser outside.

Does this require additional equipment in addition to what is already there for air conditioning or how is that handled?

So heat pumps involve installation of a compressor and a refrigerant line into the home. So there is some differences between the equipment and one of the issues we've seen is even though the installations are often still quite simple in the same location, the compressor has a fan. Now there are inverter systems which are incredibly quiet.

They make a little bit of noise and then they stay at a steady noise, low level noise for a long time.

But a lot of these kind of features of heat pump systems, cities have not adapted their standards and their kind of building Department practices to the reality that these are actually quite simple installations when they're in the same location.

So what I'm getting at is there's additional equipment, especially especially in an HOA where you have community property and then you have the buildings and then a lot of times the units themselves are attached to each other in a condo development and things, and there's limited space for them to be putting additional equipment.

And sometimes that space is next to somebody else's bedroom window. And I want to make sure that hoas or even communities have the ability to say no when the person that wants to purchase and take advantage of having a heat pump purchases that.

But once it starts intruding on somebody else's quiet enjoyment of their property, that's a problem. And that's a problem the HOAs or the local agencies should be able to weigh into, weigh in on.

And when I'm reading this, it appears that it kind of takes that out of their domain and makes it an automatic process where they don't have a say in that. And that concerns me.

So if you can address those concerns and tell me that that's not going to happen, then from a local government perspective, which we're in here, I may be able to get there. But kind of hard if that's what happens is they don't have a say.

May I respond to that? Yeah. So we are not eliminating the option for local governments and to put in place rules that are within state code. And then there are reasonable issues related to health and safety that they can continue to put in place local standards on for this equipment.

There are some issues with setbacks and noise in particular, where local government regulations have not really caught up with the technology itself, with the assumption that you need a 5 foot or an 8 foot setback to ensure that neighbors aren't faced with undue noise or at the property line or beyond on their property.

And again, a lot of the equipment now are inverter based systems. It basically means they ramp up for about 20, 30 seconds or a little bit more and then they stay at a consistent level of noise that's very low for sometimes days.

Like your condenser.

Yeah, exactly. And so we have a provision in the bill that specifically addresses that, putting it at kind of higher decibel requirement for that for the equipment to just make sure that this is. We aren't imposing these unreasonable restrictions on the equipment.

I noticed the expert in this whole thing moved up. Oh yes. And maybe he can help get rich over here. Yeah. Because I just bet this guy knows what, what he's talking about.

Okay. So on. For heat pumps, really most of these change outs, they're just like for like basically on a heat pump itself. It's just an internal system. And as Sam was talking about, it does have a quieter inverter systems. Now most of these are.

And so for hoas, and we deal with hoas all the time and homeowners associations, they have. Usually it's a visual thing with them, not usually a noise issue. So we might have a unit that's taller or looks different than the other ones in the hoa.

I've had to change units out because the HOA said that is not acceptable. But that's with the hoa. That's not. The building Department doesn't approve that or anything. They have nothing to do with that portion of it. So the only thing they're looking back for is like setbacks. Like a five foot side yard.

We can install a unit in that for fire access. So we put it in the backyard. But these units are much quieter. So they're a lot better for the customer. They're, they're. They just work way better. Are they in place of the condenser that's already there? It's. Yeah. We're just basically swapping. It looks the same some.

They're a little different looking today because they look more like a suitcase. The old units are like a box.

Yeah. So it takes the place of it.

I'll hang if anybody else wants a question. So.

All right. Thank you. I mean that makes it as clear as mud for me as far as whether they actually have control over what they're doing to the extent that they won't have building A arguing as building C or unit C or unit B when their new equipment is placed in a place that they didn't want it.

So anyway, thank you for your. You're Trying to clarify that for me. I appreciate it. That's all great.

Any more questions or comments, okay. And we will move forward. I think we. I know we have some commitments from the author to work on certain issues with our local governments, especially. We're counting on that, relying on that. Appreciate everybody who showed up today. So we're set to. zero, I'm sorry, Senator Wiener, you need to close.

I appreciate the conversation and I appreciate Senator Cabaldon's concerns, which go way, way, way beyond this bill. And, you know, I don't know whatever institutional, you know, conversations you're gonna trigger around that, but this bill is very consistent with other bills.

In addition to the fact that 25% of carbon emissions in California come from buildings, it is absolutely indisputably an issue of statewide significance to increase the number of heat pumps because carbon emissions or pollutants from one city do not stay in that city. It impacts everyone. So I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you for the vote.

The motion is due pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations, [Roll Call]

The vote is 4 to 1. The bill is up. In the hearing with S.B. 677 by Senator Wiener.

May I proceed?

Okay, go ahead, Senator.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, SB677 makes just a couple of technical clarifying changes to SP79 from last year, which of course has to do with Transit Oriented Development.

Last week in Senate Housing Committee, I agreed it was a much bigger bill last year, and I agreed to introduce a fresh Bill for the cleanup and that we would move the bill just with this very limited piece in it.

And we retained in SB 677 are a typo correction in the commuter rail definition and a clarification reflecting clear intent from last year around high frequency commuter rail service stacks by station for purposes of determining SB79 stop eligibility.

And with these clarifications, SB677 will improve local understanding of of SB79 implementation, help address our housing shortage, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I will say that SB 79, there was ample findings in there about the housing crisis and it being an issue of statewide importance.

Respectfully, as for an Aye vote, with me to testify is Aaron Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Aaron Eckhaus. I'm the local and regional Policy Director with California YIMBY. Here today to speak in support of SB677, which makes technical improvements to Senate Bill 79 from last year.

California YIMBY was proud to sponsor SB79 last year to create more housing opportunities near our state's highest quality transit. Building more homes near transit is critical to addressing California's housing crisis, supporting our transit systems and creating more sustainable communities.

Since SB 79 passed, we have been working closely with local governments and other agencies to address questions about implementation. And in that process, we have identified provisions of SB 79 that could benefit from new clarity. SB677 clarifies key definitions regarding commuter rail.

In the process of drafting SB79, we reviewed service quality for over 150 commuters rail stations across California. SB79 covers fewer than 50 those of the very best service in the state. By Clarifying these definitions, SB677 will help ensure that high quality rail transit is accessible to more Californians.

For these reasons, California Emby is proud to sponsor SB677 and we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Any other principal witnesses in support? No. Okay. See none. ohj, yes. #MeToos in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Ember Madison from the California Apartment Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing LA and SPUR as strong sponsors. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council as a sponsor and the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no more principal witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities, respectful Oppose unless amended. Appreciate all the work for the last Committee as well as the cleanup, and we look forward to those conversations. We just worry that the definition change could be an expansion of where SB79 applies.

So we're still getting information and data about what that looks like and we're concerned about that. But we look forward to clarifying and further clarifications on 79 and look forward to those conversations. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition. #MeToos.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the cities of Glendale, Solana Beach and Carlsbad, all in opposition to the bill. We remain very concerned about the new definition change for the high. For the. For the high frequency commuter rail that we believe would expand the scope of SB79 to new cities that were not included last year.

So for that reason, we oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Newberger providing comments on behalf of California State Association of Counties. We had opposed unlress amended on the previous version of the bill, but we look forward to continuing working with the author on the cleanup.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the city of Encinitas, in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of California Association of Council of Governments. We do not have a formal position yet, but we do have concerns around timing. Basically, any cleanup language to SB79 will significantly alter the baseline assumptions our Members are using to create currently create the maps.

And these changes would come just mere months after SB79 would go into effect. But we appreciate the author and his staff for the dialogue thus far, and. We look forward to working with you. All as this moves forward. Thank you.

Good morningb Kirk Blackman here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG. SANDAG does not yet have a formal position on the Bill either, but as an MPO that's tasked with developing these.

TOD stop maps has concerns with this bill as well as the timing of SB79 implementation and encourage the Legislature to address these issues in one comprehensive SB 79 bill. Thank you.

Okay, Questions? Comments from the dais. Centered? No. Nobody. Okay. We passed 79 and now we want to be successful. So the best way for the agencies to be successful if they can clearly understand what's expected of them. So that's where we have some work to do. There's uncertainty over which counties and transit stops.

This bill 79 applies to local alternative plans. We're supposed to give cities the ability to tailor the subzoning in a way that allows them to balance the additional housing. And there are others. So we want to get this right. Leaving these issues unaddressed won't get us the housing we need. So I look forward on a new bill.

As you know, in my region, L.A. metro has the most aggressive transit expansion program in the state. And we've heard from them. I think you mentioned being able to work with them. We've got to impact the ability to expand public transit in my region. 79 could still impact. So I understand you mentioned LA Metro.

Did I hear you? No. Okay, maybe just generally. We work with them all generally. Just generally. But I just want to make sure you're working with LA Metro to address the their concerns.

Yes, we. And we have a fantastic relationship with L A Metro. Work with them on a million different issues. And L A Metro is doing great work with this transit expansions and will absolutely work with L A Metro. And I, I will just say in General, it's some of the comment Makes it seem like it's.

It's somehow weird to do follow up after bills goes into effect. I could. We could probably come up with thousands of bills. They go into effect January 1st and then there are sometimes multiple cleanups that happen over a period of years. That's common with any complicated bill. With SB 79, you know, it was a big, big bill.

We worked really hard to get it right. There's always going to be tightening and clarification needed. And that's what I mean. This bill does in a small way, but the bigger bill that we'll introduce we'll do. And we look forward to working with the Committee on that. I want to. To say I said this in housing.

I'll say it again. We strongly disagree with the notion that this covers fewer counties than it actually covers that. We'll have that conversation with CSAC, but I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Move the bill. Senator Cabaldon moves the bill. Call for the vote.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

And the bill is out.

That. Oh, we're going to lift the call. On which bills?

This is File item number two, SB 799. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is 6, 0 with the Chair voting Aye and the Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

This 7, 0. The bill is out.

This file item number five, SB 762 by Senator Adin. The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. The current vote is 4, 2 with the Chair voting Aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

The vote is 5, 2. The bill is out.

This is file item number six, SB828 by Senator Cabaldo. The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. The current vote is 6, 0 with the Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

The vote is 7, 0. The bill is out.

That's it. Okay. Okay.

Thank you to everyone. This hearing is over. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony. Thank you to my colleagues. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate local gov Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us.

Thank you to everyone for your cooperation and your support. We've concluded the agenda. Senate Committee on local government is adjourned.