Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the local government committee hearing. I'm gonna go through some rules first so that we get get started today. The good news is that we only have 21 items and no items on consent calendar. So we'll try to get, going.

Welcome to the assembly local government committee hearing. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony to the position letter portal on the committee's website. As we proceed with, witnesses and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of their viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearings as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeach the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or be favored that behavior that incites or threatens violence. And the rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair.

Public comment must relate to the subject of the bills or information being discussed today. Knowing engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeach the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal of other enforcement actions. I would like to start by welcoming Saskia Perks to the local government committee. This is her first hearing as our new committee secretary.

Welcome, Saskia. I would also like to thank Tony Supan, committee secretary, for human services committee, for assisting us on the dais today during Saskia's first hearing. Thank you, Tony. Appreciate you being here. Now on, to our business of today, like I said, we have 21 bills.

No nothing on consent. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill. These witnesses may have up to three minutes. Doesn't mean you have to take all three minutes. And to provide their testimony.

All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. We do not have a quorum, so we'll we'll be acting as a subcommittee. The first bill up today is item one, AB 1578. Assembly member Jackson, please proceed, and I believe that you have another bill as well.

Thank you very much, mister chair and committee members. This is AB 1578, which seeks to require elected local and state officials to take anti hate speech training by incorporating it into their existing sexual harassment training. While California has made some progress with hate crimes, overall, hate crime offenses have still increased by 8.9% from 2023 to 2024.

Recent findings from the commission on the state of hate show that as many as eight percent of Californians over the age of 12 have experienced hate, and fifteen percent have witnessed hate within a year one year period, and those numbers are double for teens in the state. The commission on hate has also, recognized that hate based rhetoric from political leaders has the power to embolden others to express and act on their prejudices.

Conversely, messages from political leaders can pacify violent attitudes. Elected officials must be aware of the implications of their words on social on social norms and democracy so training can still instill a sense of responsibility and and upholding those principles. With that, mister chair, respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Assemblyman Jackson. Is there anybody in support who wants to add on for the record? See none. Is there any opposition? Are you in support or opposition?

Opposition for. Opposition?

You are in support? K. Go ahead and st testify.

Hi. My name is Jalen Woodard. I'm with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Natalia with Greenberg Charik on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, we have two primary witnesses in opposition. Please, you can begin.

Jean Chadbourne, educator with twenty years experience in the classroom, here with Women Are Real, a California coalition fighting for women's rights, majority Democrat, and nearly half Lesbian or bisexual. This bill requires state officials to complete an anti hate speech training. Hate speech is commonly confused with hate crime. These are not the same thing. The bill's author states the primary impetus of hate crimes is hate speech from elected officials.

This contradicts decades of research on hate crime causation. Furthermore, this bill doesn't define hate speech. In fact, hate speech has no definition in California or federal law. The commission on the state of hate whose findings form the basis for this bill relies on self reported survey data using an extremely expansive definition of hate that includes non criminal acts and, I kid you not, political opposition.

And frankly, Women Are Real knows exactly how hate speech gets defined in practice because we have been on the receiving end of that definition in this very building.

On March 17, our witness testified raising concerns about boys and girls locker rooms. Assembly member Quirk Silva responded that we were, quote, spewing hate. Assembly member Zabir followed saying he was tired of us hating other kids. Last year, before the same committee, he compared our support for female only sports to Nazi Germany. These government officials have decided advocating for women's rights is hate.

This is a good example of why we cannot let the government dictate what hate is. It's not hateful or dehumanizing to call a man a man. A man is a type of human after all. Accurately naming a man's sex is not an attack on his humanity. It is in fact essential for women's safety and fairness.

In the workplace, in a locker room, in a homeless shelter, and yes, here in a committee hearing. The state of California must not be permitted to suppress or chill women's lawful protected speech. Keep us the land of the free. We urge a no vote.

Hi. Meg Madden of CAUSE, Californians united for sex based evidence in policy and law. We are a nonpartisan organization focused on the recognition of biological sex in law. We are blessed to live in a country where our expressed religious, social, and political views differ tremendously and always have. When the state steps in to train officials in state approved attitudes about lawful speech, it means to chill speech regardless of the speech's objective offensiveness.

Speech is speech, not behavior. Mandating training that goes beyond preventing actionable conduct and instead restrict speech, including on important issues we need to discuss, it violates the first amendment rights of everyone subject to it. It also has the effect of siloing viewpoints, a particularly dangerous development when it comes to government personnel. I know this firsthand because I was the one who was testifying before the assembly committee about boys and girls high school locker rooms when assembly woman Quirk Silva told me that I was spewing hate.

And Assemblyman Zabor has accused cause members of hate of hate twice during committee hearings for saying boys do not belong in girls sports, even though that is a majority view even among Democrats.

But even if it were not, even if there is only one person left on earth who knows that sex is real, who remembers we are mammals, we evolved like other mammals, and that understanding evolution depends on understanding sex is real, then we must protect that person's right to say that even if it offends some people. Or do you think we should have another Scopes trial? Our founders understood the totalitarian impulse to train people to believe that speech the government does not like is wrong.

That if authority calls something hate, it must be bad and false even when it isn't. And every cell in your body is screaming it is true.

We urge a no vote. Thank you, and I'll answer any questions.

Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in opposition? Seeing nobody, committee members, comments, questions? Seeing none, assembly member, we don't have a quorum yet. Do you wanna go ahead and close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblyman Jackson, for presenting your bill today. I appreciate your commitment to the issue and agree that adding anti hate speech training is critically important. I will be supporting your bill. But, again, once we get a form of, motion and a second, we will take that action. Thank you for being here for this bill, and I believe you have another bill today.

Yep. Thank you to the witnesses in opposition. So with that, we move on to item number 13 on the agenda, Assembly bill twenty eighty three by Assembly member Jackson. Sir?

First, I wanna start off by thanking the Committee and Committee Staff for assisting us with this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments today. AB 2083, the Moreno Valley Parish childcare special district authorizes the creation of a regional childcare special district serving Moreno Valley and Paris to coordinate the development and expansion of childcare programs and facilities, including options that support families with nontraditional work hours for a term of five years.

California has made meaningful strides in rebuilding its childcare system after deep cuts during the great recession, but the progress has not been reached every has not reached every community equally. This district bill gives one of the state's fastest growing and most underserved regions a locally driven tool to close that gap.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Jackson. Anybody in the audience that wants to add on in support? Seeing none, how about any primary witnesses in opposition? Do I see someone coming?

Thank you, Assemblymember Jackson. Anybody in the audience that wants to add on in support? Seeing none, how about any primary witnesses in opposition? Do I see someone coming?

Thank you.

And you may begin when you can.

Thank you, mister chair, members. Jean Hurst here today on the on behalf of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. We certainly don't have any concerns about the goals of assembly member Jackson's bill simply with the mechanism by which he is seeking to provide this child care in the community. We've been working closely with his office and expect to continue to do so through the process. But as of now, we are in opposition and grateful for the committee's analysis.

Thank you for that. Anybody else in the audience who wants to add on in opposition? Seeing none, committee members, any questions, comments for the assembly member? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much, mister chair. Again, this is a, district bill, and, we are expressing our self determination, and we have worked directly with our local LAFCO, on this language and actually made some amendments based upon their feedback, and so respectfully ask for their I vote. Your I vote.

Thank you, sir. We'll do that at the appropriate time when we have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for presenting today, and thank you for working with the committee on the amendments. I'm supportive and I apologize. With the amendments, I will be supporting the bill today. And again, at the appropriate time, we'll move the bill. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Assemblymember Demaio, I believe you are the only one here. We are ready for you. Yeah, please. And that is item number Six.

Six on the agenda, AB 1783. When you are ready,

sir. Good morning, mister chair and members or or good afternoon, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present assembly Bill AB 1783, a bill that would make it crystal clear that California drivers will be kept safe from having to pay a mileage tax. California, motorists, taxpayers already pay the highest gas tax in The United States when you calculate both the excise tax, the sales tax, and the cap and trade, tax, the carbon tax.

California taxpayers already pay the highest car tax in the nation.

And on top of that, we already pay the high we already pay the highest income taxes, sales taxes, some of the highest property taxes depending upon when you bought your home. They're overtaxed. And California taxpayers were told for the highest car tax and the highest gas tax that our roads would be fixed. And our roads are absolutely a mess. We see time and time again money diverted from the gas tax and car tax funds for everything but roads.

Now comes a proposal to impose a mileage tax. That's what it is. That's the best way to describe it. Those that would like to charge this fee, this tax, call it a road user charge. A road user charge.

Simply defining it in bureaucratic terms doesn't negate the fact that it is a mileage tax because the way the road user charge works is that drivers who've already paid gas tax and car tax and their general fund taxes for the infrastructure are now gonna be told they have to pay in on on top of that per mile that they drive. And it's not just a discussion that's happening at the state level. This tax is being formulated at the local level.

In 2022, the San Diego Association of Governments, which is the, regional transportation agency for our county, saw fit to impose a local mileage tax. There was such outcry by San Diegans that they recalled the maker of the motion driving her from office and flipped a number of other seats on this issue alone.

Politicians then reconvened and expunged the mileage tax from the regional transportation plan. Over the objection, by the way, of the California Air Resources Board that was basically saying, we may sue you if you don't try a mileage tax because they wanted San Diego County to be a guinea pig. An experiment. As you can see from the groups that are opposing my bill, they literally say that this is the future. The mileage tax is the future.

And that without a mileage tax, by golly, the roads will fall into disrepair. They're already in disrepair. I urge this committee to advance AB 1783 to put a halt to any state efforts including BICARB or Caltrans or any agency on the study formulation or advancement of a mileage tax at the state level. My bill would also prohibit the imposition of a mileage tax at the local level.

And we have seen jurisdictions from San Francisco to New York and, of course, San Diego County all looking at, and in some cases, even implementing, mileage tax or congestion tax pricing.

This is absolutely a live issue. Those that are trying to advance it are trying to claim that this is never gonna happen when in fact you see these powerful interest groups saying, don't pass this bill because this is exactly what we plan. So let's settle the debate here and now. Let's put all the drivers' minds at ease that politicians are not gonna try to get into their wallet through a mileage tax.

By the way, the cost per driver in the city of the county of San Diego, they were looking at 6¢per mile.

The average driver puts 15,000 miles on their car. For working families, it tends to be more mileage because they they are poor. They they live farther away from the job centers. But at 15,000 miles per driver per per year, at 6¢, that's $900 beyond income tax and sales tax. $900 post tax that they would have to pay.

If it's, 9¢, which is one of the models they were looking at, that's $1,350. For a two car family, it adds up. We're talking about nearly $5,000 for a two car family if this goes into effect when you add car gas and the mileage tax together. That's before you actually pay for the cost of the actual gasoline or the cost of the car. This is unacceptable.

We have a cost of living crisis. Please advance Assembly Bill seventeen eighty three to ban these mileage tax proposals.

Thank you, Assemblymember DeMaio. Do you have any primary witnesses with you?

No. Just 20,000,000 drivers that are with us in spirit who don't wanna pay it.

Anybody in the room, that wants to add on in support, please come up to the microphone. See nobody. Nobody in support. How about those primary witnesses in opposition? Please step up to the desk. This is whenever you're

Hey, mister chairman. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. I just need to put a statement that was made to rest. The fact is that SB 1, which is the current gas tax, is spent directly to invest and fix your roads. Not only did the citizens of the state of California vote for that, they also they voted to defend it when it was tried to be recalled.

Those dollars directly go to fix your streets and roads. You can see signs up throughout communities that show you the work that's being done. It's being administered by our CTC, some of the most professional individuals in state service who administer programs and make those awards to local agencies and the state department. So Department of Transportation. So I want to put that to rest.

Secondly, it sounds like your community dealt with a proposed VMT, and it worked just like it should. So in your community, they didn't want to see that. About prohibiting even discussing future studies. We need to have options on the table. The fact of the matter is, and I spend a lot of time talking about this, Californians love their vehicles.

We need energy. We need to be able to maintain our roads. As our fleets become more efficient and we switch to electrical, the state building trade supports renewable energies, but we currently need fuel, refineries. Right now, it's a tax on that fuel that maintains our roads. But as those fleets become more efficient, we switch to renewables, we need to have options to look at.

Does that mean that this bill, should limit those options? I think it's bad policy to tie the hands of even thinking about what options may be out there to exist. So I oppose this bill. The state building construction trades council opposed this bill. We'd ask for you to reject this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Please.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Kiana Valentine on behalf of Transportation California, also in respectful opposition to the bill this afternoon. As mister Dunn alluded to, California's transportation funding system is fundamentally broken. The gas tax, which is still the backbone of how we pay for transportation infrastructure improvements, was never intended, or designed for a future where cars have varying fuel efficiency, let alone zero emission vehicles.

As a result, we are paying for we are anticipating a loss of $31,000,000,000 in transportation funding over the next decade due to that increased fuel efficiency and transition to zero emission vehicles.

And that's even as our infrastructure is going into decline. But just as important, perhaps more important, the system is becoming increasingly inequitable where communities and working families, rural communities are essentially bearing the burden, paying more in gas tax than those driving less fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles. And many of those families are lower income and don't have the resources to be able to transition into a zero emission vehicle. So that means gas powered vehicle drivers are essentially subsidizing, the system.

Studying a road user charge is ultimately about finding a more fair and more equitable taxation system so that we can maintain our infrastructure in a good state of repair.

And importantly, it's being studied as a replacement to the gas tax or as a method to collect taxes from zero emission vehicle drivers who are paying on average $220 less than gas tax drivers. So this is not being proposed in addition to paying the gas tax. So eighty seventeen eighty three would take studying that off the table, and we think agreeing with the building trades that that is bad policy.

Without sustainable funding into the future, working families will be hurt, rural communities will be hurt, and our roads will fall into further disrepair. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Anybody in the room that wants to add on in opposition, state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanne Ward-Waller on behalf of NRDC and Climate Plan. We are in opposition to this bill. Also been asked to add on opposition from Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you.

Michelle Parasite with public advocates in opposition.

Thank you. We had a quorum for a minute, but we lost it. Yeah. Any comments, questions?

Voting room, quickly next door.

Okay. In the meantime, any comments or questions on proposal? No. Assembly member Wilson.

If you don't mind. You know what? I'd like to align my comment. I didn't get to hear your testimony, but I'm I've heard multiple times, and I'm sure it was brilliant. And so I'm sure I aligned my testimony I mean, I aligned my comments with yours, and I did hear a portion of Kiana Valentine and line that, and I excuse me, to the author for not being here.

For your presentation, I was in transit and another, author with a different bill and a different committee stopped me to discuss. I think, you know, we're so I'm I'm giving these comments as a committee as a member of this committee having served on local gov for twelve years prior to coming to here and recognizing the various tools we have at our tool belt to be able to ensure we're delivering what the people of our community are asking us to deliver.

In particular, as it relates to, transportation, our communities want, paved roads. They want additional infrastructure. They want bicycle pass and things of that nature, and they use the tools at their disposal to be able to do that.

Many of our cities and counties have a transportation some type of transportation sales tax. Right? And others have considered whether they should have a vehicle miles to transition to the fact that where we're going. And I think it's worthwhile for them to have that type of discussion and for the state not to hamper.

And then secondly, now looking at the state, the state was the leader in '20, I think it was 2014 or maybe 2012, somewhere around there, in terms of doing pilots on this subject, and talking about the fact that we saw a decline in our, gas tax revenue, and there was a need to figure out an alternative way to be able to fund road infrastructure and other things of that nature.

And we've been in that discussion for some time, have done a few pilots on that. And other states have now gone in advance of us and have actually initiated a vehicle miles tax amongst other things to address this declining gas tax revenue issue and the and the lack of instability or sustainability in, our funds that we use for transportation. Had an opportunity to go to, the National State Legislators Conference last year and, be a part of the transportation committee, proud to be vice chair this year.

And we talked about how continually about how this is a a multistate problem across, the nation and how it's something we have to solve too. And so I don't see the benefit of taking out any consideration of the tools in our tool chest as was noted as a part of the testimony.

No one wants to overburden any group more than another group that we should whatever we do should be fair and equitable and sustainable. And right now, we have individuals who are paying into the gas tax because they have a gas powered vehicle. They are paying the most for our transportation system.

They are being burdened by it, and it behooves us to figure out a way for the most vulnerable among us, the usually the lowest income who has the least fuel efficient vehicles to not have to continue to carry that burden. And so it is worthwhile to study how not to do that, and to ensure that we have a transportation system that works for everyone, rises up to the fact that we are the fourth largest economy, and at the same time, is fair, equitable, and sustainable.

And so because of that, I won't be able to support your bill today. I want all the tools in the toolbox, and I wanna be able to have good conversation and good debate on how best effectively to use those tools. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. Anybody else in the committee? Assemblymember Ransom, we had a motion, but we also have go ahead, Assemblyman. We have a second part.

Also, thank you, Assemblyman DeMaio, for presenting your bill. Looking at the bill, I I really my concern is it crosses boundaries. Right? I can talk all day about how the folks in my district drive the furthest furthest over a 100,000 people commuting to my through my district. Most of them cannot afford electric vehicles, so they are paying the high gas max type gas mileage tax.

But, ultimately, this is even bigger than that. Right? So while we are looking at the fact that our local council of governments are concerned because they are losing funding with when it comes to transportation dollars, when we're looking at a study, it really is concerning that we wanna prohibit a city, a county, or any political division from studying something. Because the study is data. It's gonna help us to figure out what is the best way to address the problems that we currently have.

Planning is prudent and efficient, and so I wanna make sure that we are not really overstepping our boundaries as a state by telling cities and counties that they are not able to do whatever they need to do to fill in their transportation gaps, And as well as us as a state, we have to move smarter.

And that means that we need to move with data as opposed to moving on emotion and moving on, you know, different frustrations based on different districts because all of our districts have a different experience with the gas tax, a different experience with, you know, commuting. And in order to meet that moment, we're gonna need data. And so I appreciate that fundamentally, you have a different approach and a different, idea about how we should move forward.

But we can't move forward one way or the other without the appropriate data.

And that is what the studies and planning will allow us to do. So I just really wanna really wanna caution us from, you know, being over prescriptive, if we will, with how we tell cities and counties and folks who are in charge with running an entire community and state to approach what's best for their communities.

And so my concern again is that this is an overstep, in addition to the fact that we need the data to move the state out of the experience that we are currently having. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody, would you like to close?

Can we establish a quorum? Or

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Yes. We did. So since we had a motion and a second, I assume that we had a quorum. Please call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Would you like to close the assembly member?

Thank you. And I, listened intently to the opposition to blocking a mileage tax from the same people who enacted the highest gas tax in the country, the highest car tax in the country, who literally supported lying to voters on proposition six in 2018. So let's not say that voters chose to raise the gas tax. They certainly did not. The claim is that this will fix the roads.

Mileage tax will fix the roads. First, you had the gas tax raised and you didn't fix the roads. And if you really wanna fix the roads, let's get rid of the fraud, the waste, and the abuse. We offered a proposal for a road repair lockbox, and it was opposed by the people increasing the gas tax. And so before you go forward to people and say, well, you need a mileage tax to fix the roads.

I think it's incumbent upon the legislators to give them proof that the money they're already giving this body and local government actually is going to transportation and road repairs. And you've not done that. Until you do that, we shouldn't even be looking at finding a new way to collect money. That's where our focus ought to be. Second, we are moving to electric vehicles and losing funding.

Well, the state budget publishes every year how much money we get from the car tax and the gas tax. And guess what? Car tax and gas tax revenues are not down. They're actually up every year. And so the idea that somehow we're losing funding, our funding streams are steady.

It's how we're spending the money that's a problem. Third, equitable and protecting the vulnerable population. The gas tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxes, and mileage tax would be equally regressive. Please do not claim to be defending these vulnerable, low income families after the damage that you've already done to them with your policies. And finally, to say that you wanna give flexibility to local government, this body has never deferred the local control.

This mileage tax is even opposed by Democrats, Latinos, Independents, Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. This is a 75% bipartisan consensus. If politicians in this body can't act on a 75% issue, it shows that not only are our roads broken, but our political system is fundamentally flawed and broken as well. I urge you, send a message to your constituents that you are not headed for their wallet vis a vis a mileage tax and advance the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember DiMaggio. So because we had a motion and second before we established quorum, now that we established quorum, we need a motion and a second. Can you do you wanna do a motion and a second again? Because when we did again, we didn't have a quorum. So motion by Assemblymember Ta, second by Assemblymember Johnson.

Thank you all. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. No. Before you do that, I gave you an opportunity to close.

That's my I'm gonna tell you. The need for maintenance, the new construction of a roads and highway is significant and only growing. The fact of the matter is our current and system for transportation funding is starting to become dire. California relies on the gas tax in order to keep our roads safe and drivable, and we need to find a solution to this decline in revenue. As the use of electric cars continues to grow, the gap in revenue for California's roads will only grow with it.

While I support the advancement that we have made in vehicle technology, electric cars remain unaffordable to many of our residents. It is our lowest earners and our super commuters that

are now tasked with subsidizing the cost of road maintenance. This bill will require that any unencumbered funding that has been allocated for studying a more equitable solution to be returned to the general fund and would prohibit in a future budget act from allocating funds for the purpose of evaluating a solution. But the study is just out of study. This bill also prohibits a local agency from imposing a vehicle miles travel tax. However, it is my understanding none have ever imposed it.

What is clear is that the constitution requires any local tax to be approved by the voters. It is undeniable that we need to find a solution to ensure our road maintenance funding is stable. Taking any potential solutions to create a more equitable system of the table is simply shortsighted. In light of these concerns, I am unable to support your bill today. The motion is to pass to the revenue and taxation committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We're gonna leave the roll open Thank you. On call for the members to add on. Thank you. It's on call.

I see Assemblymember Zbur, and that is item 3 on the agenda: AB 1693. Assemblymember Zbur. Oh.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members. First of all, I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office, and we will be accepting the committee amendments today. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick and mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3,000,000 Californians across 500,000 retail establishments supporting statewide local economies.

The sector is one of California's largest small business employers providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities.

Across California, small business and retail establishments face unpredictable local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardship, such as increased project costs, delayed business operations, and stagnant economic activity. When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it hurts not only the business, but the workforce and the surrounding community.

Current law streamlined the approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects, establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small business to thrive in California. This bill is essentially an extension of AB 671, a bill that was authored by assembly member Wicks last year. It It was adopted and signed into law and is currently in effect, and it passed unanimously from all committees that it was considered in, including, I think, this one.

AB 1693 aims to address the issues that retailers face by requiring local business departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and certify those improvements for applicable building, health, and safety codes. It's exactly the same process as was say as was approved under AB 671.

The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within twenty business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that time frame.

Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent re resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within ten business days of receipt.

AB 1693 is critical as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards and really support our small businesses and the people and families who rely on them.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today is Ryan Allain with the California retailers, one of the sponsors of the bill.

Thank you, chair Carrillo and, vice chair Ta, members of the committee. My name is Ryan Allain, vice president of government relations with the California Retailers Association, proud to cosponsor this bill. As mentioned, AB 1693 will support, California's very diverse brick and mortar retail industry, streamlining permanent permanent tenant improvements while ensuring compliance with all applicable building and health safety requirements.

California's Retailers Association, only statewide retail association representing all segments of the retail industry, including general merchandise, department stores, merch mass merchandisers, supermarkets, grocery stores, chain drug, and specialty retail, such as auto, vision, jewelry, hardware, and home improvement. These are all stores that you often see in your main streets throughout the cities in California.

Our members have conveyed to us that permit turnaround times to attended improvements routinely stretch into multiple months across California counties, with average processing times around twelve weeks, and some of the highest ones reaching up to thirty one weeks in some jurisdictions. Retailers continue to experience recurring challenges, including extended review periods, multiple rounds of comments, portal outages, and unanticipated intake requirements.

These lengthy review periods significantly delay basic interior build outs, store openings, and remodels, forcing retailers to carry rent and financing costs, for many additional months before they can generate revenue or hire employees. This legislation is critical. We thank assembly members of Burr for bringing this, and reducing these permitting delays and will promote economic activity within California's small business community while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards.

For these reasons, California Retailers Association is a proud sponsor of AB 1693 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and member. Skyler Wonnacott, behalf of the California Business Properties Association as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association of California and NAEP California in strong support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Seeing no one else in support, any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? See nobody. Committee members, comments, questions on what's in front of us? Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Assemblymember Zbur?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for presenting your bill today and for working with the Committee Committee on Amendments. Due to time in these bills, we adopted in the next committee. I will be supporting your bill today with the amendments. The motion is do passed to the business and professions committee with a motion by Wilson and second by Pacheco. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It is 50, and I will leave the roll on call.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I thought I saw Assemblymember Gonzales sitting over there. Oh, there he is. There he is.

Thank you. When you're ready.

I have I have two bills, mister chair. You want me to do, item number three?

If that's what you wanna do first, that's fine. Yeah.

Thank you, mister chair and members for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am pleased to present AB 1679, which creates a temporary commercial activation permit framework for local governments to allow pop up businesses to operate for up to a hundred and twenty days. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chair and to the committee staff for their work on this bill.

I will be accepting the committee's amendments, and I wanna thank the stakeholders who have offered, thoughtful, thoughtful feedback. I remain committed to continuing those conversations so we can address potential inflammation concerns.

In my district, in areas like Downtown Los Angeles, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and many, many parts of our downtowns, we see storefronts after storefronts boarded up and vacant. COVID nineteen has permanent impacts on the retail and restaurant sectors, forcing countless small businesses to close, and to this day, we still have not recovered. Furthermore, small business owners are increasingly unable to take on the financial risk of long term leases that require large upfront investments.

An innovative and recognized way to revitalize our local economies is to welcome in pop up businesses. Pop up businesses are the retail service businesses like traveling restaurants, product launches, holiday markets, brand collaboratives, or our galleries that temporary move into vacant storefronts.

Pop ups reawaken commercial spaces. They create local events, dry foot traffic, sales taxes, and positive spillover effects to nearby businesses. However, they are struggling to legally operate in our current permit structure. Many temporary permits only last a week, and the only other alternative is to apply for a permanent business license. For small businesses opening up temporary in multiple cities a single year, this is an extreme cost.

For example, in Los Angeles, it can range from $80 to 184 for a temporary food facility permit. The permanent restaurant process will cost substantially more. In Sacramento, a temporary food facility permit that is considered high risk cost $379. On the other hand, acquiring a permit restaurant permit cost $1,738. Pop ups have shut down because they lacked a permit permit a permanent permit even if they consider it a low risk business.

After trying to pursue these costly permanent permits, many businesses closed down and abandoned the space leaving it vacant once again. Current requirements for pop ups are disproportionate to the scale and duration of their use. AB 1679 will address these issues by requiring local governments to create a new temporary commercial activation permit, which will be consistent limited low risk framework to activate storefronts across our state.

These permits will be limited to a hundred and twenty days and ensure that any pop ups using the permits follow all necessary health and safety requirements. The revitalization of downtowns and neighborhood commercial corridors in a statewide priority, and AB 1679 addresses commercial stagnation by supporting entrepreneurship, reducing barriers to entity, and creating a pathway from temporary testing to permanent Tennessee.

This afternoon to testify in support of the bill are Eddie Navarrete, who represents the sponsor of the bill, the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Shiloh Ainuki, the owner of Tea of Shiloh in Downtown Los Angeles. Take it away.

Good afternoon, chair and members or members. My name is Eddie Navarrette. I am the president of the Independent Hospitality Coalition representing a diverse network of small businesses across the LA County landscape. Across California, we are facing a growing challenge that is visible in early nearly every community. Rising commercial vacancies and empty storefronts that are sitting idle for months, sometimes years.

In Los Angeles alone, retail vacancies have climbed to some of its highest levels in over a decade. These vacancies are not just economic issues, they have real impacts on our neighborhoods. Empty storefronts reduce foot traffic, discourage new investment, and create a ripple effect where surrounding businesses struggle to survive. When one space goes dark, it often leads to others following, weakening an entire commercial corridor and the communities that depend on them. At the same time, we have no shortage of entrepreneurs ready to open for business.

What they lack is access. The cost and complexity of permanent construction has pushed too many operators before they even open. For many small businesses, the requirement to commit to a full build out upfront is simply not achievable in today's economic climate. AB 1679 provides a practical solution by creating a pathway for temporary commercial activations of vacant storefronts. This allows small business to enter spaces with lower upfront cost, test concepts, and build towards permanence without taking on overwhelming financial risk.

This includes a wide range of neighborhoods serving businesses like yoga, fitness studios, art galleries, markets, and the businesses that we have yet to discover. At its core, this is about small businesses giving giving a small business the opportunity to execute the resiliency. Our small business community has continued to adapt through some of the most challenging economic conditions in recent history, but our policies have not kept up the pace. We need a regulatory framework that reflects the progress of our small business community.

Commercial vacancies aren't just an economic issue. They're a signal that our current system isn't working for small businesses. AB 1679 creates a real world solution real world solution by allowing temporary activation of these spaces, helping bring back to life our streets and supporting the kind of walkable transit oriented communities California should be leading on. On behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition and the small business community we represent, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon and thank you for having me. My name is Shiloh Ainuki, and I'm the owner of Tea at Shiloh, an evening tea concept located in the outskirts of Downtown Los Angeles. When I found my space, it had everything I was looking for, high ceilings, exposed bricks, good natural light, a sink, and a counter. It was the perfect test site for my concept.

I didn't have the budget to build out a permanent space, but I had an idea I wanted to test and the willingness to willingness to take a risk.

I transformed the room with comfortable floor seating, good lighting, and created a safe and relaxing living room of sorts, offering tea as an amenity. Guests showed up, and it was beautiful to see people gather in the evening around something other than alcohol. Then I was cited by the Health Department and called into a hearing because pouring tea is considered food prep and requires a permanent health permit. They directed me to plan check.

For someone running a temporary concept in a borrowed space, the gap between where I was and where the code needed me to be was just too wide.

I called every friend I had for help. Even the health inspector wanted to help me and agreed that sometimes the requirements can be too difficult for simple uses like mine. I tried to make it work by enduring the permitting system, but the system doesn't currently distinguish between someone opening a permanent establishment and someone testing a dream. In plan check, my dream cost way more than I could afford.

I am one of many many others out there in the state who find vacant spaces and want to bring life and personality into their neighborhood.

People that want to have a storefront, but right now or people want to have a storefront, but right now, there's no realistic pathway for them to operate temporarily, legally, and affordably. I believe AB 1679 creates that pathway. It keeps the safety standards that matter while recognizing that a pop up doesn't need to meet every requirement designed for permanent occupancy. I'm here today for future small businesses like mine who, with this new proposed bill, can have a more promising start. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for that. Is there anyone else who would love to support the bill?

Hi there. Amy Chung with Inclusive Action for the city in strong support.

Chet Hewitt with the California Community Foundation in support.

Britney Baez with the Independent Hospitality Coalition, Council District fourteen, and many Los Angeles restaurants in support.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Lauren Day Valencia representing the American Planning Association. We don't have a position on the bill, but we really wanna thank the author, the sponsors, and the committee to, allow the flexibility to not create a new plan, but have this be self implementing. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much for that. Are there any are there any primary witnesses who are not to oppose the bill? I see none. Anyone else to allow to oppose the bill? Alright. I see Any any committee member? Any comment? Please.

Thank you, vice chair Ta. Thank you to the author for this bill. I think it's thoughtful and open up this opportunity to have really cool things in California. We can have cool things again. With that, I'd like to make a motion.

Alright. So we have a motion and a 2nd Floor as a member. Would you like to close? Oh, miss Ransom.

I had a question just for clarification. So first of all, thank you for getting creative about spaces because pop ups do happen. And at the same time, I definitely respect local control and health and safety, especially when we're talking about, like, food venues and things like that. I just wanna ensure that I'm interpreting what I think I'm interpreting correctly, and that is this bill does not over if a city already has a community already has a plan for pop ups, this does not override their plan.

Is am I understanding that correctly?

It's correct.

That is correct.

Do you know who made it a second?

Do you wanna add a letter?

Well, that

was an investment.

We'll leave

it at the end. Yes. Correct. It's a that's a good question. Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, colleagues. Whether you are in a rural or urban area, it's a common site or even just outside the capital here to see empty storefronts. Our small businesses and residents are desperate to fill them, and AB 1679 creates a clear, accessible way to bring those spaces back to life. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for a vote.

Alright. Thank you so much. We have a motion by assembly member Wilson and second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Madam secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Alright. So we leave the we we will leave the row open. Yes. Thank you. Remember, I think you have another bill. Second bill. Someone just switched out. You have the second bill. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. I'll go ahead and start as they come on up here. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I am pleased to present AB 2418, which will streamline nonresidential and commercial building permit applications by creating timelines for plan reviews and inspections.

It also allows if a local agency can complete a plan check after an excessive delay for an applicant to use a private plan checker.

California local agencies face extreme plan checking delays due to combination of staff shortages and unpredictable workloads. These delays increase cost and make it harder for businesses to complete new construction, simple improvement projects, or critical expansions. All across the state, even a routine tenant improvement can face a plan check or inspection delay of up to eight months leading to immediate and costly impacts. This does not only harm our property owners, but it also to the small business owners trying to lease these spaces.

Small businesses, especially in historic ethnic enclaves in my district like Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, historic Filipinotown, Picoinum, Doyo Heights have been hit the hardest.

Increasing delays means increasing costs. When these businesses are just hanging on, one, just one delayed permit could leave those doors chained and windows completely shuttered. Another business loss because of California's bureaucracy. This bill will tackle delays by mimicking streamline housing permitting process and cutting through bureaucratic red tape by, first, requiring local agencies to provide applicants with an estimated timeline.

Second, requiring local agencies to, upon request, contract with or employ a third party plan check if the estimated timeline they gave results in excessive delay of thirty days, all at the applicant's expense.

And third, if a third party plan checker is used, it requires the local agency to issue a permit to an applicant within ten days of receiving the report from the private plan checker or to notify the applicant of any noncompliant aspects of their plan. By creating predictable timelines and a reliable backup option for when excessive delays happen, AB 2418 will reduce costs and help our local businesses thrive.

My office and I have been engaging with Cal Cities and CSAC on the bill and have been in conversations about how to ensure the bill works for all of us. I believe we are close to landing a solution. Look forward to continuing these discussions should the boom bill move out of committee today.

This afternoon, primary witnesses in support are Skyler Wanakott with the California Business Properties Association, CBPA, and TJ Bard of SURF Management Inc, representing NIOPS Southern California. Take it away.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Los Angeles. We're the proud sponsors of this bill. AB 2418 builds on the legislature's recent efforts to streamline residential, plan checking and just takes those same common sense reforms from not to nonresidential projects. Across the state, tenant improvement projects for just basic TIs are facing month long delays, which drive across and delays business openings.

This streamlined approach is not new. Local agencies are already utilizing third party plan checkers, and applicants on the residential side already have this option to utilize a third party. AB 2418 simply brings consistency to the process by establishing clear timelines and transparency by allowing a building applicant at their own expense to use a qualified third party plan checker if there is a delay over thirty days.

AB 2418 is a balanced solution that will help projects move forward without costly delays simply just by extending current statute. It's important to note that this bill maintains full local control and oversight. And for those reasons, we respectfully, urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you so much for having me here today. As the assembly member mentioned, my name is TJ Barton, the senior vice president with SURF Management, which is a family owned and operated commercial real estate firm located in Southern California. I'm also on the board of directors for NAF SOCOW, which is one of the cosponsors for this legislation. I've spent the last fifteen years of my career, managing, owning, and operating small multi tenant retail and office complexes all throughout Southern California.

In my current role and portfolio, we have over 700 tenants, 90% of which are small family owned and operated, businesses. I've witnessed dozens and dozens of instances where these family owned and operated businesses have struggled through the permitting process. In preparation for my testimony today, I was thinking of some of those examples that I could share with the committee, and one came top of mind. This happened about a year and a half ago. It was a couple who were out of Northern Los Angeles County.

They've worked their entire lives to save up a nest egg. So when retirement came, they were able to invest and open a ice cream shop, which would have actualized their dream in retirement. They ultimately got to that phase where they retired. They came to us wanting to lease one of our small retail spaces. They ultimately signed a lease with us, hired architects, engineers initiated the permitting process.

We gave them ample runway to be able to navigate that and build out their space. Six months came and went. They still had not received their permit. They came back to us asking for an extension for which we gave them. Unfortunately, by month nine, they still had not received their permit.

When we received the heartbreaking phone call from them that that nest egg that they had worked their whole lives to build up had run out, and they ultimately had to pull the plug on their dream of opening the the ice cream shop. And this is one of many examples as I was going through them. I was thinking of a young woman who spent ten years in a hair salon wanting to open up her own business only to be faced with eight months of permitting.

A family who owned a local pho restaurant who wanted to open a second location in the Inland Empire only to face ten months in a permitting process. And a local owned and operated dentistry firm spent fourteen months trying to navigate the permitting process.

So if A Bill such as AB 2418 would have existed for these small pop mom and pop owner and operators at that time, their opportunities would have been dramatically different. Their access, their understanding would have been totally different, and this opportunity will afford that for future small businesses. And I'm grateful for the author for presenting this bill, and I ask for your support in it. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much for that. Is there anyone else who would love to support the bill? Please come up.

Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association support.

Gonzales on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in support.

Amy Brown on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber in support.

Audrey Retajczyk on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and NAOP California in support.

Jial Dentas on behalf of the International Interior Designers Association in support.

Good afternoon. Adam Ragley on behalf of NAF SoCal, one of the cosponsors. Line our comments with the sponsors, and thank you.

Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association. Happy to support. Thank you.

Nissan Flores with the California Restaurant Association in support.

Sarah Bridges, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Top, on behalf of the Orange County Business Council, in support.

Do we have any, any primary witnesses who like to oppose the bill? I see none. Anyone else would like to oppose the bill? I don't see anyone else? And then Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Good afternoon, chair members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities. We have no position. We're working collaboratively with the authors and sponsors and look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.

And Mark Neuberger, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we also have no position on this bill. We do wanna thank the author and the sponsors for their work with us on this bill and addressing our concerns.

Thank you. Alright. Any any comment from committee members? I see none. We have the motion on the motion and the second floor, motion by Assembly Assembly member Ransom and second by Assembly member Acenco.

Acenu member?

No. Thank you, members. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, mister chair. And, obviously, thank you for sharing your story to the sponsors here today and everybody who came to testify.

It's extremely important, to keep our small businesses alive. I don't have to go into how much detail small businesses mean to thrive in a community and provide a lot of jobs locally. And so, with that, thank you. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you so much. The motion is is do passed to the Judiciary Committee. Madam secretary?

[Roll Call]

So we're at seven zero. We will leave the oh, they'll get out. The bill is out. We still need to leave it open, don't we? So we can leave it out. Assembly member Schiavo, item number seven on the agenda. You have two bills? Yes. Do you wanna start with AB 1820?

Yes, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much, mister chair and members for the opportunity to present AB 1820 today. I wanted to start first, with the story actually of the mom of my kid's friend. Her car blew out the engine. She was in the market for a new car, and I was talking to her as the chair of electric vehicles and infrastructure committee about possibly getting a electric car.

And she lives in an apartment and was is a single mom and was just really concerned about not having charging at home and, you know, the reliability of being able to charge her car when she needed it. And so this is really the that, you know, and and what why I was thinking about that actually recently is because we know gas prices have gone up over 20, just in the last month because of the war in Iran.

And I drive an electric vehicle and can drive by those gas stations, and I'm so grateful for that right now. And was thinking that, you know, that's relief that she could use as well and doesn't have because she couldn't make this choice because of the really charging availability. And so that's really the problem that we're working to solve and and help address with AB 1820 to help advance construction of EV charging networks by establishing an electric vehicle charging permit fee schedule.

This measure strikes A Balance between preventing excessive fee permit or permitting fees and also allowing governments, local governments flexibility in the case of more complex permits. Statewide permit fee schedules are not new. One example is AB 1132 enacted in 2023, which capped permit fees for residential and commercial solar permits. Measures like these are an effort to provide statewide uniformity, especially when it comes to statewide policy goals around increased solar adoption or accelerated EV infrastructure growth.

The vast majority of jurisdictions are good actors, in this space.

However, in some instances, we have seen the cost of EV charging permits that are over two over 10 times what other localities are charging, suggesting that some areas are really using this as a revenue generating measure. Higher permit costs hurt Californians because either the charging is just not built at all or it's unavailable where they need it or the higher cost is passed on to the EV users in the form of higher usage rates.

Crafting this bill, we were careful to set a fee schedule that ensures good actors were not affected. There's there was a survey of what is being charged now, and most everyone was under it except for some bad actors. And we're not so the good actors are not affected, and it also includes a sunset date of 2036.

My witnesses will go into more details on the effects of rapidly rising permit fees. With me today is Reid Addis representing the Electric Vehicle Charging Association and Victoria Rome representing Natural Resources Defense.

Thank you, chair and members. Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, a cosponsor of the measure today. I wanna start out, by saying this is not about most cities. Data from across the state shows that majority of jurisdictions are already charging reasonable fees often under $50 per charger. But for those who don't, it's the Wild West.

Radically different fees from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We don't know what that's related to, whether it's capacity, awareness, or sophistication around our technology. All we know is that price difference from jurisdiction to jurisdiction creates a huge problem in deploying the technology. We think it's important for the state to create a strong guidance principle, a benchmark, if you will, which is what this bill does to help guide those local governments to understand what that fee structure should look like. It strikes the right balance.

It protects against excessive fees. It preserves local flexibility, and it creates consistency across jurisdictions, which is critically important to our industry. California cannot meet its clean transportation goals if the cost to install chargers varies dramatically from one city to the next for the same project. More important, some of your communities may not be served because of these barriers. I know many of you have talked about food deserts, but we don't wanna create EV charging deserts either.

Eight eighteen twenty is a practical proven solution that ensures fairness without undermining local authority. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Victoria Rome with NRDC, our Natural Resources Defense Council, here in support of AB 1820. Many local governments have an efficient permitting process in place for electric vehicle chargers, and we're grateful for those efforts. Best practices can include checklists or online submissions where permit applicants pay a reasonable fee, provide details of the installation, and receive permits quickly so they can complete the installation, which is verified for safety and code compliance by inspectors.

These best practice jurisdictions make the process efficient, which leads to lower workloads on city staff and lower permit fees.

Across the state, we're trying to get more level two chargers installed in multifamily developments like apartments, parking garages. And these level two chargers are the energy use equivalent of a dryer outlet. Yet some local governments have permitting processes that last months and have extensive engineering review costs. These added steps cost time and money leading to higher permit fees.

Oftentimes, cities that are right next to each other can have vastly different processes and costs for the same EV charger that's already met product safety requirements and is being installed by certified electricians.

AB 1820 ensures that permit fees for EV chargers are reasonable throughout the state. This is already the law for solar installation permit fees. And at a time when the EV industry is being attacked by the Federal Government and incentive funding is being pulled, NRDC believes it's critically important to make sure our permitting processes and fees are streamlined so we can meet the state's clean air and clean transportation goals. We urge your support. Thank you.

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

Afternoon, chair and members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla in support.

Good afternoon. Chris Nielsen on behalf of the EV Jobs Alliance in support.

Chair members, Nate Sullivan on behalf of a few organizations who couldn't be here in person, including the Coalition for Clean Air, ABB Emobility, AUtel, Chargee, Epic Charging, EVgo, EVmatch. Appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? You step forward to the desk.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. Good afternoon, chair and members. Cities are not barriers to EV development. We're we're already constitutionally required to charge no more, than the reasonable cost of providing service. The standard is clear, enforceable, and working.

So if the current system already prevents overcharging, why replace it? In practice, permit fees are modest, usually 1% of the project, and these are not arbitrary fees. I heard some comments earlier from the sponsors, kind of wondering the the source of these fees. These reflect actual staff time, engineering reviews, inspections, coordinating across multiple departments, electrical upgrades, fire reviews, sites, specific safety, and utility coordination.

AB 1820 replaces the that system with a rigid one size fits all that are often now below cost and locks those cap those, costs with these caps in place through 2036 with no adjustment for inflation.

This disproportionately impacts smaller cities with fewer staff with rigid constraints. This is not streamlining. This is cost shifting. And the state's own data is very clear. California is not lagging.

We are leading the nation. According to CEC, 94% of Californians live within ten minutes of an EV charger. Collectively between public and shared EV charging, we're over a million charging stations across the state with tens of thousands being added every six months. Accounting for roughly a quarter of all charter charters in The United States. The barriers that are identified by the CDC and the governor's own press office, grid reliability, infrastructural planning, and financing the expansion of EV charging infrastructure.

When fees are capped below cost, the responsibility does not disappear. It is transferred directly to cities. That means fewer resources, reduce staffing capacity, and ultimately slower, not faster permitting, which are already constrained by AB 970 and twelve thirty six. AB 1820 undermines a system that is already working. For these reasons, we vote ask you to vote no.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mark Newburger, California State Association of Counties. The Cal Cities witness definitely covered a lot of the same concerns that CSAC has too. Just wanna outline our opposition. And then again, very similar.

I think a lot of the barriers here, you know, are essentially more along the lines of related to the grid capacity issues. In many cases, counties in the case of on the public works side when they have to comply with state regulations to, green their fleets, they're seeing kind of more of the delays on the utility side than they are seeing on their own kind of permitting side.

And just kind of a finally echo piece here, although a lot of the examples provided by the sponsors of the bill kind of focused on individual chargers, the scope of this bill extends to kind of large public chargers, which which, of course, consume a lot of electricity, but also have a lot of kind of, you know, risk to the public if not done correctly.

Information related by, folks that in counties that deal with this say that a lot of these the scale and kind of the pace that's happening out in those in these areas, you're having contractors that are kinda new to this process. And, you know, essentially, when you're new, you make a lot of mistakes.

They have to spend more times on the larger scale you EVU till and recharging the stations. And I I think that's the kind of public safety piece lost if you arbitrarily cap a a permit fee that yeah. You're essentially saying, here's how much time you should spend on this and this, you know, public safety can only be put at that particular price. That's kinda where, for sure, a lot of the accounting concerns that were right here in addition to what was prided.

I do wanna thank the authors and sponsors for meeting with us with us as well as the, committee analysis for highlighting, kind of, the issues at play here and the kind of long history of the bills.

And then kind of closing, I will say the, a lot of the parallels here for this bill seek to kind of graft on what had the state has done for rooftop solar onto EV chargers. I really wanna point out those are two very different systems with two very different kind of setups and also much different risks for the public safe for the public involved in accessing the system. That's all. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon to the committee and chair. My name is Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of San Mateo in respectful opposition. We're echoing the concerns of the League of California Cities and RCRC, citing, especially the concerns regarding cost recovery in a climate of rapid Thank you. Inflation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California in opposition.

Karen Lange, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, oppose unless amended as as described in our letter. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, committee members, Assemblymember Wilson?

Thank you to the author to try and address this issue. I think we share, we definitely share the fact that we need more EV chargers, and not just public and sharing. We need more individual EV chargers where people can conveniently charge at home, and we also need more in our multifamily. So I think we definitely agree there. I have some concerns that I think I've shared when I met with, the sponsors of the bill before, but I wanna note this.

You made, two statements that I I thought was interesting, that I want to get better clarification on. You called cities or counties or jurisdictions bad actors, and you said that what they were doing was revenue generating. And then I also heard in the, sponsor testimony that they weren't sure why the cities weren't doing, but you characterized them as they were doing something that they were bad act there was good actors and bad actors.

So that bad actors implies to me that something was malicious and that revenue generating, meaning that you found when you were looking at your cost analysis that you found cities that were doing contrary what they're allowed to do, which are counties, whoever jurisdictions, contrary to what they're allowed to do, which is to set the fee based on an analysis that determines their fees.

And so was that more hyperbolic, or was there something specific you found in doing this research where someone was literally a bad actor, so acting in some malicious way, or someone you found evidence that someone was doing it for revenue generation purposes versus just the covering their cost.

Yeah. And just to clarify, I'd said it suggests that it's revenue generating. I mean, one of the examples, and I'll bring the technical expert up to answer some of this because they've looked into these numbers more than I have. But for example, you know, there's one, two, three, four cities that had gave permits for four chargers and charging 311, $606, $167, $471. So the maximum $4.71.

And then others another city, four chargers charged $8,511. So it's I mean, $8,000 more. And it's just hard to understand how you could be charging that, like, why there's such a huge discrepancy. Right? And we've seen just in a, you know, a handful of examples.

I think most cities are not gonna have a hard time complying with this from from what we've seen. But I think that we wanna just make sure that it's across the board. And if you're, you know, if if there's that kind of discrepancy, especially when you're talking about single family homes as an individual being charged, you know, thousands of times or hundreds of times what others are being charged, it may make it unaffordable for you to do it in the first place.

And so that's really what we wanna prevent about or prevent against. I understand the concerns and, you know, in the health space, I'm fighting for more money for counties.

I know that, you know, people are struggling, but this this really is passed on to consumers in so many ways that I think we have to make sure. And again, this is not for this is not for fast chargers. This is level two plug in your dryer kinda outlet. Right? This is not super complicated. You need a ton of energy to run something

But Your Bill does does do it does change it. It doesn't just talk about those charges. It takes about all. Right? Is it it is I thought it was broad that it wasn't just for one particular charger. Maybe clarify. I don't remember that from

Level two.

And now I was I thought an analysis that was all types of chargers. But that's not where I wanted to push anything more.

I wanted to go anyway. I wanted to stick more on the I just noted those comments. They really sum it to where my point of questioning will be. It's around so, basically, I you know, I had an opportunity to serve as a a leader, in a small a local leader for twelve years prior to coming to the assembly. And so, regularly, we did fee assessments, updated our fees, updated our charges.

We had to do a a study for that. We couldn't just say, I think. You know, we had to actually look at the study. We had to have people analyze our what we pay our employees, the full benefit package, and that determined how we set our fees that guided every single thing. In that way, that and because of that analysis that is detailed and available and opted at a public meeting, it is considered valid and and and and complicit with the state law.

It also means that a cost for something is going to be very different from one city in my county to another even if we were next door to one another because different things go into that cost. And so I'm concerned that it's not about caps, so to speak, that this is a way to address the issue because it is an issue. That it really is about streamlining.

Part of why we were able to do what we did on solar is because it was streamlined, and the way it connects to the house is a certain way. So there's only so much review.

A lot of its packages and things like it's really very specific. But when you get into different communities, different houses, different things, it it it there is a range. And so, with time be would a way to tackle this be better spent on streamlining and making sure you have, kind of plug and play kind of deal so it is easier for cities or counties or whatever jurisdiction it says than it is in capping fees.

Because if you cap fees and that's what it costs to do it, those it doesn't go away. That burden goes somewhere else.

So we would essentially subsidizing another part of that department to pay for this part of that department. And we're not I don't think that's the intention is to subsidize this. It's to accurately capture the fees. Right. And so I I just wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Had you thought about that as you were contemplating the cap?

So I think just to clarify, this is I would call it a soft cap because there is a way for them to charge more. Right? They can just do a letter of findings, a written finding on it, and explain why they need to charge more.

So already do that. That's what I'm saying. That that's already you're making them do another they already have to explain their fees. Every time they do a fee assessment, they can't charge more.

For the fee assessment. I'm talking about, like, for the individual permitting.

Well, they set you didn't know. So when you do it by when you do all of that, you're doing even, like, you take into consideration what employee makes the burden, the full burden, and that's how you set that department's hourly rate. That is a public, a full process for it.

But what I'm talking about is I go to you and I say I need a permit. And you say, oh, this is really complicated and we need to bring in energy. And this is gonna cost a lot of money. We can't just charge $500 for this permit plus kilowatt hours, whatever. But it's gonna cost a lot more than that for us to figure out how this works.

You can do a written finding explaining why this is gonna cost more, and then you can charge more for that permit. So it's it's on a case by case basis, but certainly counties or cities have the ability to charge much more if the the work justifies it, if they can just justify it.

And so I guess they do justify it. There's flexibility there. Because they're gonna charge you two if it only took two hours to do that, you're gonna get charged the two hour rate plus whatever additional fees. If it took you ten hours because of whatever reason, I'm gonna give you the ten hours and the other fee. So that confuses me, but I will learn more from others.

Like I said, I think the intent that you have, I'm I'm a 100% down with.

It's just what are the mechanics, and I recognize that need time to figure that out. This is the legislative process. I asked for that time on my bills too. I can just figure this out. So I think where you're trying to head in terms of addressing this issue makes sense to me.

It's just the how I think a little bit more work needs to be done, but thank you

for the conversation. Thank you. And I just if I can clarify, it does it does apply correct myself, it does apply to all, but it's really targeted towards the level twos. That's what we're trying to especially get at. And you can

see how that could be an issue with Sure. I mean single type of there's a lot, but it doesn't matter the scale of being set at that and then having to do that process for Yeah. Those can cost more for sure. That.

Yeah. Assemblymember Ransom.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schiavo. And I wanna say I wanna thank Assemblymember Wilson for pretty much uplifting a lot of the concerns I have. And so I I've on the surface, I really think this is a wholesome bill. I I I think we we know wholeheartedly that we have to have more access to EV chargers, and it's something that we we're endeavoring to see happen throughout our state. With that said, I have concerns.

I feel I I guess it feels very arbitrary, this $100 cap, the $15 kilowatt. And I'm wondering where you came up with that formula because local governments are are typically not in the business of, you know, being profit centers. They typically have a fee schedule that is based on the cost to deliver fees. And so I'm as I'm looking at the approach, you know, I'm I'm wondering why we didn't say, you know, it's capped at whatever the it cost to deliver the service.

Asking a local government to have to justify each and every single time that because the fee doesn't fit something that we as a legislature came up with that's not even tied to CPI, not tied to, you know, inflation rates, just really seems like an inefficient way to run cities and county governments.

And I don't wanna create any additional burdens for local governments. Although we are trying to do something good for the people who need access to the chargers. But with that said, as we're thinking about every different per every permit is different because every land use, every every property may be different. Some may have electrical, where you're gonna need to bring in an electrical engineer.

It's a different permit than just bringing in a, you know, someone who's coming to make sure that things in the right place, you know, on the right wall, etcetera.

And so I think as I'm reading this, I'm really concerned about how we came up with this cap and how we may be actually passing the burden of someone else's electrical charger onto other people in in, you know, in the community by forcing them to subsidize someone else's electrical charger because we are not allowing government to charge what it costs to actually provide the service. So I'm I'm happy to listen. I'm gonna continue to listen.

If you can speak to any of that as far as, like, where you got $100 as the number and $15, you know, as the additional. Yeah.

Because I for me, I I'm a person who, like, if you can make it make sense, then Sure. I'm happy to support it. But for for now, I'm really struggling with, you know, saying that public government is a profit center because typically the permits keep fees are based on staff time and, you know, what type of engineer, if they're using contractors, etcetera. So I'd love to hear more. Thank you.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I I I definitely wouldn't characterize for every permit. Now you're gonna have to write, you know, have written findings because as I said, most were well within what is being proposed here, but I'll turn it over to my witnesses to talk more about how this was arrived on.

Thank you. Yeah. Chair and members, Redd Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. Answering both your question and Assemblymember Wilson's question, I think it's easiest to go back and say that this is modeled off what the legislature did a number of years ago related to solar. And what was happening is you had these radically different prices from one jurisdiction to the next.

What we were able to do is we were able to look at all the local governments, identify those price structures that seemed the most appropriate that the majority were charging. And the legislature chose to put that into statute. It provided a a schedule, if you will, of fees that became a determiner for local governments, especially those who were struggling with really high cost to realize how they needed to adjust their system and what the mark should be.

Now it's also important, which is also modeled off the way the legislature dealt with this under the solar, which this bill does, is it says you if you wanna change that amount, both the cap and the fee structure, you can do that. You don't have to do it for each permit.

You have to do it for that class of permits. You just have to do that in a transparent way around that one particular fee so that we, the public, can also come to that hearing, talk about it, and maybe provide information on best management practices. Because there is we would argue, respectfully, there is fundamentally something wrong if one jurisdiction's charging $50 and another jurisdiction is charging 5,000.

So, therefore, we we'd use data to look at these numbers and we've modeled this off how you guys approached this under solar about ten years ago.

And if I could sorry. Nate Solov is a technical expert from also from EVCA

who's worked on Can I can I ask this witness a question before you go? So when you say, you know, there's a difference, were you able to determine, like, was there a contractor for one? Maybe you don't have personal staff. Like, were you able to determine did you, like, dig into why one city was charging more? Did you ask them to itemize that versus another?

It is hard for me to speak to how each member of the association has to grapple with this. I know they they they definitely have relationships with local government. It's it's concerning that we're even having to have a a a challenge here at a table like this because we we have to work with them to get these permits in the first place.

We cannot come to you right now and say, here's an extensive review of how we've handled it in each and every one of these local jurisdictions. There's different answers.

There's different ways to handle it. A lot of times, it's it was passed many, many years ago within a bundle of fees, and there wasn't a lot of information that explained why they picked that fee for this particular activity.

Got it. Thank you.

Yeah. And just to provide insight, Nate Sullivan with the Electric Vehicle Charging Association as well. Appreciate your questioning as well as line member Wilson. So but we we looked at the data from 2025. And and today's Assemblymember's point, you know, a lot of it does have to do with streamlining.

Right? Some jurisdictions have a checklist or an online portal where you can submit your application and, pay your permit fee, and then you're able to go do the install, and then the city checks it after the fact to make sure everything's safe. Those are typically cheap and don't take a lot of time. Other jurisdictions for the same types of chargers are having to do, you know, plan check and a lot of engineering paperwork.

And so there might be a lot of people more staff time involved, and it might take a lot longer and be more extensive because of the more staff time involved.

And so that that's where you get this city by city dynamic where some might have a more bureaucratic process, which costs more money. But, again, the bill does allow, you know, for those jurisdictions to still be able to recoup those costs just with a with a written finding. And and just to provide clarity, a a lot of these installations are commercial installations. That's a $500 base, and then there's an escalator that allows that to increase depending on the size of the installation.

So if you have more chargers, that could go up to a thousand or over $2,000, that that that's still okay with the bill because there's that flexibility as part of the price cap.

Thank you, sir.

Assembly member Ward.

Thank you. I'm kinda honing in on, and building on Assemblymember Ransom's questions as well too. When, we say that there's data out there, were you able to cite any cities right now that are able to keep their permit fees below a $100 for residential 500 for commercial?

Yeah. So based on the 2025 data, we and, again, we wanna be respectful because as mentioned earlier, a lot of jurisdictions are doing a great job. Right. Some are charging more, so we don't wanna throw individual cities under the bus or anything. But just we there there are a lot of examples throughout the state of those who are charging under those thresholds in the bill and those who are charging over.

I mean, I guess I could ask, like, kind of both sides of this, like, kind of question where it's like, you know, okay. Well, like, you know, yeah, we've got enough real world examples right now that can kind of, like, show, like, you know, what a reasonable baseline should be. And where in practice, if you are thinking about, like, how to be able to provide, like, you know, that streamline form that, like, you know, online review process, whatever it is, that makes the cost cheaper.

And let's be honest, a lot of these systems are pretty well standardized. Maybe that's a different direction, like, you know, like, future conversations go about better standardizing, EV systems as well for purposes of local review.

Nervous for our local governments, Aye, you know, could also beg the question, well, why would it be that much more expensive when a residential system, like, might just be, like, you know, what is it today, about $800 or so, give or take 800 or thousand bucks, maybe cheaper if you got a second gen system. And so why would the fee be more than 10% of what it takes to actually purchase the unit in in the first place?

I think that's where, like, you know, things start to kind of it it it's reasonable to, like, you know, raise a question mark, especially in light of, that we are seeing, you know, maybe growing evidence here that other jurisdictions are able to get something to a reasonable fee cost recovery level. This is analogous to what we're might be having in larger conversations around just broad permit fees. Right?

And how one jurisdiction might be charging, you know, $2,000 for a home to be able to offset parks fees, for example, but the next jurisdiction over is charging $20,000 a home. And they could both probably point to some kind of study and everything that they might have had some, you know, massaging of the math and those inputs to be able to arrive at a legal outcome that is able to produce that level of fees or something like that.

But it does cause you to step back and go, woah. Wait. Should there be, like, you know, an appropriate so I I'm I'm sympathetic to that.

And Aye, you know, would encourage, you know, as this bill continues to be able to use that data because it can, I think, start to, like we've seen for solar, compel others to maybe look to their neighbor next door and say, well, how are you doing it in a more cost effective way and really, like, challenge them to be adopting to be able to adopt that? So I believe that there's not evidence out there that this is in the realm of the possible.

And so I'd like to be able to see this move forward as well to try to sort of push that. And I and I would encourage you to continue to work on questions to Assemblymember Wilson's point about, you know, standardization conversations.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. Assemblymember Ruger, did you have a question?

Yes. Thank you. I'm listening to the conversation, and I just wanna referencing Assemblymember, Wilson's comments about the different cities. I have two cities, the city of Azusa and the city of Glendora, who are next to each other. I represent eight cities, and both of them charge differently.

So the city of Azusa charges a 140, and the city of Glendora charges a $178. Well, the first question is, who do they have to write the letter to? What what is the penalty for going above the $100 and who approves the because I think you in order to charge more, you could get you have to call and or I don't know, send a letter and you get a waiver. So what's the penalty for not doing it?

Who do they have to do the letter for and who approves it?

That's number one. But also, the city of Glendora does all of it in his house. Azusa doesn't. And so is perhaps the difference is because some cities contract out and others don't because I you we belong to contract cities association in in my area because a lot of my cities can't afford services. I'll give you an example.

The trash the sweepers. So we some can afford it, so they do it in house and it's cheaper. And, the other cities, have to contract out. So that that's where I see the difference. Now mine are not 8,000 or whatever it is, you know, or and I would like to know which cities are charging the $8,000.

Could it be the more affluent communities? Do they have way more or less charging stations? I don't know how that would, pan out, but both cities sent a letter of opposition because they charge more. So who do they have to write the letter to? Who approves it?

And what is the penalty if they don't? And yeah.

Can my witness answer that?

Yeah. Thank you. The from our perspective and where the assembly member has how she's drafted the measure, we are not at all touching the authority for local government. So they're the ones who would make the decision to change that fee. They would just have to go through a transparent public process to make that decision.

That's all we're saying is we're saying here's a benchmark. Here's what we think that number should be. If in fact you're gonna charge more than that, we're just asking you to to discuss that at a within a public process to adjust that fee and adopt that locally.

Okay. So so then what happens if they just the $8,000 person does the public you you know, they go through the public process, then what? And then the public's like, you know, a a lot of cities don't have much participation in city

know water districts don't. But for the you know, let's assume that they don't have participation and they say it's $8,000. So that's all they have to do and then what hap I you see what I'm saying? What I'm saying is, you know, I I understand why you're doing it, but if it's unenforceable and and if it is, who does the enforcement?

Well, I maybe. Go ahead. Yeah. I completely understand the question, Assemblymember. And I I think this bill isn't a mandate, and it's not forcing action at the local government level.

If they wanna have a public meeting, It does allow organizations that are members of our association, maybe others in the state, to actually go show up and talk about mismanagement practices, maybe challenge them at least in a public setting as to why they have such a high rate. But ultimately, if they do decide to go in with that higher rate, they've at least gone through this process and had a transparent process and adopted that. It would be unfortunate, but this bill doesn't mandate that change.

As we know, the public process is not always a perfect process.

Right. I mean, right. They were as exact. It's a $178.20. I mean, that's how much they manage, you know, their their permitting process that, you know, to the penny.

So, again, it just feels like we're doing it, but if it's not enforceable, it's not a mandate, then what do we get out of it? Right? That's my kind of the the overlapping question.

Are you making an argument for private right of action?

I am not. Never

Are you sure?

I'm always against PRAs. Always. But the point is, right, like so so, you know, my city's cared enough to send, you know, the the the letter and, like and assembly member, Wilson, I have eight cities, and these two happen to be right next to each other as well. So that's the that's the question. Right?

So, I mean, I I understand the intent, but if it's not gonna go anywhere, then, you know

Well, hopefully, it it does. I mean, as, you know, as we said, most of the most of the ones that they looked at from 2025 were under this. And so I think to the to point ask

what the cities that went to $8,000 were at least where...

the publicly saying that, but if you wanna try I mean privately talk to sponsors about it.

Well, can you at least tell me where the area is? ...

Almost all of them are Southern California except for one Northern California city. Two. Two Northern California city. So a lot lot That's

that's all of the questions. Right? Like, it

might mean the under this rate were in Southern California, and then all but two were and I think this was given to offices. So hopefully, you guys should have it, but we can pass it around if you need more of them too to look at examples.

So you can you can share that offline. Any Yeah. Anything else?

No. Thank you.

Anybody else? So I've been waiting to put my 2¢into this. Before you close I fully support this bill, and I think that we need to do even more. Let me tell you why. I work for four different cities in the city plan right profession.

I did these processes in the planning department for different cities for different fees. You know how much longer it took me from city to city to review a plan like this? Same amount of time. So cities, in my humble opinion, they set their fee structure based on what they believe is gonna cost for them to review a plan, but it also has to do with cities believing that they're better than other cities.

The political will is what really sets the the more the mood for how this fee structure works.

They do a fee studies. They look at what other cities are doing. And in some to some extent, the the way that they do this fee status is to see how much more revenue they can collect from fees, from any from all kinds of fees. As a consumer, as a person that went through the permitting process to install an electric vehicle charging station at a residence at my mom's house.

We need to do even more because the conversation here has been about what the charges are for these cities to review the plans.

What is really even more, concerning is that cities require that anybody that wants to add a charging station for a for a separate electric meter, like Edison allows you to have a separate electric meter dedicated to a charging station for a lower rate. The they used to do that. I don't know if they used to do it. But in order for you to get your permit to install a separate electric meter, you have to get an address.

Utilities send you a bill based on the address that is provided to a utility meter, in this case being Edison and Electric separate electric meter.

LA County, do you have an idea how much they charge to issue you an address so that Edison can give you a bill? $800 just to get a an address issued to you to be able to have a separate electric meter so that you can have a discounted kilowatt for electric vehicle charging. On top of that, they want you to hire an electrical engineer to design the plan for you to get a building permit. So I did that.

I did it because I wanted to show them that this is what is happening.

$800 to get a an address. I had to hire an electrical engineer to design the plan. That's another $2,000 to be able to save on the gas pump. Yeah. So, again, my my point to this is that being an over an employee processing this type of permits applications for different cities in my experience for different fees.

Getting the permit through Edison, through LA County, it's just an enormous account amount of money that those that wanna have an electric vehicle have to go through. Now, mind you, this is single family. For multifamily, commercial, those, you know, for electric vehicle charging stations and parking lots, that's even much, much higher. My point is sharing this with you is because the discussion that I was listening to, very interesting.

But at the end of the day, those that want to have an electric vehicle and be able to save money by charging it at home again, I'm gonna be clear, through a separate electric meter, not through the same electric meter that you have, it's $34,000.

Yeah.

Not to count the time that it takes to go through that permitting process. Anyway, seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair and members for the robust discussion. You know, I think that the chair handled my closing really well. Four different cities, same amount of work, completely different charges. And that's really what we're trying to get to at. And I understand, you know, the the conversation around streamlining, and I think there's more work to be done in that space.

And hopefully, through this bill passing, it will also force conversations around streamlining. There are easier ways to do things. You can do things with a checklist. I mean, I when I got my I just had to swap out an an an outlet. It was $2,500 to put charging into my garage.

And I already had a dryer outlet. It was just the wrong plug, You know? So so it really is it's a huge financial barrier, and we're talking so much about affordability right now and ways to bring down the cost and, you know, moving to EVs and and zero emissions. And this is, I think, a really important part of making sure that we can do that affordably.

And, you know, as as I said, it's really kind of a soft cap because there are ways to charge more for more kilowatt hours, ways to do a finding to allow for charging more.

So so it's it's not a hard cap. It's not, you know, limiting local governments when their cost truly justify higher higher charges. And and I think that we try to strike that balance with this bill and would respectfully, request an aye vote.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second, I believe. Motion by Assemblymember Ward, a second by Assemblymember Stephanie. Thank you for your work to help ensure the permit fees do not pose a barrier to the deployment of EV charging stations. I will be voting aye.

The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I I pulled off everything. Yes.

And with that, we move on to your second bill. Okay. That's agenda item number eight. I AB 1914, please.

Okay. Onto an issue everyone loves, childcare. Thank you so much, mister chair and members. I am proud to be authoring AB 1914 this year, which will require local governments to include childcare in their planning efforts. I wanna thank the chair, and committee consultant for working with me on this bill.

I accept the committee amendments and, you know, affordable access to child care supports a child's healthy development, ensures parents can go to work or school, and helps businesses and our economy thrive. But millions of American families are struggling to find the affordable, reliable, quality child childcare that they depend on. And although California has made significant of investments in childcare in recent years, largely thank you to the women's caucus, woot woot. The supply demand gap persists.

One in seven children are eligible for services who actually receive those services.

This means over 1,800,000 children are eligible, but not receiving services. Without access to child care support, a single mother of an infant of a school age child in California will spend on average 61% of her income on childcare. As the cost of living continues to rise and threats to cut funding from Federal Government continue, we are only faced with additional barriers in childcare. That's why it's increasingly important to examine childcare accessibility as communities plan for growth and infrastructure needs.

To address the state's childcare crisis, all levels of government must be involved in prioritizing planning for their communities childcare needs.

Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address child care needs, Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address childcare accessibility, AB 1914 is a promising strategy to promote greater consistency and consideration of childcare in the earlier stages of local planning while preserving local discretion. Requiring local governments to develop a childcare plan is crucial. It supports economic development by enabling workforce participation.

It attracts families and talents, promotes healthier family friendly communities, and aligns land use with community needs, ensuring equitable access, reducing traffic by integrating childcare facilities near homes, jobs, and transportation. We saw from the fires in Los Angeles that it's also critical to include childcare and disaster planning and resilient strategies to ensure children are cared for before, during, and after disasters so that they can have access to safe, healthy learning environments.

With me today is Shelly Masur, vice president of ECE advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund, and also the honorable Lisa Gauthier, who is Santa Mateo County supervisor.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Carrillo, committee members, and staff. I'm doctor Shelley Mazer. As the assembly member said, I'm the vice president of advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIFT is a national community development financial institution with the vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being.

We seek to achieve that vision by investing in affordable housing and childcare facilities as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure to make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and provide stability for families. We are very pleased to sponsor AB 1914 to ensure cities and counties recognize the role childcare facilities play in communities and to that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan.

We are grateful to assembly member Schiavo for authoring this bill, to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls for cosponsoring, and to the staff for working with us. As a former city council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building supply of childcare. We believe that like housing, childcare supply building requires planning and that cities and counties can support that through including childcare in their general plans or by creating a separate childcare plan.

Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a childcare crisis that is exacerbated by lack of facilities, a workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB 1914 offers one by engaging cities and counties and further planning for the needs of their community by planning for childcare. My own city, Redwood City, has included childcare in their general plan since 2010 as the city continued to plan for growth in both housing and in its economic base.

This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build childcare, rather to work with the community to plan for and support childcare facilities and programs.

Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of childcare through work with cities. Planning for childcare is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Lisa Gauthier. I served on East Palo Alto City Council for twelve years serving as mayor and vice mayor three times each.

Currently, I am serving as a county supervisor in San Mateo County, and more importantly, I'm a proud grandmother of a five year old grandson. And it is from this perspective that I speak in support of AB 1914. Every day in San Mateo County, I see how deeply childcare access affects the stability and well-being of our families. Parents are navigating long wait list, high cost, and limited availability. Providers are doing everything they can to meet demand, but the need far outpaces the supply.

And the children, our youngest learners, are the ones who feel the impact most directly. AB 1914 addresses this challenge in a practical and forward looking way. The bill requires cities and counties to plan for childcare needs as part of their general plan updates. This ensures that child care is not treated as an afterthought, but as a core component of community planning, just like housing, transportation, and public safety. In San Mateo County, we have already seen the benefits of integrating childcare into our broader planning efforts.

We have worked to expand early learning centers near transit, supported family childcare homes, and partnered with employers who understand that childcare access is essential to a strong workforce. AB 1914 aligns with this work and extends the principles statewide. For me, this issue is also personal. When I look at my grandson, I think about the world he's growing up in and the responsibility we have to building communities where every child has the opportunity to thrive. Quality childcare is foundational to that vision.

It supports healthy development, strengthens families, and contributes to economic stability. AB 1914 helps ensure us that every city and county in in California is planning intentionally for the childcare infrastructure families rely on. It is a thoughtful, necessary step forward, creating up creating communities where children and parents can succeed. And for this reason, I respectfully ask your support in AB 1914.

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

Hello. Sarah Pabsts here on behalf of the commission on the status of women and girls, and we are a proud cosponsor of this bill. Thank you.

Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment representing over 90 California based CDFIs in support.

Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

... with children now in support.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the early care and education consortium, also in support. Thank you.

Hello. Megan Barvet with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Association of Microenterprise Opportunity and support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition, please step forward.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association. Our organization did take an opposed unless amended on the bill as it was introduced not to the notion that we shouldn't be planning for childcare in our communities, but it is the metric by which we do that. Planners right now are being asked to plan for a lot with very little resources.

And so, for us, it's really how can we implement this and meet the spirit of the the laws it's intended. So we really appreciate working with the sponsors, with your committee, with the author's office to provide flexibility for how planners can meet those goals. That fits within the construct of how they're working through their general plans or other planning documents. So appreciate all the work. And with the amendments, we'll be removing opposition.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tracy Rhine, rural county representative of California. I would like to align our comments with APA in removing our opposition. Thank you.

Anybody else in plain opposition? See nobody coming up. Committee members, comments, questions, Assemblymember Ransom, and then Assemblymember Stefani.

Hello, Assemblymember. Hi. Hi again. Alright. So first of all, you brought great witnesses.

I appreciate hearing, you know, their passion and their desire for this. A lot of you know I'm fiercely protective of how we make decisions that impact local government. Most of my time in local government was spent in planning. And some of my concerns or questions, I should first of all, I can ask questions for witnesses. Supervisor Gauthier, when you talk about how your community has made worked to enhance childcare.

Is that through a general plan, or is that just generally being receptive of ensuring that, you know, we make space and we provide support? Or is that, through a general plan effort? Can you can you talk a little bit more about that?

I think that it's really just through, not the general plan update, but the fact that childcare is important to, and and lack thereof is a barrier to many families participating in the innovation economy. So Oh, yeah. There are cities that are already on the forefront that are doing the work because they realize the importance of having childcare for parents to be able to to work. Thank you. And for

I'm sorry. Can you talk a little bit you said that your city has been including childcare in the general plan since 2010. Can you talk a little bit about how that looks? Is it where is it, you know, kind of, like, deciding that these are where child cares can go? Or is it putting, you know, so many child cares in certain places?

How exactly have you adopted that as part of the general plan?

Yeah. Thanks for the question. So for Redwood City, it has a separate it's essentially a separate element

Okay.

That is about children and youth and includes planning for childcare within there. In the same way, it's recognizing the needs for childcare as it thinks about growth of the city And then establishes a structure for planning.

Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. So that that makes a lot of sense when you're talking about, like, the putting as an element. And so as I'm looking at this and really thinking through, how you're planning a community, I feel very strongly that the way general plans already work with, like, zoning for, you know, where you could have such things is in existence.

And so I wanna make sure that we're not doing something that, you know, is requiring general plans are very intensive processes already. And I I just wanna make sure that we're not doing something that is unnecessary. Also, the the way childcare what we're looking at with childcare now, you know, schools are involved in childcare, and we're seeing a lot of schools because, these last couple of generations are not having children as much as previous generations.

We're literally seeing schools give back properties that school districts have properties that were intended to build schools giving back schools. We're seeing that childcare or childcare are having problems filling, you know, seats.

K. But at the same time, just the way child cares are businesses, we have home day cares where, you know, the communities it's community licensing that decides how that works. And then people put commercial child cares or the larger scale child cares in the areas of need, and that's typically based on zoning.

So I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's if it's more onerous or more I guess I'm trying to figure out if there's gonna be more work on the general plan when we already have the ability to do you know, to plan for childcare in the communities. And and so that's not saying that we don't, you know, love our children.

I'm I'm just I'm the general plan is the the community's, like, business document, and childcare is very much based on family planning. We have you know, parks are planned in communities, and lots of things that deal with children are already in the general plan. And so I'm, I guess, I'm thinking out loud here about, like, the need to add more elements and requirements for the general plan. And so I'm just gonna continue to listen like I did last time. Okay.

I'm gonna continue to listen, but I just wanted to share, you know, my my thoughts about the the need for this bill.

Yeah. If I if I could respond. I mean, I think the 1,800,000 people kids who are on a wait list demonstrates quite a bit of need. And so I understand the trajectory that you're talking about we're going in, but that's decades, you know, to to get to the point where we don't we have the the childcare that we need. I'll give you one example.

My community, there's a ten year build out plan to build 20,000 homes in the city of Santa Clarita, and no childcare in that community, that part of the community. Many families, those their family homes, mostly single family homes being built with children.

And so, you know, as in as with the number of things that we do, if we if we wanna see results around issues facing women or communities of color, disability community, or whatever it may be, there has to be intentionality around it for that to happen a lot of times and to bring those folks into the conversation that need to be a part of the conversation.

So while there is a robust process that already happens, I I would I would bet that in most most of those processes, they're not bringing in child care providers and talking to them about what could help you, you know, the the child care providers create more childcare in these communities where we are building and bringing people into our community or or what is even what are even the basics of how many kids are in our community and, you know, what's a reasonable amount of childcare we need in our community to address that need and identifying what the gaps are and how and people bringing people together.

And I think sometimes part of the solutions, it doesn't require building childcare as was stated, but part of the solution that happens is also just bringing these people together and having those conversations that haven't been had as well in this in this space and on this issue specifically. And we hope that that would lead to more childcare in communities where they need it.

So I appreciate that. And so that's what, like, family resources and referrals is for, is to, like, educate and build, and we just really did a lot of work to refund that. I'm I'm trying to understand how the general plan would fill the 1,800,000.0 in childcare. So in building when you're talking about homes and built building homes, we just built there's, like, 20,000 homes for being built in my district.

We build them thinking that families are going to have children, and so we built schools That are underpopulated.

So then what does the state do? Now we have TK. Right? And so now TK is affecting childcare, and so I'm just really trying to figure out how this solves the problem with the the The childcare because this is not as I'm reading this, this is not low income childcare. This is not city or state funded childcare.

And so I'm just trying to I'm just trying to

It's not limit. It does not include that. Right. Right? And and it sounds like your community did take this into consideration.

But I I'll defer to my witness who's gone gone through this process herself.

Thank you. Again, so for San Mateo County, we did some listening sessions. And in each part of the county that I went in, there were families who could not. Some peep some parents were walking away from work because of the the cost of childcare or not having childcare. I heard one mother describe childcare as Tetris.

Like, she how how she were gonna she had two children. So it is an an issue, and it's not something that is formally in cities taken care of. If you work shift work, where is the childcare for those who are working shift work as well? So I think in this is just trying to figure out how do we take care of our most vulnerable residents, those are our children, and ensuring that there's childcare so that parents can continue to work and then live a stable life.

Okay. I don't disagree with that. Okay. But what you're what you but what you just talked about had nothing to do with a general plan. Right?

It did not. Okay. Yeah.

So I just wanna be clear. I love children, y'all. I am supporting all the I'm just trying to understand what this has to how this belongs in the general plan. Thank you.

K. So we're gonna go with Stephanie Johnson and then Wilson.

Thank you, chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward, and I really wanna welcome supervisor Gauthier. It is so great to see you there. As you know, I represent the West Side Of San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County, so it's just really nice to see you advocating for something I believe in. And, you know, I sat on the board of supervisors in San Francisco for seven and a half years.

And, you know, I a general plan is a city's blueprint for how it is going to make decisions on how it develops and the needs of the city. And it lays out policy goals that really guide decisions about land use. And I think it's really important that childcare be part of that conversation. And when I was on, the board of supervisors, I worked with developers on special use districts to develop certain plots of land.

And the developer put forward a proposal for about 540 units of housing and office space.

And I knew office space wasn't really where we were headed in San Francisco as something that was necessary. Instead, I worked with that developer based on my own personal thoughts about what San Francisco needed to add to the project, which would result in 744 units of housing. And it would include affordable housing for seniors and a childcare center in that same center for the seniors. And that was based on what Catherine and Stephanie thought.

You know, based on probably that I'm a part of the sandwich generation.

I'm taking care of elderly parents and I have children on my own. But a general plan would help guide people that aren't necessarily thinking like Catherine and Stephanie in my position, to work with developers to know that if we're going to develop certain areas of land within our district, there's 11 districts in, in San Francisco. I was the supervisor of District 2. What are we what are we supposed to be looking at? What's guiding us?

What policies are guiding us as we work with developers? As we as we develop develop an agreements around special use districts? So for me, to basically come down and say, as part of the general plan, you better include childcare. You better think about schools. You better think about the things that we need as a city to take care of our citizens, and childcare should be at the very forefront of that.

So Aye, love this bill. I would love to be added as a co author if I'm not already, if you're still taking them.

Yeah.

And, I will be voting aye on this today.

Thank you. Thank you. Johnson.

Thank you, chair. I want to agree with the author. I think whether you love or hate childcare because the cost, you we all have a an affiliation with childcare. For me oh, and thank you to the council member and supervisor. It's really nice to see you up here advocating for something and working together.

I myself sat thirteen years at local government as mayor of my city. So general plans are hard, they're expensive, and they're long, and there's a lot of work that goes into it. So I'm struggling in full transparency to understand why we already have the authority. And I my colleague across the way here mentioned I believe there's seven elements in a general pen if I'm recalling correctly. I wasn't a planner, but I believe there are seven elements we are is that correct?

Yes. Okay. There are seven elements we already call for, and so I worry that adding this in is unfunded. It becomes an unfunded mandate for cities. Right?

And then the other part to that so you take the funding requirement and the flexibility away from local control. And I heard you say we're bringing the conversation, but we're forcing a mandate. We're not really bringing them to the conversation. So we're we are eroding local control.

But all that to say, the one of the other big issues I wanted to flag, and maybe you can help me with this if you've experienced it, we're adding a a new zoning, basically, and we're calling it whatever is it saying here a sensitive receptor?

And that could impede development. Yeah. It's it says That's before the amendments. The child care. Oh, okay.