Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Be a short sixty seconds. The Senate committee and local government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate committee on local government. The Senate welcomes the public in person and we are holding our committee hearings here in the 0 Street Building.

I ask all members of the committee to be present in Room 2200, I think almost all, so we can establish a quorum, begin our hearing. We have 10 bills on today's agenda, two of which are on consent. File item number eight, SB 1187. File item number 10, SB 1388. We have quorum.

Before we hear the presentation on the bills, let's establish quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Since both the bills on consented to Durazo bills, I'm sure you would be happy if I moved the consent agenda.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Laird. .

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Okay. That the consent bill will remain on call. That bill. Okay.

We will now yes. Senator Weber Pierson, SB 983, if you could come forward, please. Good morning. And you can start whenever you're ready.

Thank you, chair. Good morning, chair and members. I'm here to present SB 983, a bill that authorizes the port of San Diego to utilize job order contracting or JOC for their repair, remodeling, and repetitive work. The Port Of San Diego is a special district spanning 34 miles along the San Diego Bay and across five cities. The port manages a wide array of infrastructure including 23 public parks, six museums, two cargo terminals, and two cruise terminals.

Currently, when maintenance is needed on the properties on the port's property, the port must go out for competitive bidding for each individual project. This can result in major delays and can interrupt port operations. Instead, job order contracting establishes long term contracts with prequalified contractors. This reduces the time and resources spent on procurement activities, offers flexibility in project scope and timing, and is particularly beneficial for addressing unplanned or emergency repairs effectively.

The legislature has granted the authority to other special districts, including to San Mateo County transit district and to the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Specifically, this bill does the following. It establishes a pilot program allowing the port of San Diego to use the procurement method known as job order contracting, requires that the maximum dollar amount that may be awarded on any single job order not to exceed 1,000,000, requires that the contracts may be executed for an initial contract term of no more than twelve months, and may be extended or renewed for two subsequent annual terms, and sunsets the pilot program on 01/01/2037, among other provisions.

Before this committee hearing, we took author amendments to strike the reference to construction and the definition of work that is authorized to be completed under JOC. We have had several, productive conversations with labor organizations, including the building trades and the ILWU, and we will continue to have those discussions to ensure that established collective bargaining agreements are not affected. Here with me today is Jonathan Clay on behalf of the bill sponsor, the San Diego Unified Port District.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the Port Of San Diego. As the Senator mentioned, we are a special act district created in 1962 made up of our five member cities to manage state Thailand's around San Diego Bay. As detailed in the excellent committee analysis, SB 983 would allow the port to utilize shock authority similar to what cities, counties, special districts, school districts, and other state agencies have currently. The port would like to be able to use this authority.

We manage 34 miles around all of San Diego Bay, including operational terminals, public parks, fishing piers. So we're more than just simply a cargo moving. We are managing these lands on behalf of the state for public access, public benefit. Today, small routine projects must go through the same procurement process as a large scale project. As a result, minor repairs can take six to nine months and even though construction Menjivar the repair and, remodeling can only take a few weeks.

Costs increase due to the complexity and time of going through that process and critical infrastructure repairs are delayed because of this. JOC allows for a faster delivery for this critical work. These benefits are immediate, less disruption less disruption to the public and the tenants, lower overall project costs, and more reliable infrastructure. Bottom line, this is about giving the port the ability to respond quickly, responsibly, and efficiently to real world infrastructure needs. It also assures that the process right now, the process isn't aligned.

When a small waterline repair takes the same procurement as a large scale new construction project, it just doesn't benefit the public. Real quick, because and I'm running short on time, but I just want to say the port has had a small business program going since 1990. And in that, for example, as of our last three years, we've had small business participation ranging from anywhere from 24% to 42%.

Also, per Prop two zero nine back in the I think that was the nineties, our program is recent gender neutral, but I'll just share some of the numbers of the participating entities.

If you could wrap it up.

Yep. The last point then I'll just say, we have a project labor in in place since 2024. We have a number of small businesses, minority businesses, women owned businesses, and Non Union labor participating under that PLA. So here to answer any other questions.

Thank you very much. Any more witnesses in support? Okay. Any others who would like, me too in support of SB 983?

Thank you, madam chair, members

of the committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are, as the Senator alluded to, working with her on some language as

the bill moves forward. We appreciate those conversations with the port and the author. Not in support today, but just wanted to, throw that out there that we are, we are working on things. We appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone in opposition to SB 983? Please come forward. Good morning.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Senator and members. Richard Markson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. And quite frankly, I'm a little bit confused, because the amendments that the author referred to and the sponsor are to remove construction, from the authorization for job order contracting. Construction is routinely a part of job order contracting and I'm not sure how you make the distinction, between maintenance and repair that is not construction.

So we would certainly be looking forward to seeing that new definition that captures maintenance and repair but isn't a construction trade. The other point and and although, the sponsor did refer to the fact that the Port District, does have outreach, to small businesses. We think that from a local government perspective, JOC is a practical proven tool that allows agencies to complete small well, I had construction in my testimony, but obviously construction is not included.

But repair and maintenance projects quickly, efficiently with fewer administrative hurdles, that's where JOC really shines. They're not mega projects as the sponsor referred to.

They're smaller task order jobs, but SB 983 unfortunately undermines that. When you link job order contracting to the external demands of a project labor agreement, you remove the efficiencies of job order contracting and the savings that would accrue from the small jobs. And also, it is a real impediment to job order contracting being an important entry point for small contractors.

D V B E's and S B E's can use these small task order as an entrance to public works contracting to get their bonding capacity, to get experience doing public works contracts. Project labor agreement, despite what the sponsors say, from our perspective of merit shop contractors are an impediment to many small contractors wanting to participate in them.

And for those reasons, we are opposed with the project labor agreement language in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in key witness in opposition? Seeing none. Are there any me too's in opposition to SB 983?

Okay. Seeing none. I'll come to the dias. Yes. Senator Laird.

Thank you. I appreciate the amendments and and we'll be supporting the bill but was interested in your response to the testimony that was just given.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. So the initial, question that, the opposition had about how do you remove construction easily, you just remove it from the language. If you look at the bill, it does differentiate construction from renovation, maintenance, or improvement of buildings, wharfs, earths, facilities, utilities, infrastructure, and related systems performed by licensed contractors. And so, statutes already differentiated, different things, and so we just remove construction from that list.

So that, is how you do that. As far as the issue of the, project labor agreement, this bill actually aligns with current project labor agreement standards for the Port Of San Diego. The port's current PLA, including the report reporting requirements is only triggered for values of projects that are over $1,000,000. And so, this particular bill only allows for job ordering contracting to be used on single job orders that do not exceed $1,000,000.

And so, in that situation The bill does not change what is currently Harabedian, and and these projects are all under $1,000,000.

Then finally, as far as the issue of PLAs, with the port, nonunion contractors can work on both PLA and non PLA projects. They're not excluded. To participate in a PLA project, they just sign a project specific PLA for that job only and agree to follow the labor terms during the construction. As the sponsor was alluding to, the project's five year PLA agreement has been in place since February 2024, with 13 covered projects and prime projects made up of the following.

38% were small business, 15% were minority business, and 8% were disabled veteran business, enterprises.

And so what they have currently in place has not prevented small businesses nor minority businesses nor veteran businesses to be able to get contracts. In the last three fiscal years, the port's small business participation has ranged from 24 to 42%, and diverse contracting has ranged from 16 to 30% based on dollars awarded.

And thank you for that. And then on the building trades testimony, it sounds like you're continuing to talk.

Yes. We are continuing in conversations with them to ensure that the language is correct.

Okay. That's very important. But I appreciate I think you've made progress. You're continuing the conversations. I think you should have a chance to do it and at the appropriate time I would move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is is there anything that you want to add? I yes. Great. Okay.

Good. Any other questions or comments, Matthias? I just I just wanna thank the Senator for bringing this bill. We know that the port of San Diego is trying to add this authority for smaller repairs to help main maintain ongoing operations. This is gonna help the port save time and money for repairs.

So I'm happy, to be able to move this forward today, knowing that you're gonna continue conversations. And, particularly, I know you're regarding the scope of the work, you're gonna find a solution that that you need. So I'm sure all parties involved are gonna make this work. So anything else that you would like to say? Just wanna thank

the committee for hearing the bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The bill is moved by Senator Laird.

The motion is do passed to the Senate floor. Senators de Rosso? Aye. D'Orazzo, aye. Choi?

Choi, no. Adeghin? Ashby? Cervantes? Laird?

No.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Cerrato? No. Cerrato, no. Two to two.

Okay. This bill remains on call. Thank you. And item number two, I understand we're gonna move the order of this to allow Senator Jones to jump in front of I'm gonna jump to my bills if you're that generous. Are you that generous?

No. Oh, my God. I'm gonna make you last.

Don't give me any more trouble.

I I promised Senator Nilo this would take less than an hour. So

Okay. Senator Jones, you may proceed with, SB 1256.

Thank you, Chairwoman and members, and thank you for the deference of being able to, jump the line a little bit. I appreciate that. I'm here to, present SB 1256, a measure to prevent lawsuit abuse, nimbyism, and needless delays in the building of a much needed new homes for California families.

I wanna thank the chair and committee staff for their work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee's amendments, to help move the bill forward. Harmony Grove Village South is a planned development of 500 new homes in San Diego County.

San Diego County has identified a need for an additional 100,000 new homes by 2029. Litigation abuse like has been seen with Harmony Grove Village South is one of the main reasons that the goal will not be reached. This development has been twice approved by the board of supervisors and the planning commission. It has a PLA with the local labor's union local eighty nine, and the plans for the subdivision are fire safe, certified by local fire authorities.

The project has been tied up in litigation since 2018, has been updated to address secret concerns, and is shovel ready. However, the opponents of the project have continued to put the county of San Diego and the developers of the project through a litigation spin cycle over the same claims on issues that were already litigated in previous filings. That is why this measure is needed. With me today is Matt Henderson with the sponsor of the bill RCS Harmony Partners.

Mister Henderson, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Matt Henderson, counsel for RCS Harmony Partners, and I represent RCS Harmony in the ongoing litigation regarding its housing project in San Diego County. And I'm here this morning to hopefully talk myself out of a job in this regard. My client's project, as Senator Jones alluded to, has been pending since 2015. That's well over a decade.

But because of the ongoing litigation, it is nowhere near to breaking ground. And as Senator Jones alluded to, the county has approved this from a local government perspective twice in 2018 and in 2025. And frankly, it is cases like this as a as a litigator in the land use space. I can tell you it is cases like this that help explain why California is facing such an acute and significant housing shortage.

And frankly, if the state, my home state wants out of the housing crisis, it has to build out. This is a good project. It includes both affordable units and is supported by the local union. The main issue that's been brought up in this context is wild fire, concerns about wildfire which of course we're all concerned about. The Court of Appeals opinion in this case, handed down in 2021 is 78 pages long which is not, not the longest but certainly not the shortest. Approximately 23 pages of the appellate court's opinion addresses concerns and issues with wildfire.

These wildfire risks have been exhaustively studied. The project includes a 100 page fire plan and an extensive wildfire risk analysis and a wildland fire evacuation plan. Both the San Diego County Fire Authority and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District accepted the fire plan. The EIR in this case actually concluded that this would reduce fire risks in the area and this is something that needs to be considered.

New development in California is hopefully going to be more fire resistant than existing development in California because of the concerns about wildfire and these are now being baked into projects such as my clients.

The EIR also concluded the project exceeds the applicable fire codes. So this issue has been litigated before it's the the project opponents are trying to litigate it again and this is going to jam up the project, cost my client additional hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars and that just makes development of housing in California harder. And so, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witness key witness in support? Okay. Any anyone in support of s P1256 as a me too? Okay.

Seeing none. Opposition to SB 1256.

Good morning. You have, two minutes. Thank you.

Good day, Chair and committee members. My name is Gabriel Tolson. I'm speaking on behalf of the Elfin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council in San Diego and endangered habitats league dedicated to improved land use. These organizations are lit are are in litigation challenging the county's unlawful approval of the Harmony Grove Village South project. The product proponent is a main supporter of SB 1256.

According to wildfire scientists and public safety experts, the community of Harmony Grove located in the author's district faces a very real risk of entrapment during a wildfire evacuation due to a lack of secondary exit. They found out about this bill which would undermine fire safety review just days ago. This is a special interest bill aimed at intervening in an active court case on behalf of a single developer seeking to bypass local safety laws.

The legislature should not step in to rescue an unsafe project or shield it from judicial review. This bill would prevent the county from holding the county accountable under the subdivision map act for failing to enforce its own fire safety ordinance.

The result is the subdivision without required secondary access, which as we see repeatedly in wildfire disasters is crucial for the safety of rural communities. We support housing, but not housing that bypasses basic safety protections. This bill also misrepresents the law. It suggests the prior CEQA litigation eliminates the need to comply with current subdivision and fire safety requirements. That is incorrect and such a dangerous precedent.

Furthermore, this case is not a repeat CEQA challenge. After the prior approvals were rescinded, a new project was submitted that triggered new legal obligations including fire safety review which did not occur. The fire chief has since stated publicly that quote, today you could not pass that project without secondary access. The failure to obtain safety review for the new map is a new procedural violation and is not a recycled challenge.

Finally, while proposed amendments narrow the bill scope to the litigation at hand, this still sets a terrible precedent for the state and still throws the town council and endangered habitats league out of court at the direct expense of public safety planning.

The new action allowed by the amendments would also be time barred. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in, opposed to SB 1256? Any me too's? Okay. Seeing none, comments?

Senator Laird.

Thank you. And this bill has been in print for two and a half months. My question of you, the excuse me, the opponent. Thank you. Because the opposition was sort of late. Is there any place you think you could go in relation to this bill or you just unalterably opposed to the bill?

I would have to confer with the team of opposition and get back to you all

Okay. Any other questions or comments?

Yeah. This bill is very clear because it's seeking to prevent duplicative litigations against the housing and the development of projects by barring subdivision action lawsuit when substantially similar claims have already been litigated on the CEQA and that has been cleared. And we talk about always affordability and unaffordable housing is the one of the main reasons for shortage of housing.

But at the same time, under the CEQA requirement, environmental review requirements, they are just a simple without no litigation alone, it takes tens of thousand dollars money wise in application fee alone. And at the same time, the permit process is year one two two years.

In this case, through because of the litigations, about ten years. More than that. More than ten years dragged. And now I'm hearing the opponent's main key issue is that fire safety issue of that village. The number how how how many homes are included in the plan?

Almost 500.

500 hundred homes, we call it in my town as villages, the different villages in in in so that particular section of fire safety, that is a really big concern when we face so much of fire hazard with wildfires. So that's a legitimate concern. So but the the key word I heard from you was that lack of a secondary entry.

So why proponent maybe you you can advise to that that did you hear there the reasons for litigations is lacking secondary entry because that can be easily solved? That was yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Choi. The issue of secondary access was addressed in the initial CEQA lawsuit. It was fully litigated and addressed in the Court of Appeals decision. And secondary access is not the only means for alleviating risk from wildfire. Shelter in place, and other, project features that were built in and specifically addressed.

You had not one but two different fire districts look at this plan and okay it. And fire districts are not in the habit of approving projects that exacerbate rather than reduce wildfire risk. So, again, that issue has been litigated. It's been before a court. A court looked at this, looked at what the county did, and okayed it.

So you simply won the trial. However, you did not satisfy what they are talking about the the the secondary access that did you provide that that access? A second

The secondary access has not been provided. There are other project features that alleviate the need for secondary access. So the fire safety has been fully evaluated without the secondary access and found to be sufficient.

Oh, okay. The opponent points are are providing shelters in case of

Yes. There's shelter in place. There's a number of different, what they call layers in the in the project providing different levels of fire protection. And this is why both the two different fire districts have looked at it, concluded that this is not only consistent and the EIR con concluded, it exceeds the requirements of the code.

So This

is better than a code compliant project.

So fire authorities over your area all approved that your fire safety issue Exactly. Is no longer a problem.

It's been looked at by the the officials. It's been looked at by the courts, and yet we're still stuck in, if you'll pardon the expression, litigation, how?

Opponent, sir, I would like to know, when the litigation through the lit lit litigation, the fire authorities, you know, offer that district already, now feel that is not the issue and that they approve approved the project. Do you think you have more authority over fire, district and they approved the the the project?

Well, I'd like to begin by clarifying the challenge at hand. That is distinct from the fire safety issues raised during the initial 2018 challenge, which was against the EIR. In this case, opponents are challenging the approval of the subdivision map, tentative map approved by the county at October 25, which was done without obtaining the local fire chief's recommendations for reducing wildfire risk.

So I'm sure through the retrial, all kinds of testimonies or witnesses and cross examination, whatever, and that's that's a nonpartisan issue. It's a public safety issue. So, obviously, the defendant has cleared all the objections that the plaintiff has brought up at that point. And then other than the intent intentional drag of the project for whatever the reasons that the unknown and using that fire safety issue and bringing up another litigation over and over and make the project to just go away and give up.

So I think this is the some some something general public would not really understand and compounding the the litigation cost and in construction time is all about the money, and that will drive up the cost of construction.

And that would not help the the the key issue of California, affordability of housing. So I fully understand the the intent of this bill. Once that that the issue has been cleared through the court, that should not be litigated second time, third time, etcetera, and dragging the project down and driving up the cost. For that reason, I think this bill makes sense. I will support the bill.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So the arguments in this case or in in this issue, really, if if we were to apply those in California, we wouldn't build anything anywhere. All of Orange County used to be in the same situation. All of the Inland Empire is in the same situation. Building has to be done somewhere if we are going to accommodate the housing that we need in in California.

What this is really about is people don't like that type of development going near their rural development. And so, any excuse will do. As far as the and and a lot of times, it's the fire stuff. Everybody goes to the fire stuff because everybody's very sensitive to that. And and in regards to that, it's all about how you mitigate it.

And and this project, think they've shown over and over that it can be mitigated without the secondary access. Sometimes these accesses, you you can't the secondary access would go through a a preserve, and you can't do it. So if you're not going so you have to mitigate it another way. And then sometimes that other way is way more expensive than a secondary access laying a road out the back, but it has to be done. And and and they're very effective.

They're just safe refuge areas, you know, extra water facilities where they might need it, extra setbacks, buffer zones, vegetation management around the around the project. All of that lends to what what the proponents are saying, which is we've mitigated for this. So this is just like delay tactics over and over and over, and we can't do it in California. We have to call it and say that's enough.

And otherwise, we are gonna fall farther and farther behind, which means more and more expensive housing that nobody can afford.

And and at that point, we won't have the population in the future that we need to support California. So I'll be supporting this. And with that, I will move the bill.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, Senator Jones, I'm sure like you, I take the wildfire concerns Very serious.

Very seriously. LA continues to recover from the fires of last year. So ensuring that we're building in a fire safe manner is very critical. We heard very late from opposition on on this issues and how it might affect the bill might affect the if the development is in compliance with wildfire with fire safety requirements. I think the agreement amendments that you've agreed to today are an important step to ensure that there are avenues for legitimate challenges, to take place.

But just we got this opposition yesterday. We haven't I haven't fully vetted their issues, but I'm prepared to support this bill today. Thank you. I'd like to see wildfire issues addressed before the bill comes up further, addressed before the bill comes up on the Senate floor, and we'll be in communication with you as to whether or not I continue to support the bill. Thank you. But would you like to close?

Sure. Absolutely. Thank you. And you are correct. I am very sensitive to fire issues.

I was elected to the Santee City Council in December 2002. In the 2003, the Cedar Fire tore through the East Eastern portion of San Diego County, killing 11 people and destroying multiple homes. And so that was my initiation into public service as an elected official and public safety responding to those issues.

And then again in 2007, the Witch Creek fire tore through the Eastern portion of San Diego County from the far eastern areas all the way into the city of San Diego. So I'm very, very sensitive to those issues and the memories of those of that destruction stay with me.

The one thing that the opposition said that I agree with and hope will happen is that this will set a precedent for the rest of the state. The median home price in San Diego County right now is $1,000,000 $1,000,000 is the median home price in the County Of San Diego. The reason for that is there is a shortage of homes.

The other thing that I hope is already setting a precedent across the state is home builders in my district are already building new projects to the most up to date and creative fire safe principles currently science currently available.

So much so that a project in Escondido, a brand new project in Escondido just opened up last last year was recognized by the state as one of the as the most fire safe new development in the state of California that the California insurance commissioner came down to the ribbon cutting to be a part and other state officials came down to be a part of that ribbon cuttings.

So I have all the confidence that San Diego County and in particular, the home construction in my district, which is mixed of rural and urban, flat and hilly, that the the most creative up to date fire science is gonna be coming out of this area. So with that, thank you for your support and I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Welcome. The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. [Roll Call]

Okay. We're going back to item two, SB 992. Senator Niello? I'm not used to seeing you wearing jeans.

Yeah. I'm dressed up today.

Senator, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 992. This is a bill that seeks to make permanent an existing allowance for special excuse me, for small Special Districts to comply with important financial oversight by the County Auditor. SB 992 deletes an existing sunset that authorizes a special district with a budget of less than $150,000 to engage in agreed upon procedures, agreed upon procedures engagement in lieu of full traditional audit.

The bill also increases the $150,000 threshold allowing districts with annual revenues not above $250,000 to utilize annual financial compilations or agreed upon procedures engagements. In other words, it is eliminating the sunset and increasing the threshold to $250,000 Obviously, still very small special districts.

For lean special districts with smaller budgets, other procedures still provide fiscal oversight without the major cost of a full that a full audit would be. SB 992 keeps important safeguards intact such as ensuring qualifying districts have their expenditures and revenues transacted through the County's Financial System. And importantly, this allowance cannot be utilized for more than five consecutive years.

I have with me today Matt Silverling with the State Association of County Auditors, and Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association to testify in support of the bill.

Good morning. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, chair members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts including fire districts, health care districts, public cemetery districts, water districts, if I didn't already say that, geological hazard abatement districts, and more. CSDA is a proud cosponsor of Senate Bill 992 back in 2015.

The California Special Districts Association partnered with the then chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee, Katya Chajin, to pass AB 2613 that rounded out the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities that are found in this section of law.

Absent any legislative intervention, however, that suite of supplementary audit flexibilities will be reduced and it'll diminish. And so SB 992 is that legislative intervention that preserves the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities for these smaller special districts whose money is managed by county systems. We figured also while we're in there, given that the last time that there was a significant update to this code section, the dollar threshold was $150,000.

We recognize that $150,000 in 2015 doesn't quite buy you the same amount of things as it does in the present day. And so we've revised that figure up to $250,000 to avail a similar amount. However, fewer amount of Independent Special Districts to make use of the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities.

For these reasons, again, proud cosponsors and we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Madam chair and members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. Without being too repetitive, Mister Detwiler covered almost everything. This bill does build on an existing framework for a system and a process and a tailored approach that's been in place for over a decade. The monies that we, are auditing here do flow through the county, general fund, and they are limited to the very smallest special districts, currently a $150,000 or less.

We are adjusting that to $250,000 or less moving forward based on inflation, but this is a very important tool. It allows county auditors to maintain, an appropriate balance of fiscal oversight while not overly burdening small special districts with the cost of audits, which in some cases may completely wipe them out, based on their small cash flow. So we urge you, support and an aye vote for this to allow us to move forward doing what we do. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone who wants to add a Me too in support? No. I see none. Is there anyone in opposition to SB 992?

Seeing none. Any questions or comments, Senator Laird?

Oh, I appreciate the the mention of Cacho. And my district overlaps with his and and do we have many special districts that I'm sure this is applies to there. It's always nice to align with the auditors on something. So that's great. And I noticed there's no opposition and at the appropriate time I would move the bill.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, would you like to wrap up?

Well, I appreciate the testimony of Mister Detwiler and Mister Siverling. I mispronounced his name and I apologize for that. But with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a move to the bill. Moved. Bill is moved by Senator Laird.

The motion is do passed to Senate floor. Senator Durazo?

Aye.

Durazo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Arreguin? Ashby? Cervantes?

Cervantes, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. 5-0.

The vote is 5-0. We remain on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Senator Groove. Okay. Senator Groove.

You're here to present SB 1115. Good morning.

Good morning, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair and members. I introduced Senate Bill 1115 in response to the recent dysfunction and mismanagement fail and the management failures of the Tulare County Public Cemetery District. The five member appointed board of trustees for the district recently experienced significant conflicts that raised questions about the district's governance and operations. The district has a history of operational problems including eight disinterments.

Eight disinterments since 2016 to address incorrect burials, allegations of excessive spending, ongoing litigation and poor conditions of the grounds. Colleagues, please keep in mind that this is where our loved ones are buried. Last year, the district's regular meetings were quite frankly a joke at best and a disaster at worst. One meeting was held and held open. One meeting was held open or opened and closed within ten seconds.

Other meetings have not allowed public comment and trustees even called the police to remove upset members of the public. And the officer that arrived and saw the situation did not move the remove those members of the public. In May, three of the five, members resigned saying they could not work with the chair, leaving the district unable to make a quorum. Things got so bad the company that insures the district threatened to withhold coverage which would have essentially shut down the district.

Under current law, the board only has two options to address the trustee misconduct.

Do nothing or remove the trustees and appoint itself to as a cemetery district board. So the board voted to assume control of the cemetery district in June. SB 1115 gives the Tulare board of supervisors a third option which should which should a situation like this arise again, to remove a trustee individually and reappoint a replacement. The supervisors are currently in the process of transit transitioning Cemetery District back to newly appointed Board of Trustees.

The county is asking, the legislature to establish an alternative process to provide a clear authority to address substantial neck neglect of duty, missed contact, or situations that prevent the board from fulfilling its responsibilities to the community.

SB 1115 provides a targeted solution by authorizing the Tulare County Supervisors to remove a trustee for specific causes through a resolution while also ensuring due process for that trustee with proper notice and the opportunity for the trustee to respond. I know the Special Districts Association is in opposition of the bill, and they're concerned about the infringement on the operation of an independent board. But this board needs infringement. That's all there is to it.

However, the supervisors are involved in another way, and they're appointing the board, that functions properly in taking over the operations and the conditions that re when conditions reach this point.

And frankly, like I said, this district is a disaster. I look forward to the continued discussions with CSDA to see if they can better define conditions that will trigger the board to becoming involved.

I understand their concerns, but we have a situation where our loved ones are being buried in a Tulare County cemetery and it's it's unhinging for the families themselves to have a member disinterred disinterment happen to a member of their family and go through the process of reburial and to rehash those wounds that hurt and then the complete dysfunction of the board with not having insurance to be able to even operate is something that needs to be addressed. And I appreciate your aye vote.

It's a district issue and it specifically needs to be addressed.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Oh, with me here is I'm sorry. I have Jason Britt, who is the county CEO and also the, chief of staff to the board of supervisors and would just like their testimony as well.

Okay. Good morning. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Britt. I'm the county administrative officer for Tulare and have been the co manager of the Tulare Cemetery for the last ten months. My colleague, Israel Sotelo, our board chief of staff is also here with me today. I'm asking the committee to support SB 115.

Tulare County has been experiencing varying degrees of disruption to regular business because cemetery boards have not been able to conduct orderly meetings, have a quorum, or simply have individuals who take their role as a cemetery trustee seriously. Although the Senator spoke about Tulare Cemetery District specifically, I will tell you I have over 10 districts, cemetery districts in my in my county and all of them have have experienced a varying degree of the problems she has spoke about.

Under the current law, of course, we are The Board of Supervisors is limited in their role and how they can appoint and replace a committee member. Having the Board of Supervisors appoint themselves as trustees is a significant disruption to the community, cemetery staff, and county staff. In the recent takeover of the local cemetery district, we learned it requires comprehensive financial audits, performance evaluations, process and procedures to be analyzed, modified, implemented, payroll and accounting systems integrated with the county.

A number of of things that have to be done. But above all, trust has to be reestablished with the community to entrust the barrel of their loved ones in the in the cemetery district. While the county has proven itself capable to turn around a cemetery district, we strongly believe that this business remains with cemetery districts and with the people who have the passion to operate those districts.

So we feel like SB 115 is the middle ground in a system that currently forces the board to either do nothing while dysfunction, threatens the respectable burial of the dead or completely take over a district that might otherwise self correct under proper leadership. We believe this bill gives Tulare County a narrower and streamlined option to remove an individual trustee and appoint a replacement to ensure the district can function effectively and optimally for their constituents they serve.

And I would just add that for cemetery districts specifically, the board appoints them. They're not elected.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

In an effort in an effort to not, repeat too much, I just want to acknowledge that there is a process in which the board can intervene, but we really have found this process to be, very costly, very time consuming, and overall disruptive and difficult in practice. The exempt the proposal through SB 1115 to remove an individual, trustee, it is an unprecedented proposal, but it's it's born out of decades of cemetery district dysfunction in Tulare County.

Dysfunction, include including but not limited to repeated grand jury investigation, censuring of trustees, threats of violence, and numerous allegations of financial mismanagement, And as previously stated, the near cancellation of the district's insurance due to board instability where the insurance authority specifically stated or specifically directed that a change in the district's leadership was necessary in order for them to have the confidence to continue to provide coverage.

The county has no interest in assuming control over cemetery districts which is why we're requesting this narrow option that would allow either the district themselves to self correct or the board of supervisors to remove a dysfunctional or disengaged in trustee before their dysfunction threatens the district's ability to operate effectively.

And then finally, we do understand that there is opposition but we're optimistic that we can work with the CSDA to address their concerns. We respectfully ask for your support and are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1115 that would like to join? Okay. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition to SB 1115?

Please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning, chair members. Marcus Detwiler again with the California Special Districts Association, CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts including healthcare districts, water districts, fire districts, mosquito and vector abatement districts, and public cemetery districts. We would like to thank the author for her commitment to working on this bill and addressing a very serious issue that is affecting, Tulare County.

I'd also like to express gratitude to the committee staff who has worked very tirelessly on public cemetery law, which has proven to be an unexpectedly lively issue.

And we are also hopeful that we can arrive at a area where there's mutual agreement as it relates to a middle ground for what this bill envisions and what it currently exists in law. However, CSDA does remain opposed at this time. We do have very foundational concerns about this approach and hope to see those resolved before this bill continues. Thank you.

Okay. Any opposition? Any others in opposition? Okay. Seeing none.

Questions, comments by our members? Yes. Senator Laird.

My in laws are actually buried into Larry County and now I'm gonna figure out whether the cemetery is in one of these districts. I appreciate the author for bringing this bill. I know what you're trying to address. I know you're continuing conversations with the Special District Association and at the appropriate time I will move the bill.

Thank you, sir.

Any other comments or questions? Okay. I also appreciate what you're doing and taking the time, to fix this.

Thank you, ma'am.

Sounds like a horrible, horrible problem that really impacts you personally. So I also have a family member in, I think it's Smith Mountain Cemetery. So I'll be glad to be supportive today. Would you like to wrap up?

Just thank you very much, ma'am, for your comments and Senator Laird for your comments. I appreciate the understanding that this is a district bill and we really have a responsibility to our constituents to make sure that their loved ones are taken care of. And, although, CSDA is an wonderful organization, this particular district is a complete disaster and there's no other definition and way to describe it. And I appreciate your eye vote.

Thank you very much. Senator Laird moves the bill.

Aye.

Choi?

The motion is do passed to the Senate floor. Senator D'Arso?

Aye.

Choi, aye.

Laird, aye. Seyarto?

Aye

Seyarto, aye. Six zero.

Bill remains on call.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you all very much.

Good morning.

Next, we go to item four, SB 1193. Senator Wahab. Good morning.

Thank you, guys. I first wanna just really commend the staff and their work, with my team on this particular bill. I'm here today to present SB 1193. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the chair and committee staff for working with us even till last night.

SB 1193 will promote good governance by creating a transparency framework for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to follow before awarding discretionary funds to a community organization, non profit organization, or private entity.

Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of any county to appropriate and expend money from the general fund of the county to establish county programs or to fund other programs that are necessary to meet the social needs of the public. Currently, Alameda County's policy on discretionary spending lacks guardrails that serve the best interest of the public for certifying that programs are fulfilling their contractual obligations.

The Alameda County grand jury has identified that there has been unchecked spending of discretionary funds by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. In fact, dual roles have been played by county employees in connection with discretionary funds as both a county employee and as a co founder, chief executive officer and a board, director of you know, said non profits or organizations which has led to the disbursement of discretionary funds without a competitive or an equitable process in place.

The board of supervisors has publicly declined implementing the recommendations that were suggested by the grand jury report. Alameda County's refusal to act brings us to where we are today. Discretionary accounts are designed to support non profits and community organizations have become a slush funds for Board Members to prioritize groups that serve their own agenda and not the public's needs which constitutes a conflict of interest and a failure of good governance practices by Alameda County.

To ensure the integrity and transparency of discretionary funds spending in Alameda County SB 1193 will require a majority vote for from Alameda County board of supervisors before awarding discretionary funds to a community organization.

SB 1193 will also require the board to document and post on their website appropriate appropriated discretionary funds including the planned and actual costs of the program our project the spending timeline the purpose of the program funding and the eligibility requirements to receive funding the total dollars awarded so the public as taxpayers we can all see what our tax dollars are going to. Why this organization got them and how they were spent.

To avoid interruptions in county health services especially during this time SB 1193 will exempt discretionary funds awarded to Alameda Health System. And to ensure that a supervisor's candidacy does not interfere with county programs the bill will allow supervisors running in an election to vote on discretionary awards that benefit the county as a whole or outside their district.

False claims from board of supervisors have been made regarding SB 1193 suggesting it will prevent a non profit and community organization from receiving discretionary funds. But in reality, SB 1193 will simply require the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to follow a transparent and documented process for awarding discretionary funds. This is purposeful mis dis misdirection aiming to combat transparency with false narratives.

SB 1193 will not eliminate or prohibit any discretionary funds funding for community organizations or non non profits. Non profits and community orgs that currently receive funds in good faith will continue to receive them and can continue to apply for these discretionary funds. I wanna highlight that there have been many other conversations about why this applies to Alameda County. In fact, there are many other counties that have these guardrails in place already.

In fact, last year, Orange County's AB 2946 by Assemblymember Valencia was passed and the governor signed that into law. This bill only applies to Alameda County because other counties such as Riverside, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Diego, and San Bernardino and so many others have either implemented similar transparent requirements on their own or through legislation.

And the sad reality is that a lot of the legislation to implement guardrails usually happens after some crisis takes place. Some corruption takes place and it hits the deuce. We have to be, especially in this committee, ensure that guardrails are there so that everyone is protected and this is transparent and this is very clear to the public. Alameda County refuses to regulate itself and this is not the first time.

Alameda County has a history of ignoring grand jury reports in a wide variety of spaces. Alameda County refuses to regulate itself and this legislation is of their own making. I have met with supervisors from Alameda County and it's interesting because several of them in one on one conversations have stated that they would love to implement such a process. But they feel the pressure from other members. And they have refused to collaborate on even creating a bill that combines both the public's concerns and the board's obligations.

Failing to provide amendments. Failing to have the conversation of what is the concern and how can we address it together. When counties clearly disclose their budgets, funding, revenues, and spending, non profit community organizations, can better plan their programs, identify opportunities for collaboration, and align their efforts with the public need. Transparency in county spending benefits everyone. It ensures a fair and competitive environment where organizations can trust that funding decisions are made openly and solely based on clear criteria.

SB 1193 will create a more open and accountable process to build public confidence, support informed civic engagement, and enable the board of supervisors to operate more effectively in addressing community challenges. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses? Witness and support. Please come to the

Oh, just to me too. Pat Moran with the Retired Public Employees Association supports the bill. We support transparency whether it's in retirement systems or local government funding and, we request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 1193? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1193? Good morning. Please come forward and you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Amy Costa and I'm here on behalf of the County of Alameda. Unfortunately, we're here to respectfully oppose SB 1193. Alameda County is the seventh largest, most populous county in the state. We are one of the most diverse regions in the state with 33.3% of our population being foreign born and 90 languages spoken throughout our county.

We provide for the basic needs of the most vulnerable populations in our communities. We share the Senator's goal for public transparency and the use of taxpayer funds. Alameda County has one of the most transparent budget processes in the state. We convene budget work groups which include not only our board of supervisors and department heads, but also members of the public.

These meetings in addition to the adoption and discussion of the budget are noticed and open to the public, And all budget documents are posted to the county's website.

As a matter of course, all contracts in excess of $25,000 are brought before the full board for approval at a regularly scheduled board meeting. Much of how the county provides services is through contracts with community based organizations, other government agencies, and non profits. Unfortunately, the bill in print, the definition of discretionary funds is overly broad and unduly restrictive.

Last year, the county contracted over $1,000,000,000 with two seventy eight community based organizations for a variety of services, including, 134,000,000 specifically for our public CBO contract amount and the services provided. Our board and staff comply with state required ethics training requirements under AB 1234, the training requirements of SB 827, which include training on fiscal administration and ethics.

Lastly, our board offices can utilize their prior year savings to provide funding to community based organizations. This is based upon the savings achieved by individual board offices. Our auditor has created a form that each office fills out which the sergeants passed out to members of the committee. These requests are put forward as board items and discussed in full open public Board Meetings as non consent items and require a super majority four fifths vote.

The form has recently been amended to include additional measures to ensure no conflict of interest exists in the awarding of those funds. The County Of Alameda is fiscally responsible and sound. Alameda County maintains top tier bond ratings from the major bond rating agencies including Moody's, S and P, and Fitch indicating the highest credit quality and the lowest risk.

Sorry. If you could wrap up, please.

Thank you. We are concerned that as counties face the impacts of HR 1 which the Senate has discussed frequently, as a matter of course, that this would create undue burdens for the county in administering these funds to ensure that we serve the most vulnerable members of our community. For those reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1193? Please come forward as I meet too.

Chair Durazo and members of the committee. My name is Edith Cuevas and I'm speaking on behalf of Alameda County supervisor David Halbert in opposition to SB 1193. This bill targets Alameda County even though we already have strong safeguards in place, such as the fourth, fifth vote requirement on any funding, and with all funding decisions already being public information. This bill will negatively impact the most vulnerable members of our county. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1193? Seeing none, come to the dais. Questions or comments? Senator Arreguin?

I have a number of questions before the opposition witness. Thank you for being here today. So you touched upon this in your statement that and I think this bill specifically focus on the Board of Supervisors fiscal management reward program. You touched upon this in your comments that any savings that are achieved on an annual basis from a supervisor's office budget can then be spent for discretionary grants to community based organizations. And that that's what the fiscal management work program is.

That's correct.

So there's no allocation from the county to a supervisors office for discretionary grants. It's whatever surplus money is available in salary savings or savings on office office expenses.

That's correct, Senator. Okay.

On average, like how how much money do supervisors have available in surplus fix?

It varies wildly and the last figure I saw was actually in the grand jury audit brought forward by the Senator. It included a table that included the different amounts And there was a wide variance candidly amongst the office. From 2016. That's correct, Senator. That audit.

Has there been any audit or complaint filed as to the propriety of how these funds have been spent since that 2016 audit?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay could you maybe provide a description of the types of of programs that are funded through the FMR program?

Absolutely. It's at the discretion of the Board Members, but sometimes it'll be things like homelessness services. Love never fails is one of the CBOs that was referenced in the grand jury report, and they're an organization that provides housing and housing support services, in the community. Sometimes it's been for, emergency shelters. It really varies based on, the discretion of the board member that brings it forward.

And then, of course, the full board has to vote for it by four fifths.

Okay. So we received the the copy of the the form that supervisors have to complete in order to request that a funding award be put on a board of supervisors agenda. So talks about the organization mission, purpose of funds, alignment with the county's vision 2026, term of the agreement. Could you maybe talk about the conflict of interest rules that currently exist and how those how those apply to these types of discretionary grants?

Yes. I mean, like all public entities were subject to conflict of interest and it's included in the county's accounting manuals and procedures. And as I mentioned, this body is heard and passed two measures specifically, AB 1234 and a subsequent measure on that requires, elected officials to receive conflict of interest training, as well as fiscal administration training, which the county abides by.

Okay. And have you had an opportunity to see the committee amendments? I just saw them literally when I came into my office this morning. And I wanna just express my appreciation to the chair and the committee staff for proposing these amendments to the author which I I believe you've accepted. Have you had an opportunity to look at these amendments?

I did very very late last night.

Okay. So it limits the use of these funds for an entity that that provides health care services, human services, education, homelessness, cultural resources, or other services to the residents of the supervisorial district, as well as travel and related expenses, marketing and economic development programs. That seems to encompass a lot of what you talked about.

Doesn't it?

No. My understanding correct, Jonathan, is that those those things the statutory construction, this is a bit confusing, so maybe you can clarify that if you're a health care services or human services or education or homelessness that you would still be eligible to receive these discretionary funds. Correct? Yes. Yes.

That's my my reading of it. I was a little confused about the statutory construction, the statement. So this does seem to nearly limit, the application of this bill to things that most likely encompass what these grants are for. And Aye, you know, I I will just be honest. Up until I read these amendments, I did have concerns about this because I thought the definition of discretionary funds was too broad.

And I didn't wanna prevent Alameda health system, which is facing significant fiscal challenges for example, from being able to receive county funds or or other things that serve a particular public purpose. So I have no further questions. I just I just really wanna get a better sense of, you know, what are things that are funded, what are the existing conflict of interest rules.

I'll just say as well that, you know, you know, we both represent Alameda County. And I I frankly think that having transparency is something that we should do throughout the state of California.

It shouldn't be limited to one particular county. And it's unfortunate that these bills have come up on a case-by-case basis given, specific, you know, reports or, you know, criminal or legal legal legal circumstances. I I frankly think that we should look at doing this in every county in the state of California.

There's no there's no reason why there shouldn't be a blackout period. There's no reason that there shouldn't be reporting on some of these things.I'll also note that I think the board already does a lot of this already. So I'll I'll, I'll stop there and I may weigh in later. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Wahab. Thank you. The first and foremost, I I do wanna say that there's actually several buckets of discretionary funds, and, I think when a budget is passed, you know, I've served on local council. I believe you've served on local council and being a mayor and many of us.

So it's quite interesting. The, the, the budget itself to, to quote the actual budget and not necessarily, hey, you guys have a budget. It highlights that there's a number of different discretionary funds. So for example, the $15,000,000 proposed supervisors discretionary fund is a one time pot of county money split among the five supervisors, intended for non profit CBOs and projects. Yet, there has been significant amount of money and conflicts of interest that have been clearly documented.

Number one is the Board Members and their staff serve as a board of these organizations requesting funding across the board. There is no form 700 for any of the board of supervisors staff at all. There is no clear effort to highlight is there a conflict of interest. And cons consistently, the public has reached out to us to point at conflicts of interest or perceived conflict of interest. We are trying to limit that and reestablish trust within Alameda County and the Board of Supervisors to the amendments that were referenced.

We have ensured that non profits are protected as best as possible. I have been a board member of several different non profits in Alameda County. And I know how difficult it is for smaller non profits to even compete. So I I flag several of these concerns that even in fact, for example, that when there is the leftover funds, which is separate from the $15,000,000 and I wanna be clear, of the FMRP that was referenced. This is actually a separate bucket of money.

So there's several different buckets of money, and the fact that it's not clear to the public and many of them are on consent without any real conversation or negotiation. These funds can be distributed by supervisors with limited public debate, often through consent calendar votes making it hard for the public to track who gets the money. You know, there have been religious organizations that have gotten funding. There have been restaurants that have gotten funding.

There have been associations and private entities that have gotten funding with very limited understanding of what was the public good except for that the owner of that business was friends with one of the supervisors.

So, Alameda County and I wanna flag that the Alameda County, legislative members, the assembly members and the senators serve on a task force that I started because there was another grand jury report and audit that clearly showed Alameda County is failing the children of Alameda County when we're talking about, you know, children at risk and immediate calls and mandated reporting and much more.

They're the seventh largest county in the state of California, but they don't even actually address the calls within because of the lack of hiring staff, the lack of, you know, actually doing their job. They have a youth transitional facility that was closed because of, rumors of, you know, 12 year olds being prostituted and drug use and much more. The money that they have should be used for the services and social services that are required by law.

And this slush fund, has been used in a very questionable manner to the larger public. That is why this bill is being brought forward. We have a number of constituents that have provided clear documented evidence of concerns that I think will elevate even past the legislature.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. I have a question about the, earlier we alluded to the amount of this, this funding, and you said there's a wide range. We asked for the amount. So what is the range? What was this low and what was the high?

Across the board offices and the grand jury report that the Senator brought up, it was 9,000,000. And again, that was in twenty sixteen seventeen.

So I'm gonna talk a little bit about the real world and or in relationships with elected officials and what you see from the perspective of of citizens that are out there. Yes, their favorite charities who who are run by their friends wind up getting those monies. And nobody knows how that gets allocated. The other Board Members don't vote against them because they wanna do the same thing. And so everybody just kinda goes along with whatever that supervisor wants to do.

That was touted as a good reason to become a supervisor because you have more money to be able to spread around. And I know a lot of the a lot of times, it's very, you know, it's it's for very good purposes, but sometimes it's not. And that's what I think this bill is trying to do is is not have the ones that it's not just be able to get done anyway.

And, and and so I don't think it's going to impact the, the good work that people are trying to do out there. All it's going to do is make sure that, that good work isn't being biased by personal preferences as opposed to community needs.

And so with that, I'll give it back to the chair. Thank you.

Any more questions or comments? None?

I won't. Okay. In looking at the amendments, I just wanna suggest if this bill moves out today, just a few things for the author's consideration. One, you know, the provision under you're not allowing for the award of discretionary funds at a special meeting or a consent calendar might be too restrictive.

So, you know, I understand what you're trying to do, but, you know, there may be circumstances where, you know, there are legitimate services or nonprofit purposes, and I don't wanna limit the ability for those awards to be granted if they follow all the guidelines in this bill.

And then with respect to the provisions under subsection e, you know, sometimes it's for a non profit, but sometimes it's support like a community event. And so in those instances, you know, eligibility requirements indirect cost may not be applicable. So my understanding is there's is a range of different types of things that have been funded. Some are like sponsoring an event for example, or supporting a particular non profit organization. And so there are there are a range of purposes.

And so just be mindful of that to to ensure there's sufficient flexibility is is another thing I would raise as well. Thank you. And and I think the chair and I actually spoke about this ourselves last night. So that has been taken into consideration. Happy to answer any other questions. But I will also highlight that what was referenced is one bucket of slush funds.

Right? There's multiple different buckets. And we just want it to be fully transparent to the public to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest or legitimate conflicts of interest as well as, you know, again, even with the form 700 as there have been dual roles by multiple people in the board of supervisors, role as well as their staff. So we're trying to limit as much as possible, and this is again very simple, good transparency bill, and we are trying to support our community through that.

Yes. So Senator and I had many discussions about this, and I raised concerns, and we went back and forth and made amendments to the amendments. One of my concerns was that it was not become so burdensome Yes. That organizations, community based organizations wouldn't be able to take advantage of funding that is there.

Funding that comes from their tax dollars. So how do community based organizations get access without making it too burdensome and still give transparency. I think there's gotta be a healthy balance of the of the two. I also thought about this even though it's restricted to Alameda County, would this be a good thing beyond Alameda County? Is this is there some reason that a County with greater population or County with smaller population, it would cause problems.

So we talked about that a lot. And yes, things like how do you define a program with a public purpose. Right? You know, is the Thai community festival, is that a public purpose? Or is that gonna be considered, you know, part of something else that people object to?

I I also wanna make sure that as you describe the criticisms that you have of of the of the board, that this is not taken to mean that the organizations receiving the funding. Agree. It's not a judgment on them. And I think that's really important. Using terms like flush funder, I I understand the the criticism behind it.

But many of these organizations barely survive. And so getting funding from from the county or any other source is welcome and it's important and it's part of, the diversity of our of our county. So those are those are the thoughts that I had. I I'm sure you're gonna continue to work on and address Senator Aragin, concerns and and other concerns that have been brought forward to get today. But with these amendments, I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you. Yes. So, you know, I I really do appreciate the conversation here. And this bill is good for everyone. If if I could apply this to the entire state, I absolutely would.

That obviously, in the second year of a legislative cycle, it's a little bit more difficult to talk to 58 different counties. Different counties also have different resources and much more. To your point, you know, again, I was a board member of several different non profits, some smaller, some larger. And the smaller non profits, for example, really struggle to even have the relationships with the individual supervisors. Right?

And to one of our senators point here, that the supervisors build these relationships. And what we have seen in Alameda County is 6 figures and more to specific organizations that have nothing to do with actual service in Alameda County. In fact, one supervisor, funded a trip, and has significant conflicts of interest with several organizations. And that has not been allowed to be vetted by the full transparent process.

When we talk about special meetings, the special meetings are called within twenty four hours or so, and the public has complained about that not being able to attend these meetings, where people also have been cut off the phone lines, cut from presentation and public comments, ignored, PRA requests and so much more.

So I think that there's a lot to work on in Alameda County, and this is just one step. And, again, it's just transparency. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and, again, thank all of you guys for your work on this bill.

Motion. Moved by, Senator Cervantes.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. [Roll Call]

Now, we go to six. Senator Arreguin? Now, we go to six. Senator Arreguin here? Oh, Arreguin.

Good morning, Senator. You may proceed.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and fellow committee members. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 1383, which is a narrowly tailored amendment to the state Density Bonus Law to make clear that projects which qualify for incentives and concessions, in exchange for providing on-site affordable units, cannot waive any locally adopted labor standards.

I wanna clarify that this amendment does not affect any state-adopted labor standards, including those in recent state housing legislation. This only addresses labor standards that are adopted by a city council or a board of supervisors, such as local prevailing wage requirements, healthcare standards, or the use of apprentices, which are applicable to and specific only to that jurisdiction.

As you all know, I'm a strong advocate for building housing for people of all income levels across our state, and I strongly support laws to streamline and incentivize the production of needed homes. The state Density Bonus Law is a critical tool to knowledge-- get needed, deed-restricted affordable housing, but to also help make projects pencil.

We want developers to include on-site affordable housing and use the many incentives that the Density Bonus provides to get housing built in California. However, this should not come at the expense of critical labor protections for our construction workforce and policies which provide living wages for those who build our homes in California. A unique situation is happening in my district, which may have statewide implications.

Developers in Berkeley are using incentives and concessions granted for Density Bonus projects to waive labor standards. Currently, the statute is ambiguous and does not expressly state that labor standards are excluded from the category of costs that can be waived using incentives and concessions.

It's very clear from my opinion that the legislative history of the statute stated that these incentives and concessions were intended to waive lot development standards, such as parking requirements, height, floor area ratio, and other standards that may impact the physical form of a project.

We do not need to build how-- we do need to build housing for everyone all over California, but not on the backs of our workers. Labor standards are essential to provide healthcare and sustaining wages for working families, some of the hardest-working Californians who are literally building our state, to make sure that they can afford housing and food and the rising cost of living.

By allowing local labor standards to be waived, this threatens worker safety, undermines trading pipelines, and creates unfair competition by allowing bad actors to undercut responsible contractors. Senate Bill 1383 ensures that increasing our housing supply for all does not come at the expense of worker protections, good-paying union jobs, or quality construction-- safe construction.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced, we have been in conversation with CBIA, the California Home Builders Alliance, and other housing groups about the potential impacts of this policy on housing production. I wanna state my commitment to continuing these conversations to see if we can find a way to address their concerns while also ensuring that we can maintain these essential labor protections.

In the end, this is about preserving the ability of local governments to set labor standards, to address the unique needs of their workforce, and make sure we have safe and sustaining jobs and wages and quality construction in California.

With me to testify in support of the bill are our co-sponsors on behalf of the Building Construction Trades Council: Andreas Cluver, the Secretary Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council, and Vince Sugrue, the State Legislative Director of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Sir, you can go ahead. You have two minutes each.

Okay. Well, good morning, Chair Durazo and members of the committee. My name is Andreas Cluver, and I represent the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council, and I'm here in strong support of SB 1383. For many years in Berkeley, the Building Trades and labor have worked collaboratively with policy-makers, stakeholders, and even developers to craft what has become known as the Hard Hats Ordinance.

This policy was developed carefully, deliberately, and with a clear goal to protect construction workers with healthcare standards and support the apprenticeship pipeline while ensuring that housing projects still pencil out.

We understood the balance that needed to be struck. We knew housing must get built, but we also knew that the men and women building that housing deserve basic protections in a most dangerous profession. But what we are seeing now is deeply disturbing. In Berkeley, we cite proposed 20-story tower where the developer was successfully able to use the Density Bonus concessions to waive these core labor protections, including prevailing wage, healthcare, and apprenticeship standards.

On a building of that scale, 20 stories, where workers are operating at height and in high-risk conditions, those protections are not optional. They are essential. That is not good faith. That is not what the law was meant to do. Developers are exploiting the Density Bonus Law in ways it is never intended for, using it not just for zoning relief, but as a loophole to strip away these important worker protections.

SB 1383 is about restoring that balance. It clarifies that concessions cannot be used to strip away essential labor standards and ensures that we can continue to build housing without compromising worker safety, training, or fair competition. Let me be clear: we support housing. We want to build more of it, but we want to build it the right way. SB 1383 ensures that we can do both. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Yes. Go ahead.

Chair and members, my name is Vince Sugrue, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm before you today in strong support of SB 1383. Construction is hard, dangerous work. Everyday, workers put themselves out there, high above the ground, around heavy materials, in conditions where one mistake can change a life forever. When something goes wrong, the consequences aren't minor, they're life-altering. Last year alone, 78 construction workers were killed on the job in California.

Tens of thousands more are injured each year, many of them seriously. We're talking falls, crushed limbs, and incidents where workers are taken out of the workforce, making construction the deadliest industry in our state. Our union has worked closely with enforcement agencies in the aftermath of a variety of these cases. In housing construction, too many contractors still fail to provide even basic health coverage. So when workers get hurt, the cost doesn't disappear.

It gets pushed onto the public and onto families already dealing with crisis. That is why construction labor standards set a necessary baseline in an industry where without clear rules, standards can erode quickly. These standards directly impact the quality and durability of the housing we are building. There is a gap in California Housing Law that creates confusion in how these standards apply, particularly under Density Bonus, and we are beginning to see that to justify lowering standards, as you've heard in Berkeley.

This creates an absolute race to the bottom. That was never the intent of the law. The goal was to build more housing, not to do it in a way that compromises safety or quality, and SB 1383 fixes this. The people building our housing deserve to go home safe at the end of the day. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support of SB 1383?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are the co-sponsors of the bill, but had much better spokesman today than us, so we let them pave the leads. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else support? Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition to SB 1383? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the dais? Senator Cervantes?

Thank you. Madam chair, I wanna just take a moment to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I certainly support the intent of the bill and the purpose here today. We certainly need to continue building housing, but not at the expense of workers, looking at the incidences that have been happening across our state as we have heard from the sponsors today. But we need to make sure that we are protecting labor standards and worker protections. So at the appropriate time, happy to move the bill.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you much, Senator. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion? Senator Cervantes. All right.

The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. [Roll call]. Three/one.

The vote will remain on call. Thank you both for coming.

Next bill is file number 9 SB- what what is the number 40? 1361. When you're ready, go ahead to prepare.

Thank you, Senator and chair. I want and members, I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the staff very much for the work on this bill. California is making real progress in aligning housing and transportation. LA Metro has a plan to build 10,000 homes on public land near transit with 50% set aside as affordable deed restricted housing and has already delivered approximately 2,600 homes. This is a historic transit build out.

Generational investments tied to mobility, cleaner air, good jobs, and economic opportunity. This momentum reflects the kind of coordinated approach we want to see pairing housing production with strong public transportation. At the same time, since last year's enactment of SB 79, unintended consequences are beginning to surface that are creating risks for this long planned transit expansion. Under current law, SB 79 Transit Oriented Housing requirements applied to both existing and planned future transit stops.

In some communities, local governments are facing significant pressure not to support planned transit stops and routes because those projects could trigger SB 79 density and height requirements.

This includes openly threatening additional environmental review of transit projects due to possible SB 79 impacts, openly threatening to reduce certain services along planned routes to avoid SB 79 application. Threatening to withdraw support for federal funding applications due to opposition to SB 79 requirements. When local support becomes uncertain, the consequences are very real. Project delays, higher construction costs, and reduced competitiveness for federal infrastructure funds. SB 1363 is a narrow practical bill to address the issue.

It does not change existing SB 79 housing standards. It simply ensures that local governments cannot take certain actions just to avoid SB 79 density or height requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Specifically, it prohibits requesting a transit provider reduce service so a stop no longer qualifies. Conditioning approval or review of a transit project based on concerns about additional height or density, or withholding support for a federal funding application on that basis.

At the same time, transit decisions should continue to be based on legitimate planning considerations, such as safety, station design, traffic flow, pedestrian access, construction mitigation, and neighborhood connectivity.

Not opposition tied solely to SB 79 height or density standards. It is my hope and expectation that most local jurisdictions will not need to use this bill. I believe that planning can and should be cooperative at the local level. I also know that we can't relitigate current law at the expense of public transit. And when that happens, we need to step in.

This is also a jobs bill for workers and communities. What's at stake is not abstract. The bottom line is this, SB 1361 protects transit investments, protects jobs, and protects taxpayer funded infrastructure from avoidable disruption. With me today, I have two witnesses, Madeline Moore, deputy executive officer from LA Metro, and Keith Dunn, building and con Oh, that's not Keith.

Much better looking. He's much better looking, friend.

State Building and Construction Trades, Jeremy. Thank you.

Okay. Go ahead. Witnesses.

Good morning, Mister vice chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to speak in support of SB 1361. LA Metro is leading the nation's largest capital program, investing a $120,000,000,000 over the next 40 years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent. LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region.

We have a long history of working cooperatively with municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane infrastructure, and transit signal priority. However, we believe that SB79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County. By linking increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground locally.

Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects.

SB 1361 removes the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis of opposition to increased density requirements in SB 79. I thank you for your time and look forward to taking any questions.

Okay. Second witness.

Thank you, Mister, Cochair, Members of the committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. As my colleague, Keith Dunn, said in the last committee hearing on this bill, can't have transit without housing, can't have housing without transit. It is transit planning, transit funding is years in the making, and it was not envisioned that SB79 would be used, in this way.

It's frankly preposterous that, as the author stated, some local governments may be may be reconsidering their support of federal transit dollars to build much needed transit stops and build out our existing transit system. I can't believe we're here today having to do this bill, but here we are.

I look at these transit stops much the same way we all here in this building look at the build out of public infrastructure before a planned housing development. The curbs, the sewers, the sidewalks, they go in. And then along comes the developer to build the housing. These transit stops are similar. We're gonna put the infrastructure in to move people to and from where they live to where they work.

These stops need to be built, as they're planned to be built, and we do not need to walk away from federal funding or any funding, especially in this day and age when it comes to building out our transit system. So for those reasons, we're happy to support the bill today. We're glad that the Senator brought this bill, and we're sorry that we have to be here to clean this clean this up, but here we are. So thank you, urge an aye vote.

Thank you. And any opposition main witnesses? Okay. If are there any, Me Too supporters? Opposition Me Too supporters?

You can come forward.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council. We are removing opposition. Just wanna thank the author for her work on this.

Great.

Thank you. Any other if not, I wanna bring it to our senators. Any questions? Okay. Senator Arreguin.

Thank you. Well, I wanna thank the author, and her staff in LA Metro for their work on this bill. This, first came to the Senate Housing Committee, and I strongly share the concerns that she'd expressed about actions that local governments are taking to stop planned transit projects. That's not what we want. It's bad for our climate goals.

It's bad for our efforts to build more housing and sustainable communities. And really appreciate the thoughtful work that wins this bill to have it focus on addressing that particular issue while making sure we can continue the the work that we started last year with SB 79. So thank you very much. I strongly support the bill for all the reasons stated. I believe I'm being added as a co author, and I move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. If not, is there any motion? Okay.

Senator Arreguin made the motion. Would you please close your statement?

Yes. You know, I'm so proud of what LA Metro and all the partners have done up to date. And they did this without a a bill or legislation being passed to require them to do it. They've been working on it and using our tax dollars in such a way that it's build up trust. Our our voters, our residents of the county just, very much appreciate and respect all all the work that the way it's been done connecting housing and and transit.

So we were doing this before any bill required us to do it. And I just wanted to continue that good work. And unfortunately, there's a hitch along the way, but we're doing it now. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Okay. With that, Senator Arreguin has made the motion, and please, call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. Senator Durazo?

Aye.

Durazo, aye. Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Laird? Seyarto?

No.

Seyarto, no. 3-2.

3-2. And leave it open for additions.

Thank you. Thank you very much, members.

We're gonna lift the calls lift the calls and go back.

[Roll Call]

we have permission for her. Okay. We will we are resuming from recess and we're moving now to item number six, SB 1272. Senator Arreguin is gracious enough to present on behalf of Senator Menjivar.

Go ahead. Thank you, madam chair. On behalf of Senator Manjavar, I'm pleased to present SB 1272. And the Senator wishes to appreciate the committee's work on this bill, and she is accepting the committee amendments. This bill, the Cash Act Curbing Abusive Sanctions on Homeowners Act, seeks to help keep cost predictable for homeowners as a way to address the state's growing affordability challenges.

Due to no fault of their own, homeowners are currently being unfairly penalized for renovations or alterations that were done on the property by the previous owners without any disclosure of said work that has now been identified as a result of a violation or investigation. Existing law does require local governments to provide a reasonable cure period for violations that do not pose a danger to anyone's health or safety. What is deemed reasonable is left to the discretion of local governments to decide.

Unfortunately, this means that the cure periods that homeowners are subjected to are often too short for compliance when balancing all the priorities and challenges of everyday life.

The amendments, would would require local governments to provide six months to remedy a violation that does not pose a danger to health or safety if specified conditions are met, including that the violation is located on a residential property that is owner occupied, requiring a homeowner to submit an affidavit that they were not aware of the violation nor committed the violation itself, and providing the transfer disclosure statement or TDS as evidence.

Requiring local governments provide an additional extension of up to six months if homeowners show good faith that they're trying to resolve the violation is a big step forward for consumer protection. It also allows local governments to provide an additional extension of an additional six months at their own discretion if actions are being taken and the homeowners are demonstrating good faith. Are there any witnesses in support of the bill? No witnesses? At the appropriate time respectfully ask for an aye vote.

On behalf of the Senator Menjivar

Okay. So no witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Good morning.

You will each have two minutes.

Good morning, chair. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties providing a testimony also behalf of Rural County representatives of California. Our coalition is currently opposed to the version of the bill in print, but we appreciate the author's collaboration and would look forward to reviewing the amended language.

While our concerns with the bill in print are outlined in our letter and reflected in the analysis, we're committed to our ongoing work with the author to strike the right balance of about the bringing about the joys of homeownership and preserving local government ability to effectively enforce housing and safety laws. I wanna also thank the committee staff for their assistance with the bill as well.

Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers aligned with the statement just given by our affiliates at CSAC. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1272?

On behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, hoping that the amendments make it much better. And, thank you for the substitute author.

Okay. Nobody else in opposition. Come to the dais. Questions? Comments?

Motion?

Let's let's let's drill him.

I read the bill so I can answer questions.

Okay. Do we have a motion? Motion. Motion made by Senator Cervantes. Yep.

Call the vote.

What's that? I'm sorry.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Good, OK.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. Senator Durazo?

Aye.

Durazo, aye. Choi? Arreguin?

Arreguin, Aye. Ashby?

Aye.

Aye

Ashby, Aye. Cervantes?

Aye

Cervantes, Aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, Aye. Five two. I'm sorry that was five zero.

So that was five zero? And the bill is out. Okay. Thank you all to participate in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate local gov committee.

Your comments and suggestions are very important to us. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Thank you to my colleagues for your patience and cooperation and we've concluded the agenda. The Senate committee on local government is adjourned.