Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

As soon as we get somebody else to come in, we'll we'll start the hearing. Okay? Just waiting for somebody else to come in. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the assembly local government committee hearing.

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

In order to facilitate the goal of hearings as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impays the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violators violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. I would like to start by wishing our committee secretary Saskia Perks a happy administrative professionals day today. Thank you, Saskia, for all the administrative professionals that you do for the committee. We do have 25 bills on our agenda. The following bills are on consent calendar.

Item number three, AB 1567 by Assembly member Tai. Item number four, AB 1573 by Assembly member Brian. Item number six, AB 182 by Assembly member Stephanie. Item number 10, AB 2127 by Assembly member Johnson. Item number 13, AB 2312 by Assembly member Avila Farias.

And item 14, AB 2351 by Assembly member Bonta. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position in the bill. We do not have a quorum yet, so we'll be acting as a subcommittee.

And, also, due to delays, for, AB 1751, we will now be starting with our special order. Again, item number one, AB 1751. We will begin with item number 14, assembly member, Soria AB 2639.

Thank you so much, chair and members. AB2639 will direct from the Grand Canyon County West Central District to coordinate with other local jurisdictions within the county flood management in Merced County. Modeled on previous legislation establishing flood control districts, that that bill gave the County Of Merced authority to act as the Merced Flood Control District. However, the county is not is not the only entity local entity concerned with flood control within its boundaries.

Merced irrigation district owns, operates, and maintains, the max two two dams, the New Etcher Dam and the McSwayne Dam that control outflow to the many tributaries in East Merced and supports local flood control by routing foothill stream runoff away from populated areas.

In addition, the city of Merced is currently planning improvements to Bear Creek, one of the many waterways that could pose a threat if its levees were not maintained. However, the threat of flooding from this and other creeks is greatest for Merced's unincorporated communities. Just in 2023, the levee on Miles Creek failed, flooding the community of Planada and damaging or destroying nearly half of its homes.

Even today, three years later, the community of Planada is still recovering with replacement of their homes and many other things in their community, that are being built, with recovery funds that were provided by the state. AB 2639 will help direct coordination between the various entities responsible for flood control operations in Merced to ensure the county's residents have the best level of protection possible. Thank you.

Do you have any witnesses? Anybody else in the room that wants to be added on in support? Seeing no one. How about any primary witnesses in opposition? Opposition at all? Seeing no one coming to the microphone. Yeah. No one's coming up. Assemblymember Johnson, any questions, comments?

I'm ready to move the bill.

Yes. Once once we get a quorum, we'll go through that. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill, and a very happy birthday to you today. Today is your birthday. We have two celebrations today. I will be voting aye. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. At the appropriate time, we'll ask for a motion, and then we'll take a a a thank you for it.

Thank you so much.

Again, as stated item number one, special order because of conflicts, we're not hearing that yet until the authors become available. So we're gonna go with item number five, AB 1788, Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee for all the work on this bill and all the bills in front of you today. AB 1786 actually just allows local government to do what it does best, which is make good decisions. Generally, in the state of California, local governments and special jurisdictions have to do low cost bidding for very large projects that are very important for their communities.

While in theory, the lowest bidder might, on its surface, save, local government agencies money, in the long run, what we see is usually firms, or companies getting work that they can't manage. They then have to have contract changes and various costs creep into the project, and no one's happy.

And we have alternative alternative procurement options for many different entities throughout the state. However, for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and the president, Claremont council member Ed Reese is here with me today, and general law cities, they don't have that optionality. What this bill will do is just give general law cities and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments the option of using best value contracting.

Best value basically says that the government agency, in this case, the COG, and general law cities get to contract with who they want, and they don't have to go with the lowest cost and the lowest bid. I will now allow council member Rees, president of San Gabriel Valley COG, to testify on it.

Thank you. Good afternoon. And chairs and members, I'm Ed Rees, president of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. I'm proud to sponsor AB 1786. This bill is a targeted fix to a real and growing problem on how we deliver public infrastructure.

Under current law, most cities are required to award construction contracts to lowest responsible bidder. That approach works well for simple standardized projects, but it breaks down when applied to complex high risk infrastructure. And that is the environment we're operating operating in today. Modern public work projects involve layered funding, tight grant deadlines, utility coordination, and increasingly complex construction conditions. In the in that context, low bid procurement has clear limitations.

It does not allow agencies to meaningful prioritize contractor experience. It does not account for project complexity or staging, and it increases the risk of delays, change orders, claims, and ultimately, higher long term costs even when the upfront bid appears to be lower. Across our region, cities are consistently reporting the same reality. Low bid does not always produce the best outcome.

This bill provides a solution that allows agencies to use a best value contracting approach where proposals are evaluated based on a combination of price and objective qualifications, including experience delivering similar projects, management capability, safety records, labor compliance, and financial capacity.

The contract is still competitively bid, but the award is made to the bidder offering the best overall value, not simply just the lowest price. For regional agencies like the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, this matters. AB 1786 gives us the ability to better align our procurement method with the complexity of the work. At the end of the day, this bill is about delivering a better project, stronger accountability, and better outcome for taxpayers. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. John Scovlin with the county of Los Angeles in support.

Good afternoon. Isha Ayer on behalf of the city of Belmont in support.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Brian McCarthy on behalf of the cities of Coalinga, Dinuba, Hesperia, Kingsburg, Monterey Park, Placentia, South El Monte, Stanton, and Tulare in support.

Good afternoon. Ricky Choi, Sacred Valley Council of Governments. On behalf of the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Verne, Monrovia, Rosemead, San Dimas, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Walnut in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing no one. How about any opposition at all? See no one either.

Assembly member Johnson, any questions, comments? Would you like to close?

Respectfully, I asked her an aye vote at the right time. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you, assembly member, for your work on this bill. I will be voting aye once we have a quorum and a motion. I believe you have two other bills.

Please. Go ahead.

Two more. Yeah.

Thank you, mister chair. And I will be efficient with my time. Assembly bill twenty fifty eight is regarding permitting and inspections for factory built housing. Many of us have now toured various factory built housing, facilities and factories, and I think that many of us have been, blown away by the quality that we've seen. We we want to make sure that when we're building the housing across this great state, we are providing optionality.

And factory built housing should be an option that is on the table, and hopefully, it'll lead to, housing in a more effective and efficient way. The problem what we're seeing is factory build housing is, being delayed and expenses are being, added to the projects because of duplicative inspection and permitting fees. Right now, all factory build housing is inspected and permitted by HCD, the state housing agency.

And on top of that, local governments are instituting their own permitting and inspection fees even though the inspections and the permitting really are being taken care of for the most part by the state. What this bill would do was ensure that any permitting fees and inspection fees would be reduced by 50%.

It would give the optionality of the factory built housing developer to actually use a third party to do the inspections, and it would make sure that local inspections do not actually damage the property. What we've seen is that local inspectors will disassemble factory built housing, and really what that does is just delay the housing from being constructed and ultimately delivered to homeowners and renters.

So what this bill does, I think, is really elegantly, push forward a solution to ensure that we deliver housing for more people in the state. With me, I have Marina Espinosa, who's the policy director of the California Housing Consortium. And, for technical assistance, Michelle Boyd, who's the chief strategy officer for Turner Labs.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium, 58. There's a lot of interest in using factory built housing to build more affordable housing in California. However, as, the author just mentioned, there are some barriers that need to be addressed for it to be adopted more broadly. And AB 2058 addresses some of those barriers.

One important aspect of this bill is that it makes it possible for the state's third party inspectors to conduct on-site inspector inspections of factory built projects. Under the current system, there is some duplication and redundancy. And, the lack of broad familiarity with this construction method can sometimes result in inefficiencies, which hinders the progress that can be achieved. We've heard of cases in which local on building components that have already been approved, by the state.

AB 2058 would expand the state's capacity in this area, if, developers opted to go that route.

AB 2058, increases efficiency, removes redundancy, and lowers cost for factory built projects. Strongly urge your urge your support for this bill.

I'm mostly here to answer questions as they come up from the committee, but I wanted to second, what the others have said, particularly around the access to third party inspectors. We find that with factory built housing, it exacerbates some of the challenges that exist, in the housing system. Any stick built project also may have delays in inspections, etcetera. But for a factory built project, they may completely produce the modules.

And if there's a delay for several months on a foundation inspection or something else happening on-site, Those modules have to sit outside, exposed to weather, and extra, extra charge extra risk.

And so this really allows, to really take advantage of the full streamlining speed and efficiency of factory butt housing and a more efficient structure. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Hello. Kate Eager with Vitamin Group on behalf of Autodesk in strong support. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair and member. Sylvia Aguilar from the Casita Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition, please come to the desk. See no one. How about about any opposition at all in the room or outside? See no one.

Assembly member Johnson. Okay. Would you like to close this meeting?

Ask for an aye vote, mister chair, at the right time.

Thank you for your work on this important pathway to help increase California's housing supply. I will be supporting your bill once we get a quorum and a motion in a second. Thank you for your work, and thank you for the witnesses for being here. I believe you have a third bill.

I do. I do.

And that is item number 21, AB 2578. For anybody in the offices whose members have a bill on local government, please let them know that we need them to come to, present. Please start.

Thank you again, mister chair. AB 2576 is a very simple cleanup bill. Proud supporter of SB 79, and the bill will hopefully, again, deliver housing across the state. One of the things though that we needed to rectify about the bill is that it has important, protections for historic resources. However, historic resources currently is defined only as nationally recognized historic resources in the bill.

This bill would simply clarify that local and state historic resources and districts are also protected, and it really doesn't, come into contention with the purpose or the spirit of the bill. It just makes sure that communities can protect their historic resources while building the housing that we need. With me today is miss Kara Ross on behalf of the city of Pasadena.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kara Ross on behalf of the city of Pasadena. The city of Pasadena is synonymous with our rich cultural resources and decades long commitment to historic preservation. This commitment is rooted in the community's genuine desire to protect its most cherished resources like Old Pasadena, Pasadena Civic Center, and the Pasadena Playhouse. Historic resources that are currently listed on a state or national register of historic places, but not on a local register.

Under SB79, cities have the ability to delay the impact of the law until the seventh cycle of RHNA for historic resources that are placed on a local register before 01/01/2025. However, this language does not apply to historic resources on a state or national register. AB 2,576 addresses this issue by including those resources. In Pasadena, multiple historic resources fall within a half mile of the A line metro stations, and these changes ensure that qualifying resources are protected without an arbitrary limitation.

But I will note that Pasadena is acutely aware of the statewide housing crisis and the important steps that must be taken to address housing protection.

In recent years, they have undertaken a number of efforts to increase housing supply near transit as part of a holistic community planning strategy while still protecting historic resources. We explicitly promote the use of adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and restoration as part of our preservation program. An example of this is the old Stuart Pharmaceutical Building, which is located across the street from a transit oriented development stop and has been successfully, adaptively reused with multifamily development around it.

AB 2576 continues those efforts and allows us to continue pushing forward on housing while still honoring our commitment to historic preservation. We ask for your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, mister chair. Tony Gonzalez. I'm here on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation. We're in strong support of the bill. Thank you Assemblymember Harabedian for introducing the bill.

Amendments were taken in the prior committee that restore an ambiguity that we'd like to have resolved as it pertains to the alternative plans. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Brady Gurden on behalf of the League of California Cities, supportive amended, asking for a wider scale cleanup on '79. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Isha Ayar on behalf of the City of Glendale in support.

Thank you.

Rocky Road, City Of Simi Valley, support if amended.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Barrie Council and Streets for All. We're actually removing our opposition and going to neutral. We appreciate the author's work on this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brooke Pritchett on behalf of California YNB, echoing the same thing. We're removing our opposition. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any primary opposition? Any opposition at all? Seeing none. I think we're moving quite along.

Any comments?

Well, I actually do

You do? Okay.

I just wanna thank

I'm sorry.

Mics are a little weird.

I just wanna thank the author for your work on this.

I think the balance between historic preservation and building is always so difficult, so I appreciate the protections, and I I'd appreciate your leadership. I will be in support today and when it's the appropriate time moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to Senator Johnson for the comments. And would respectfully ask an an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you, Assemblymember for I will be supporting your bill today. Once again, once we have a form and a motion on the second. Thank you. We will proceed with that. And thank you.

Thank you. Once again,

Well, it's just you, Mr. Chair, and and, staff. So thank you. Good afternoon. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill twenty five sixty eight, which addresses an outdated statutory cap on compensation for those serving on our state's water district boards.

I wanna start by accepting the committee's amendments and thank the chair and committee staff for their work on the bill. Upon adoption, the committee and amendments, the bill will sunset after five years, limit new compensation policy to water districts with at least 90,000 residents, and require water districts that compensate members for more than ten days a month to adopt written policy explaining why the compensation is necessary for the effective operation of the water district.

Under current law, which was largely established in 1989, members of the governing boards of water districts are generally capped at receiving compensation for no more than ten days in any calendar month. AB 2568 provides permissive authority for those districts to increase that monthly cap to fifteen days, ensuring that the directors are fairly compensated for the actual time required to manage today's complex water systems.

The reality is that modern water and governance requires far more than one or two Board Meetings a month nor ten days.

Because of the current ten day limit, many Board Members, particularly in active districts like the bill sponsor, West Valley Water District, frequently reach their compensation cap by the middle of the month.

When this happens, Board Members are effectively forced to perform essential oversight and governance duties without any compensation for their time. AB 2568 addresses this problem in a modest and balanced way. It is worth noting that it is not an unprecedented change. The legislature has already granted fifteen day compensation authority to the Santa Clara Valley Water District in recognition of its complex operations.

With me to testify in support of the bill are Greg Young, director of West Valley Water District, the bill sponsor, and Amber Rosso, the Association of California Water Agencies.

Good afternoon, chair and members. And again, my name is Greg Young, and I serve on the board of directors for West Valley Water. We are grateful to Assemblymember Johnson for working with us on this legislation, and to the committee for allowing us to present on this issue. AB 2568 is a simple but important modernization of our water code. Meeting days per month.

A standard that, as you heard, was set in the, 1980s and no longer reflects the realities of governing a modern water agency. Today, water district directors are responsible for far more than attending one or two Board Meetings. We regularly participate in standing committees, regional partnerships, interagency coordination, and industry engagements. These responsibilities are essential to ensuring safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water service. But we often push us past that ten day limit, leaving critical governance work uncompensated.

At this time, water districts are navigating an increasingly complex challenges from drought and groundwater sustainability to emergency response and evolving regulatory requirements. These issues demand more time, more coordination, and more active board oversight than ever before. Compensation, it limits the realistic ability to serve, impacting diversity and representation on our boards. AB 2568 brings the statue in line with today's governments, governance demands, ensuring that large water districts can function effectively, and board services remain accessible to a broader range of Californians.

I'm happy to address, any questions you may have about the specific work of West Valley and what we're doing in our community, to necessitate these changes and request your support for, Assembly Bill twenty five sixty eight.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. My name is Amber Rossow on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. We'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Aqua represents approximately 470 public water agencies across the state. All of our water districts have governing boards where they're where they are tasked with overseeing the complex day to day decisions involved in managing water systems and resources to ensure water reliability.

As mentioned by director Young, on top of attending regular monthly Board Meetings, Board Members are often also expected to attend other meetings to fulfill their governance duties and ever revolving responsibilities. This includes coordinating with other agencies on shared infrastructure and stepping in for emergency or special meetings during droughts, wildfires, or system failures.

These additional commitments are becoming more frequent with the changing nature of our environment and the increased obligations that come with it, allowing large water districts to consider the needs of their residents and be afforded the opportunity to increase the number of days to be compensated, strengthens a governance system that creates a secure and resilient water supply for California's water feature. We respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else who wants to add on in support of this measure?

Good afternoon. Paul Olsen on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Opposition at all? Seeing no one. Would you like to close?

Thank you, chair. AB 2568 is a common sense modernization of the water code supported by the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Special Districts Association as you heard. I was trying to stall to get some of my colleagues here, but I respectfully request your aye vote, sir.

Thank you, Assemblymember Johnson, for accepting the committee amendments. We just stated that you accept. Thank you. We'll be a Supreme bill today again once we had a quorum and, go through the process. Thank you for presenting your bill.

Thank you, sir. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you

so much. Yeah.

Seeing no other members, we're gonna take a brief pause on this hearing. Thank you.

Seeing no other members, we're gonna take a brief pause on this hearing. Thank you.

That was a brief break. Assembly Member Papan. Oh, let's see here. I'm sorry. We're gonna go with the Hadwick first. Please. So that's item number 11, AB 2224 by Hadwick. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Member. That's okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I would first like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for working collaboratively with me on this critical issue. I appreciate the Chair's leadership and your strong advocacy for rural communities that you represent.

I also represent 11 very rural and under resourced counties. Every year, we ask our local governments to do more for less. These demands are especially challenging for my district. Due to decades of urban focused state policies and restrictions, my district has steadily lost our timber and mining industries, closed mills, and consolidated agricultural operations.

Rural areas in California are losing residents at twice the rate of urban areas driven by a lack of educational and economic opportunity. Between a dwindling tax base and reduced support from the state, many of my counties are struggling to stay afloat.

It is not uncommon for a county employee to be doing multiple jobs at once just to keep the lights on and serve their residents. Before being elected to the Assembly, I was responsible for school safety and preparedness in Modoc County, wrote grants for the entire county, and led many other county efforts.

Until these industries thrive again in my district, my rural counties will continue to work harder and smarter and do more with less. County recorders are just one of many examples of this. They usually wear many hats while providing recording services.

Recording is a fee for service operation, meaning they rely on fees they charge to provide the basic service to residents. These include documents for mortgages, easements, powers of attorney, deeds of trust, and vital records such as birth, death, and marriage certificates.

The state has recently encouraged counties to offer electronic recording services, requiring a fundamental shift on how these services are delivered. Urban counties that have implemented this have reported significant increases in efficiency, cost saving, and enhanced security and improved real estate fraud prevention. However, this transition is not cheap.

Many rural counties, including my counties, Alpine, Amador, Lassen, Sierra, and Siskiyou, do not have resources to establish electronic recording systems. Today, 34 of the 58 county recorders across the state are relying on their county's general fund to provide recording services, clear evidence that existing fees don't reflect the actual costs.

In fact, recording fees have not been increased by the legislature since 2009 despite providing recording services at one of the lowest and efficient prices for Californians compared to the rest of the nation. AB 2224 modernizes recording by requiring counties to implement a more straightforward fee structure for Californians while hope while helping recorders recoup the true cost of providing services.

This bill is similar to AB 1430 authored by Assembly Member Bennett last year, which was vetoed by the governor. The bill before you represents a direct response to the governor's veto message, which encouraged the legislature to deliver recording services at a lower cost, faster, and with better customer service. AB 2224 achieves this goal.

The findings and declarations in this bill make it clear that the legislators legislature's intent with this bill is to advance a more transparent, efficient, and technologically consistent recording system that better serves the public and California's real estate economy.

While the base recording fee is increased under this bill, several other fees are eliminated compared to AB 1430, including fees for documents with incorrect spacing, nonstandard dimensions, references, and indexing. This bill also requires counties to use the fee revenue they receive to implement electronic recording, delivering on the governor's message to transform recording services.

AB 2224 ensures that this core government service is more accessible, efficient, and secure for all Californians while saving taxpayer dollars. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I am joined today by Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder Dean Logan to testify in support of the bill.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and Members of the Committee. I'm Dean Logan, Registrar, Recorder, County Clerk for Los Angeles County and immediate past president of the County Recorders Association of California here today in support of Assembly Bill 2224.

On behalf of the county recorders throughout California, I want to thank Assembly Member Hadwick for her leadership in authoring the bill and the committee for its past support on a very similar proposal last session. AB 2224 is a fee stabilization bill to align the base fee for document recording with the actual with the actual cost of providing recording services.

Currently, local budget requirements to maintain the recording function are being augmented from county's general funds and thus competing with funding required for essential public services like public safety, public health, and general county administration.

AB 2224 directly addresses concerns raised by the governor in his veto message of a similar bill passed last session with near unanimous support. The bill advances technological improvements and service delivery by requiring all counties to provide electronic recording services specifically responsive to the governor's reference to innovation, automation, and improved service delivery.

Additionally, AB 2224 eliminates add on fees that are outdated and have been augmented through technology, such as fee for non conformance to document layout and fees for additional document references. This too represents a service improvement, increasing the predictability of fees and minimizing document rejection.

Absent fee stabilization to cover the actual costs incurred to comply with recording requirements, county's ability to provide services, retain adequately trained workforce, and maintain standards for timely and quality creation of public record are at risk.

Already, we have counties that have faced staff reductions due to insufficient recorder revenue, and we recognize that there are downstream economic impacts if we're not able to timely put these records on the public record. For these reasons, on behalf of the County Recorders Association of California and also on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one. Primary witnesses or witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one. We're getting closer to a quorum. Any comments, questions from Members? No? Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for presenting your bill this afternoon. I will be voting aye once we get a quorum, a motion, and a second, and we'll go through that. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much.

Assembly Member Papan. So you have three bills today. Do you wanna go by file order?

I'd like to start with the data center ones, if I may.

Yeah. Sure.

And then we'll do the HCD one after that. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a witness. I think they're getting a witness. I'm happy to start while the witness comes up if that's okay with you.

He's already here, it looks like.

Excellent. Alright. So we'll start with... Hey, Sean. Great. Alright.

So we'll start with AB 2469.

Okay.

And so this is the first of two bills I'll be presenting that relate to water and data centers. And this bill I refer to as get the data before you break ground bill. The other one will apply after a data center is already constructed. So both bills, though, I'm presenting today are built around one simple idea. Good decisions start with good data.

And nowhere is that more important than when we're deciding where to locate large facilities that depend on one of California's most limited resources, water. AB 2469 focuses on the pre entitlement process before a project is cited, before permits are issued, and before new demand is locked into the system. This bill primarily does three things. It requires data, it protects resources, and it, protects rate payers. So let's start with the data.

First, it requires that, a water supply assessment be done before approval. Current law already requires these assessments for many large developments, but only in specific scenarios. This would require a water supply assessment for every data center that wants to to be built. And that process is is relatively simple. The applicant who's the data center developer, provides information to the city, and then the city passes about his water use.

And that city will then pass it along to the local water supplier. And the local water supplier will evaluate, whether it can supply the water that, the data center anticipates to use.

this bill closes that gap, giving local governments and water suppliers the information they need before making an irreversible siting decision. And when communities understand, demand in advance, they can plan responsibly and protect existing customers. Now let's talk a little bit about how we're protecting resources. The second thing this bill does is it protects critically overdrafted groundwater basins. And in many parts of California, groundwater is being pumped faster than it can recover.

So

If a basin is already in crisis, we shouldn't add major new demand without a very careful review. So So it requires review if you're in an overdrafted, groundwater basin. Now the third thing, let's talk about protecting rate payers, which should be music to everybody's ears. And this just says if a data center is gonna really increase the infrastructure needed for a water system, the data center is gonna pick up the tab on that.

So these facilities, as I said, because they they can use quite a bit of water, they will trigger major upgrades.

Conveyance, treatment, storage, distribution, and those investments can cost in the millions. We don't think that all the the rate payers in a small system should be picking up the tab for the increased infrastructure cost. AB 2469 makes the responsibility clear if a project requires new or enhanced infrastructure, the project pays for it. This bill ensures that before we approve major new water demand, we understand the risks, we protect vulnerable supplies, and we plan responsibly.

It's about protection for ratepayers, for groundwater, and for California's long term water future.

With me to testify today is Sean Bothwell of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Good afternoon, chair, committee members. Sean Bothwell with California Coastkeeper Alliance. The AI boom is driving a rapid wave of data center construction across California in communities that are already managing drought, already dealing with over allocated rivers and strained municipal water systems. Right now, local governments approving data centers have no site specific use data, or no peak demand information. We do have global aggregates, but those do not tell local cities and governments what will happen to their local municipal supplies.

Many small water systems simply lack the capacity to absorb a new large, data center's demand. AB 2469 fills this gap by requiring applicants to assess supply, plan for scarcity, and report actual use of the conditions. Data centers are very different than other CII classes and facilities. Unlike a hotel or office building, data centers are always on twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days of the year.

They consume water rather than allow that water to go back into the system by roughly evaporating about 80% of a single pass system.

Their peak demand hits in the summer exactly when our water supplies are the most constrained. This is a fundamental different risk profile than any existing CIA classification. So AB 2469 recognizes this and creates a new category to match that. Let me say that this is also about providing information to the local government so that they can do water supply planning and their rate assessments. It's not necessarily about the conservation regulations, that we have statewide.

By requiring data center project applicants to assume responsibility for the cost of water, the additional infrastructure that's needed. Eighty two four six nine assures that ratepayers do not end up bearing the cost of the infrastructure that they do not create the demand for. This principle is consistent with the proportional cost of service requirement in California's constitution.

The bill appropriately allocates risk to project applicants, ensuring that if a facility closes prematurely, water supplies and ultimately rate payers will not end up footing the bill for that additional, infrastructure that's now a stranded asset. We have hundreds of data centers here in California, some of the most water constrained and stressed communities in the state.

We cannot afford to approve these facilities without understanding their water impacts. So that for that, I urge your eye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Kyle Jones with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Ally Saverman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. After the author's amendments and, thoughtful discussions, we've removed our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

I don't

know if we need them. But

Well, I can have a seat at the table.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. So proponents describe this as an information seeking bill, ensuring that new data centers demonstrate sufficient water supply before receiving permits. If this bill was just about water supply reliability, it is unclear how this bill is filling a gap in existing law.

Existing law already mandates that water suppliers undergo a robust water supply and infrastructure dam demand assessment, both for individual projects and based on long term population and development projections.

However, this bill is going far beyond gathering information, imposing unprecedented permitting conditions on data centers that apply to no other CIIS sector. The most legally problematic provision of the bill would require data centers to assume the full cost of any water infrastructure necessary to serve their project. This is a direct violation of the Mitigation Fee Act and Proposition 26. Water infrastructure is not built to service a single project. It is sized to accommodate, future growth across across multiple connections for decades.

Requiring one data center to bear the full cost of shared infrastructure shifts cost that belong to future rate payers onto a single project. This is exactly this is precisely what proportional cost to service law prohibits. If proponents argue it is simply proportionality, again, that is already what existing law requires. Either this provision is unconstitutional or redundant. There is not a third option.

The bill's new CIA classification for large consumptive use facilities is equally unnecessary. Water agencies are already required to identify their largest CII users, report them to the state, and develop water conservation programs to re to reduce demand. This section of the bill just create burdensome new reporting requirements without resulting in any future water savings. We do appreciate the author's desire for responsible water planning.

However, this bill raises significant operational policy concerns, is disproportionate to the actual burden that data centers place on agencies, and it'll make California less competitive for the, for the digital infrastructure that our economy relies on.

For these reasons, we ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Kara Boondur, and I'm a director of state policy at the Data Center Coalition. Respectful opposition to AB 2469. While we fully support responsible water use and take use of this vital resource seriously, this bill imposes burdensome and disparate reporting requirements on data centers. Data centers are the invisible backbone of our modern economy.

They power the essential services we rely on daily, from housing our own data, from telehealth and digital classrooms, to the smart grid technologies that help California manage its energy and water more efficiently. This bill singles out data centers for water use assessments despite evidence that we are not outliers in water consumption. A 2024 report out of the largest data center market in Virginia shows that 83% of data centers in the state use the same amount of water or less than a typical large office building.

Our primary concern with this bill lies in the granularity of the required reporting, Mandating public disclosure of daily demand fluctuations and specific cooling configurations creates significant security vulnerabilities. These facilities house sensitive financial data for hospitals, for government agencies, and, again, our own data that we are producing and using daily.

Detailed operational data is a road map for cyber threats and industrial espionage. We believe that any requirements for reporting, assessments, and classification systems should strike the balance of addressing resource planning needs without imposing unnecessary burdens on

those subject to new requirements

and those overseeing new burdens on those subject to new requirements and those overseeing new mandates. California's position as a global tech leader depends on data center infrastructure. We encourage the committee to advance an equitable technology neutral approach that protects security while protecting water as a vital resource. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in opposition for the record? State your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Andrea DeVoe, on behalf of TechNet and the Cal Asian Chamber, align our comments with the data center coalition in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, also on behalf of Rural County advocates California, in opposition also amended.

Thank you. Assemblymember Johnson, questions, comments on this one? No? Do you want to respond to some of the comments made?

Go ahead.

Thank you, mister chair. I would like the opportunity to respond. I would first note that, this when you do a water supply assessment, a city is not bound by that. So there is nothing that says, oh, if you reach a certain level on a water supply assessment, the city can issue the permit. So local governments are still free to do as they see fit.

And given that we're in local gov, I think that's an important point. As far as the claim that it is unconstitutional, Ledge Council has done the research and has found it's not unconstitutional. As long as the the cost of the infrastructure, There's a nexus between the development of the data center and the cost of the infrastructure. The next thing I would say, this is not a daily reporting requirement bill. This is let's do a water needs assessment on the front end of it.

And then the final thing I would say, this is a very hyperlocal issue. So oftentimes, what you will hear the opposition say is that statewide will be fine because water users I've data centers who are, you know, infinitesimal or what what you take your pick of what it is. But this is a very hyperlocal issue.

And I say that because while we might have, you know, three big utility investor owned utilities in the state and maybe five municipal ones, when it comes to water, we have 3,500 small water districts. If they can't feed the beast that is a data center, the data centers aren't gonna win either.

So I always say, I'm carrying these bills to help us help you succeed. Because if the water isn't there, it won't work. So respect with your question, I vote.

Thank you. We don't have any comments. Any more? No. So would you like to close?

Just respect with your question, I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, and I appreciate your commitment to this issue, Assemblyman Repetman, and thank you for presenting your bill. I will be voting on again once once we get a a quorum. We'll we'll be doing that. We also had a request to have, assembly member's staff. He'll be presented because his witnesses are leaving at Yes.

Is is that the case still? Yeah. Are your witnesses here?

Yes. I think I hope he's still here. Yeah. Yeah. I

Can we make sure that's Legit? Assemblymember task witness? So would would you mind if he goes because his witness is up to leave and they are here. Thank you, Assemblymember, for understanding. Thank you.

Mister Tai, when you're ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. I first wanna thank the committee staff for their help. Really, really appreciate that, and we'll be accepting the committee amendments. In California, we make a really rigorous progress streamlining approval. However, some local government, we have to use loophole to push back on approval new housing project.

AB 2297, close one of the loophole by ensuring that local government must justify a decision to deny a housing project. This bill apply narrowly to RICO housing infrastructure district. The district are initiated and approved by landlord by landowners and developers. They are proven tool for financing infrastructure, and without them, many project simply don't get built. AB 202297, a lot of infrastructure financing decision with the Housing Accountability Act.

At a time when California faced a severe housing shortage, we need to remove every unnecessary obstacle to production. AB 2397 is a target prerecorded step to ensure that financing doesn't become the hidden veto on needed housing. I humbly ask for your eye vote on AB 2397. I'd like to introduce mister Steve Sheldon, the CEO of Statewide Land Development Company to certify and support.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Senator and Todd. My name is Steve Sheldon. I am the CEO and owner of, SRS. I'm Steven R Sheldon. So it's SRS Land and Capital Holdings.

We are a statewide land developer with projects in Southern California and in Northern California. I'd like to first thank all of you, here and all all the others that have been involved in implementing the Housing Accountability Act. We implemented at the local level, and we use the the tiered density bill by Assemblyman Alvarez. It's been a wonderful bill that we've implemented and other bills by members of the legislature. They that has resulted in creating affordable homes.

Those are for the lower income and at the moderate level that never never occurred before. I've been in this industry for thirty years, and the creation of affordable housing was always left to the former redevelopment agencies and nonprofits, and those were very expensive units. Our units that we provide for sale at a extremely low price can be even a a mile from a mile from from the coast, and they are ones that are attainable and owner occupied.

So I want to thank you for that, and those are at no taxpayer expense. I think that that's just a critical a critical point.

Here in this legislation, this is a wonderful proposal to take the protections of the Housing Accountability Act and extend it to the other leg of the entitlement development process, which is financing. Because there are a lot of items that local government puts on developers that that need to be financed with this critical infrastructure. Thank you for considering this, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add in support? Seeing no one, any primary witnesses in opposition on this measure? No positions? Okay.

You and I again, again, assembly member Johnson, you're good. Yeah. Would you like to close assembly member time?

I respect I respectfully ask you. I will. I will Thank

you for presenting your bill today, and thank you for working with the committee on the amendments. You have accepted. Correct? You accepted the committee amendments?

Yes. Correct.

Due to timing, the amendments will be taken in the housing and community development committee. But with those, we'll be supporting your bill today. Again, we're still operating as a subcommittee. Once we get a quorum, we'll go on with a motion and second, and thank you for for senior VLAN. Thank you for being here here with us.

We really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Jay. Bye.

We do have the authors now for this special order of today, and that is AB 1751, by Assembly member Quirk Silva and Buffy Wicks.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Before I begin, I want to thank the committee members and committee staff for their thoughtful conversations on this bill. I'm here to present AB 1751, which builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable paths to home ownership, town homes. Home owner oh, home ownership is moving further out of reach for too many Californians. Only 18% of Californian of households can afford a median price single family home.

A family now needs an annual income of roughly 221,000 to purchase that home. These numbers reflect a market that is pushing tradespeople, nurses, teachers, and firefighters out of their communities, and in some cases, out of California. That is a structural failure. AB 1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards. This approach reduces delays, provides certainty, and helps bring more ownership opportunities with within reach for working Californians.

If we are serious about addressing affordability, we need to create more pathways into homeownership. With recent amendments, AB 1751 includes a minimum wage of $28 an hour for construction workers on townhome projects. I want to address this minimum wage standard directly and clearly. There are no prevailing wage adjustments in this bill. Under current law, many workers on private nonunion townhome developments can be paid as little as the state minimum wage of $16 per hour.

This bill more than doubles that floor and ties it to inflation through the consumer price index. This bill raises wages where no meaningful standard exists today. It does not replace prevailing wage. It does not replace prevailing wage. It does not undercut prevailing wage.

This bill leaves prevailing wage exactly as it stands under current law. The language is explicit. Nothing in this legislation alters the determination of prevailing wage under the labor code. That protection is preserved. A minimum wage of $28 will significantly improve the lives of hundreds of workers who are working on nonunion private developments.

This bill also strengthens accountability. It extends direct wage liability to development as per labor code section two eighteen point eight. The developer, general contractor, and subcontractors are each jointly responsible for compliance with wage and hour requirements. In practice, this closes a significant enforcement gap that exists today for workers on private residential construction. This bill further grants joint labor management committees independent standing to enforce these provisions.

These committees may bring civil actions for wage statement violations, pursue remedies related to workers' compensation compliance, and seek injunctive relief against unlicensed contractors operating on covered projects. This requires an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing committee ensuring that enforcement is both viable and sustained. Members, the status quo is not working. It prices family out of home families out of homeownership and leaves too many workers without meaningful protections. California cannot meet its housing goals without rebuilding a path to homeownership.

California cannot ask workers to build that future without fair rate wages and real accountability. AB 1751 does both. With me to testify today is my colleagues, assembly member, Buffy Wicks, Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition, and Danny, Curtin, director of the California Conference of Cow Carpenters and strong advocate of prevailing wages.

Thank you. Thank you to my lead author here on this bill. I am supporting this bill in large part because we have failed folks who are trying to buy homes. We've actually done quite a bit of work in the past eight years or so, making it easier to build multifamily housing, but most of our housing is not for homeownership opportunity. And these townhomes can serve as a really important, part of that aspect.

We all know we need to build more housing, and so this bill provides, as mentioned, really important ministerial approval and creating certainty and reducing delays so that we can build the townhomes to serve our communities. I wanna talk more specifically about the, the wage aspect of this building. I think that is what has, stirred up most, of the conversation, over the past couple days. The and and, obviously, mister Curtin can speak more directly.

He's representing the the Carpenters Union, which is builds more housing than any other union in California and has a lot of expertise in this space.

But, you know, having been the author of AB 2011, I've lived in this space now for years of this conversation around wage rates, particularly as it pertains to housing. So what I have learned in that process, one, residential construction work is mostly nonunion in California. This bill does not affect those parts of residential construction that are unionized. So high rise buildings, obviously, you can't build a high rise townhome. That is not a part of this bill.

Affordable housing, which, has public subsidy triggers prevailing wage, that is not a part of this bill. San Francisco, which is a very organized, highly union density density city is explicitly exempt from this bill. So for market rate low rise building in the private sector, this sector is almost a 100% nonunionized. So nonunionized residential construction workers are some of the most exploited workers in California. It's a highly immigrant community, low income workforce, mostly small subcontractors who have poor record keeping.

In the words of Jay Bradshaw, he calls it a crime scene. So the and and I think that is in fact true for many of these projects. That is just the reality of this workforce. And so what this bill aims to do is to create a floor, not a ceiling, and to raise the floor for many of these workers right now who are getting less than this wage. This bill does not impact prevailing wage.

There was explicit language put into the bill to ensure that. It has no impact on unionized workers who are getting these prevailing wages. And I I had an opportunity to look at the opposition letter, and there were terms like, you know, wage grab, undermining prevailing wage, you know, lowering wages of workers, legislatively mandate lower lower wages, a, quote, harmful and unprecedented anti worker proposal.

And I just have a hard time believing that the Carpenters Union worker proposal given that that is in fact their entire sole mission is to lift up the bottom rung of workers, which is exactly what they are trying to do here. And the example given of residential prevailing wage rates in the letter, by the opposition, that has nothing to do with this bill.

These wages have nothing to do with this bill. This bill is good for housing. This bill is good for for folks who need the housing desperately. This bill is good for workers.

And I'm very pleased that we're having this conversation in the first house in a policy committee so we can flush out the conversations, have an adult conversation about what we think is the right way to approach this, how we can provide the meaningful streamlining that we need to do while still lifting up the workers that are some of our most exploited in the state of California.

And with that, we'll turn it over to our expert witnesses here to testify.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, mister chair. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the New California Coalition. New California Coalition's about a four year old organization. It's both civic and business organizations coming together to focus on trying to solve some of the biggest affordability challenges in California. And one of the areas of interest is housing.

And I think I'll stay in my lane a little bit and talk about housing. So and let mister Curtin address some of the more of the labor issues. But this bill focuses exclusively on townhomes and why. The data is overwhelming in terms of townhomes being in the sweet spot of affordable entry level housing and middle class housing that's sadly lacking. Last year, we had 110,000 housing starts in California.

Of those, 25% roughly were ADUs. So the good news is the policy on ADUs is working, and the reason it works is we're making it easy to build them. The bad news is that means we're at about 75,000 housing starts. And, you know, many of those are out of the reach of ordinary Californians, and we're losing a new generation of Californians for those of us.

I've talked to some of the committee members about, you know, having adult children who have no prospect of owning a home in California.

And that's what we're zeroed in on this bill. If you look at the numbers, the California, the UC Berkeley study of the Clea Center, you know, it's at least a median of 30% cheaper, more affordable to buy a townhome than a single family home. The numbers are even the disparity is even higher in urban areas in coastal urban areas. We have hired a consultant called MapCraft who's worked on previous legislation.

They are looking at all the sites that would be eligible in the state for opportunities to build housing.

And two seventy five of of AMI will have tremendous additional housing opportunities with this bill, and they can get into the market. That's the goal of the bill. The bill makes eligible infill sites in rural and suburban areas, infill sites only, and in urban areas, housing sites, multifamily, and single family homes. We think it's an important and critical step, and we support, as a business organization, the $28 minimum wage floor in this bill.

And as was said earlier, I can point you to the exact language in the bill.

This this bill has zero impact on public works and the applicability of prevailing wage to public works.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Manning. Second witness.

Thank you, mister chairman. And this is on Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Honestly, pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said, but I will emphasize a few more things. Number one, for carpenters, the Carpenters Union, housing is the number one issue for us bar none. You've heard about the difficulties of people owning a home, I might add.

Congratulations on that staff issue, but your staff cannot afford to buy or even rent, in some cases, a home in California. So it's gonna all be done by video. There's no question about this townhome being an entry level, not for poverty level, but an entry level for young professionals. And I wanna point out that a carpenter at the absolute top of their game in in the industry now does not qualify for a mortgage for a bottom tier home.

And I think amazing amounts that you have to work make to qualify.

I do wanna stress, and I've been around a long time. Anybody's been around here for thirty years or so, raise your hands. But, otherwise, the fact is we have the strongest prevailing wage laws in the country, and that has been a process over thirty years. Some of it has it's been driven largely by the carpenters and bills we've put in, usually with the support of the building trades, I might add. Occasionally, some differences, but not often.

Those who may remember Senator Richard Alcon, one of the biggest bills, and I'll tell you exactly what that did. It essentially made the collective bargaining wage, the prevailing wage for public works. There's only two other states in the country that actually do that. The others have complicated processes to determine some vague number that is not actual wage. But the other two states, Minnesota and Washington, did that and followed our lead on that.

So that was mission critical. And some of the other things that happened, and I wanna emphasize this, this is the per transition of the prevailing wage now. We have expanded the coverage of what would be covered in prevailing wage, not simply the construction process, but interior systems, installation of interior systems, modular systems, things that weren't covered originally are now covered. And very, very importantly, we have sort of redefined what is covered by prevailing wage by redefining the concept of money.

It it used to be just that the when the government paid for a project, it would be prevailing wages.

But it's a much more expansive recognition of cost associated with prevailing wage that I mean, with public works that create prevailing wages. The second thing we focused on in those years was self enforcement, which is more and more happening in in the latest set of bills that we've been doing and joint liability, which is a very, very important factor. So we have the strongest enforcement law and the strongest prevailing wage law.

we can wrap up in one second because I I wanna emphasize that. But I also wanna tell you the housing workforce is over 300,000 people, and it is the worst conditions in the industry. They have nobody speaking for them, including the building trades and ourselves in some cases. It really is up to you in this committee to help that process along. Raising that wage will not impact prevailing wages, but it will help raise those workers up.

And that's mission critical for honest contractors to compete in this industry and eventually to organize the union. K. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody that wants to add in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company in support.

Chair and members, my name is Emmett Cromwell from Inland Empire Southern California with the Western States Regional Capital Carpenters out of Mirai Local, twenty one fifty nines in strong support of AB, 1751.

Thank you.

German Iniguez, member of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters Local one ten. Strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair, committee members. Jimmy Elrod with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters out of Local 714 Orange County in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Joseph Fuchs, thirty nine year member of the carpenters union who started out in the residential trades. And I'll tell you this, it hasn't changed much since 1987. I am in strong support of AB 1751. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Julio Flores, represent for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, out of Local 951 Riverside County in full support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Richard Burns, Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Juan Luna with the Western States Regional Council of Corp Carpenters in strong support. Thank you.

Eugene Morris, North Coast State's Carpenters Union, strong support.

Timothy Rife, North Coast State's Carpenters Union in strong support.

Hello. Jesus Camargo from the Western State Region of Carpenters from local ninety one in South LA. Strongly support.

Good afternoon. Martin Espinosa, proud member of the North Coast State's Carpenters in strong support.

Kurt Voskiel, North Coast State Carpenters and strong support.

Any anybody support? Support.

You Guys got a lot of people out there. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Andrea Deveau on behalf of the Cal Asian Chamber in support.

Mr chair members, Michael Gutting, Lighthouse Public Affairs here in support in behalf of AlphaX, San Diego Housing Commission, Fieldstead, and Habitat for Humanity California.

Thank you. Is there no one else outside?

Hi. I'm Harvey McKeown, Carpenter's Local seven thirteen, speaking in support. Thank you.

Seeing no one else coming in support, those in opposition, please step up at the desk. Yeah. Sit down.

Mister chairman and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the construction the Elevator Constructors Union of California. Despite what we've said today, this is absolutely a race to the bottom. It's an agenda of one union to try to drive down prevailing wages and wages so that they can perform the work of the rest of the building trades.

And it absolutely does undermine prevailing wage. I'll explain how.

First of all, the language in the bill that tries to say that it won't affect determinations, of prevailing wage, we don't think would actually have that impact. But one thing that this bill can't change is federal law. And the Federal Government sets prevailing wage for federal public works projects.

So if you create a minimum wage in California of $28, it will quickly become the mode across electrical work and plumbing and sheet metal work, and the Federal Government won't give a rat's ass about what this bill says, and they will set the prevailing wage weight for all the crafts at $28. Secondly, the residential wage rate for an electrician in Sacramento is $51 an hour with all the fringes.

What sets wage rates in in a market is supply and demand. Now the sponsors and the authors of the bill can't have it both ways. For two years, they've been telling us that we have, we don't have the adequate workforce to build all the housing that we need. And now they're saying that the the, that that the labor market is so wide open that that people are making less on average than $28. So I just happened to look up job listings.

These are all nonunion job listings in Sacramento for residential electricians. Here's one for just just as they come up. Modern Edison, $40 to $75 for a residential electrician. ...Electric, $40. American Home Energy Savings, 45 to 55.

Kibo, $40. Bayside Electric, 40 to 50. Vasco, 40 to 50. It goes on and on and on. If they're true this is one of the most constrained, labor markets that we've had.

And the wages that you can find by just googling it for residential construction work, at least in the the specialty trades that I represent, are well, well, well above what they're trying to establish to that. So for those reason, we would we would urge a no vote.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you, mister chair. Members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Because we're all spread so thin today, I'm speaking for Keith Dunn from the District Council of Ironworkers as well. We are here today in in respectful opposition of this bill. As mister Curtin mentioned in 2001, the legislature passed SB 97975.

You guys and us, I looked at the analysis. We were both on there, by Senator Richard Alarcon. They rec they recognize a simple principle. When public resources are used to support a project, the public deserves a return, starting with fair wages and the workers building it for the workers building it. SB 975 clarified that public funds aren't just a blank check written by the state.

It includes the real world tools local governments actually use, fee waivers, below market financing, and other forms of public support. That was intentional because those are public investments. And with that investment came a clear expectation. If you take a public benefit, you meet real public standards. In this case, middle class wages in the form of the prevailing wage.

Now SB seventeen fifty one is being used to carve out an exception to that long standard. It moves certain market rate housing into a category that avoids those standards while still benefiting from the same kinds of public assistance that trigger prevailing wage in the first place. And let's be clear about what that means. It means public value goes in, but a meaningful public standard now comes out.

The public standard in this case, the posted residential prevailing wage rates, which include benefits such as health care and a pension.

That's not how the legislatures operated for the last two decades, and it's not how we build a high road economy in California. Don't let developers tell you that the prevailing wage is a barrier. It's a baseline. It is the minimum wage. It already exists that they are choosing not to pay out of concerns for profit.

All it does is ensure skilled workers, safe jobs, and a middle class pathway in the very communities these projects are supposed to serve. Where will workers get their health care under the scheme and vision in s p 70 '51? Prevailing Wage provides that. They are they will now be pushed off onto our underfunded underfunded medical system and will likely use it since construction is so dangerous. While housing developers get to not pay the prevailing wage, which includes health care coverage.

Where will these workers get their pension contributions? They will be left without access to a defined benefit pension plan, another benefit provided by the prevailing wage. You are lowering wage rates and giving developers in the housing construction market the right to pay lower wage rates with no benefits that currently exist. This is a wage decrease and step and a step back from what this legislature Democrats have said they believe.

We have fought for one hundred and nine years for these labor standards, and this is the beginning of the end.

I'll wrap up with this. Workers in this industry are in the shadows created by developers who refuse to pay the wages that already exist. They are the reason we are here today, and instead of holding them to account for an under for an under the table business model and making them pay the posted residential prevailing wage rate. So you're giving them yet another opportunity to not pay what is already a construction worker minimum wage. The wage that prevails county by county, the prevailing wage. For those reasons, we are in opposition today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody that wants to add on in opposition? Anybody outside, maybe?

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful Oppose unless amended, and look forward to the continuing conversation with the assembly member. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rocky Rhodes, City of Simi Valley, City Councilman, and incoming chair of the Community Economic and Human Development Committee of SCAG, and I oppose.

Mister chair, member Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair members. Connor Guston on behalf of Teamsters California in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair members. Crystal Moreno on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, and we are in strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, first, I'll go to committee members if you wanna I don't need please.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. I first wanna start by thanking the author and for her work. We have had conversations as well as with, assembly member Wicks. I will make it clear that I do have some concerns. I but I I think I'm gonna start with some questions first.

I wanna know were the trades included with this $28 amount that we we got? So how did that $28 amount get set? And and and if you could help me with that, I think that might lead me to my next question.

As you know, bills are work in process progress. We if we go through where these committees are referred to, it was first, presented last week in housing, and we've had conversations. I'll be very candid. No. We have not worked with the trades on this 20 to $8 minimum floor.

What I will say about this wage is it's a minimum floor. This does not prohibit, as was mentioned, the $40 electrical engineer coming on and getting a higher wage. It's a minimum floor. As far as conversations with the trades, those are ongoing. And also, it's not just the trades who are opposed.

We also have some cities that are listed and has just came up, the League of Cities. So we, as many others do in this legislative body, we will continue conversations. We have a long way to go before this becomes a law. If it does, we are very pragmatic. We understand what we're facing.

But the stern opposition, which you just heard, is not unexpected. Because something has always happened in this legislative body doesn't mean it always will happen. It was presented to me by the opposition right here. You're leaving me personally, meaning I'm termed out. And when you leave, there could be ramifications because of this bill well after you're gone.

This is true of every piece of legislation. No. I didn't say you said that, mister Wedge, but it was presented to me. But my point is that every piece of legislation not only evolves, it can come back and be amended. But if we do nothing, we stay.

And I have heard now I'm the longest serving member along with assembly member Almar Estucci, who started our tenure here in 2012. Now this might be forgotten by some of the people and for the new people. Not only did I start in 2012 under another governor, but I lost in 2014 and came back in 2016.

What some of my friends from the trades might forget is I was one of the members that came up on one of the biggest piece of legislation that has sustained many of the trades to this day, which, by the way, that my colleagues on the other side constantly are at us about related to the gas tax. That has provided jobs to this day for thousands of trade workers.

So to infer that I don't care about construction jobs, that I don't understand this issue, is not accurate. But what I have seen in a decade in a decade of now and now we have, I believe, 13 people on the housing committee. When I first started, there were seven because nobody wanted to work in this space. And we have been pushing and pushing about how do we build. What I hear over and over from constituents across the state is the homeless issue.

We're not making progress. We're spending billions of dollars. Homelessness intersects with housing construction. If we cannot build housing units, and, yes, this is a specific type of housing. It is townhomes.

This is not, our very, low affordable housing. It's townhomes. It's sort of the middle income. But if our middle income individuals, as mentioned, maybe it's a teacher, maybe it's a construction worker, they cannot get into these units, then they stay into the rental market. They stay in the rental market, those prices stay inflated.

So we have to do something. We're not even close to our housing goals. And we say, well, this is gonna impact our industry. I mean, when we look at $28, it is a floor. It is a floor.

When we look at the nonunion union construction workers, we know they're exploited, and we need to do something about that. They are exploited. Because, by the way, I know many of them, and they are the people working in these residential units. So it can't be from the trades unless we agree with you, you just can't build. And offer any other from my

I'm I'm actually still Yeah.

More discussion.

I'm actually good. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

I don't wanna start a fight.

Yeah. I I wanted to share some thoughts here. I think there is very good, and I've shared with both of my colleagues. I think there's some very good policy here. I think the challenge in, you know, is that you've said it.

If we do nothing, we'll continue to get nothing. But as the root also the root cause of what happens here in Sacramento, we continue to do the same thing over and over, and we expect different results. And that's the definition of insanity. Right? So, you know, the part for me is communication is the root of all our challenges.

And so I asked that question about the trades, and I asked that because I understand the policy. I think it's good, but I also believe in communication. So I've got a lot of engagement from district. And I I wanna say that while I I think communication is is how we get there. And I appreciate you all being a part of the conversation is what I would ask so that they we can get to a place where not not everyone's gonna be happy.

And that and that's the that is not possible in our world. But I do wanna say there is good policy, and I don't wanna see a fight happen where nothing happens and we continue to do the same thing over and over and we get to the definition of insanity continuously. So, chair, I I will say, I know we don't have quorum, but I I really would like to move this bill.

And I I would like them to continue on in conversation, and I hope today they get out of committee to be able to have that conversation.

No, there's no agreement with Johnson. Thank you.

I was gonna ask if you wanted to answer some of the questions from the opposition without making it into a debate. I wanna be clear. We're gonna go back and forth. Did did you wanna address any of the concerns from the opposition?

Thank you.

I do. I will just start because I think we both or all of us can get wound up on this, and you can see I'm getting wound up. And, certainly, the opposition is wound up. But I think we have to base our discussion on what we believe this bill will do. And so I'm just gonna if you don't mind, read a few of of our statements.

And so does AB 1751 lower wages for construction workers? No. The bill establishes a new twenty eight hour minimum wage floor for construction workers on covered townhome projects. Again, this does not mean they can't make more and as was stated, many are making more. For most of the projects which are private, so we need to kind of underscore private for sale developments with no public subsidy, No prevailing wage obligation currently applies.

Workers on those projects are currently only entitled to state minimum wage of state of $16 an hour. Now, again, we know that many make far above that. AB 1751 more than doubles that baseline of our current state minimum wage. What happens to prevailing wage? The bill explicitly preserves prevailing wage law.

Nothing in this chapter shall affect the determination of prevailing wage. Does the bill include any other labor protections be beyond the $20 floor? Yes. The bill includes several protections. Wage violation liability extends directly to the development proponent, not just contractors and subcontractors.

This is stronger than what standard prevailing wage requires. A prevailing JLMC is entitled to reasonable reasonable attorneys fees and costs. How does $28 an hour compare to what workers earn on these projects today? Today, a construction worker on a private and, please, I'm underlining private because this is what this pertains to. For a for a sale townhome project in California is entitled to a minimum of $16.

A B 1751 raises that floor to 28. 75% increase with automatic inflation adjustments going foe forward. What about the building trades opposition letter? The state building and construction trades council opposes the bill arguing that it undercuts residential prevailing rate wage. However, residential prevailing weight wage rates do not currently apply to private market for sale to in home.

And I think that's I understand what we're talking about, public subsidy for public projects. And I don't disagree with that, but that's not what this bill is pertaining to. The bill does not reduce any wage that workers currently receive on these project. It creates a new floor above what workers are entitled to today. There are many other questions.

I'm not sure if that answers some of yours. There is one that I think is important. The trades argue this this bill provides no benefits such as health care and pension. That is true. This is a valid concern.

This is a point that I don't disagree with, and it deserves an honest answer. The $28 hour floor is a base wage rate and does not mandate, if you want to say, fringe benefits the way prevailing wage does. However, two things are worth noting. First, no benefits obligation exists for these workers today. This bill does not take away benefits.

It simply does not add them. And I understand the whole having those fringe benefits, as what you were talking about, individuals being on Medi Cal or other, government government resources. Second, the developer liability provision under labor code 2.218, it creates accountability of the contracting change that does not exist under standard employment law, which provides some structural protection. And this I have heard about over and over being in committee on housing is whether it's wage theft, these type of issues that are serious concerns for workers.

So we wanted to address these.

I know there's still work to do on this bill, and I pledge to I I believe some of the members might be watching or coming in. They're all participating. That we will continue to work on this. As I said, it's not just the trades that have concerns, but we also have some cities that are concerned. But with that

Thank you. Assemblymember Ward. Just walk in. Do you have any comments?

No. I I had a chance to both, review material and deep, take a take a sip of sort of last minute input, have conversations with our joint authors as well. And so I just wanted to get some clarity on some questions here because I'm hearing, you know, very specific conflicting information about what things would or wouldn't do. First of all, from a land use perspective, you you know, we're talking about the development of townhomes and as I see the parameters of what this would ministerially authorize.

Lands that are already either urbanized or infill development in the case of suburban or rural areas.

Lands that are already zoned for multifamily development. I guess the first question is, what is it already in local permitting law that is a barrier today to these kinds of housing products from being ministerial approved if it's already multifamily outside of an s p 79 zone and within these mole and densities that you're able to do something of this scale? And where are the discretionary barriers that are being exploited right now?

I'm gonna let mister Manning answer that one.

The settlement, thanks for the question. Even though something is zoned for multifamily, it doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have to go through existing entitlement requirements including sequel analysis, local entitlement hearings, opposition, etcetera. All of those things apply for any townhome project unless of course it go you know, you go through the sequel checklist and you say it's it's, it doesn't trigger, the requirement for environmental impact report.

Isn't isn't this already exempted through AB 130?

No. Why not? AB AB 130 is a CEQA exemption that applies to, certain sites, in urban areas, as I recall, and infill sites. In fill 20 acres or less. And, and it's CEQA only. It doesn't apply to suburban infill sites, for example, number one. Number two, it's also not ministerial. And one of the things that this bill enables you to do is down zone on certain sites unless they're unless they're designated as affordable sites in the housing element.

If they're designated as affordable sites, you cannot down zone, but it does allow for some down zoning opportunities in urban areas. If nothing is being built on those sites, those sites are vacant, and, you can come in at three quarters of the mall in density as a minimum. The bill has a minimum density for, urban, suburban, and rural sites. So for urban sites, it's a minimum density of 25 units an acre. Right.

And then townhomes are defined as three habitable floors Right. With a height limit, and they have to be either have the normal air gap or be connected. Some of them are condominium. Some of them are not. They could be either depending.

So let me flip over to our opposition. When in today's practices, do the labor, the skills of those who are skilled and trained actually bid on work that is of this development type, small to medium scale, townhome style, three stories or less.

Because I feel like that's something that, you know, we are having a principal debate on, which is righteous to have, but in practice is not something that the workforce is the skilled workforce actually wants to go after because we need that and there the the the the work opportunity could be greater for something that's a little bit more intensive of a structure.

Well, first of all, our reading of the bill is all housing projects of three stories or less. So that doesn't just mean townhome development. That would be single single family home developments. And, we have we have contractors and who who build all types of housing throughout all of California. You know, you could perhaps go to jurisdictions and and and and there probably hasn't been townhome specific developments built, but there have been other small scale developments where we've had unionized labor.

It may not be union wall to wall, but the electrical may have been done union or the plumbing or the all the mechanical. It it we do all of this.

Right.

Well This pertains to townhomes.

It does. And I and my reading of the bill is that that is specifically what is called out as something that they're trying to be able to have this ministerial, authorization. And I yes. We do we do we do we do all that work and everything. You're you're able to do all that work, but do we do all that work in today's context?

I give you a a big development in Sonoma County, Oakmont. K. Oakmont is a senior living facility, and we had all kinds of union contractors back in the day and after the fires who who did work in those we we do this work.

How big is it?

I couldn't give you the specific area of units. That's correct.

And it feels to me like the parameters of what I'm seeing here is something that is small to at best mid scale.

But our biggest concern here, Assemblymember, is the impact, the precedent this will create, and how it will impact prevailing wage. And despite the best intent of the authors Yes. They can't change federal law and federal setting of prevailing wage.

I do I do I do wanna get to that. I'm just trying to sort of, you know, first, like, have a series of, kind of understanding on land use, but also to this point, like, to know, is this even something that is applicable to the context of how we develop different kinds of building types and and sort of, like, you know, in in kind of common practice?

Not that, you know, we don't miss and shouldn't have, you know, a strongly more unionized workforce like we enjoyed fifty years ago. But how do we kinda get there? Well, let me come back to the economics question because I'm not your I don't think we're entirely wrong here either.

So I I've I've got some uncertainty again. Like, you know, if something, you know, doesn't doesn't apply here for, you know, the for opposition's, workforce right now, then why wouldn't we wanna lift up the opportunities right now to make things a little bit easier? But I'm also still trying to appreciate. Right? What I'm not sure I got some clarity on what today's barriers are in municipal government that are preventing the the ministerial the the the by right, and and and seek a proof, exemptions.

I there might be some nuance here and there might be some, like, you know, additional, allowances here in a suburban setting, a rural setting on some of those infill parcels within, you know, more rural towns. Great. I'm trying to see, does this bill, like, have the impact we hope it would have for the housing type, but we also do very much need to be able to develop for for for California for, a more affordable homeownership opportunities. And I I get that very well.

So let's off of land use and I guess onto the economics here of of of the different prevailing wage.

On one hand, we're saying that somehow this is going to very much undercut the prevailing wage standards that we we we adhere to. We're hearing from supporters that we wanna be able to lift up a bare minimum. Right? Because if something is not unionized construct constructed with unionized labor right now, very often, you could have very unskilled and, you know, sort of under the radar minimum wage workers that are being exploited for construction and development. That's not okay either.

And so I see what the supporters are trying to do is, in their argument, raise the floor here, but also in the bill's language is specifically saying that nothing undercuts existing prevailing wage requirements, nor would local requirements on in on on on adherence to prevailing wage construction within within those jurisdictions be undercut. That that that I see in the bill here too.

So I wanna come back to what, you know, sort of the the meta about whether or not this is gonna affect future, like, work and where we're driving to. But but on today's sort of work project, bar in totality for more work? And how could this undercut work when an IBW member, for example, is coming in who is subject to prevailing wage on a given project?

Because I've heard an argument that this is gonna lower the wage for them, and I and I'm and I'm and I'm not not reconciling that.

Well, there's a lot there. Let me answer all two pieces to your question. The first piece is we do believe this will undermine wage growth in areas because I went through, for instance, in Sacramento, the residential prevailing wage rate for an electrician, a residential electrician is $51. If you go through the vast majority of job listings right now on the Internet for residential electricians in Sacramento, you will find that those wages, typically are right about where our residential prevailing wage rate are.

Maybe a little bit lower, but much, much higher on average than that $28.

If you create a $28 minimum wage, that's going to be where where you're going to see the pressure of the wages go. It's gonna put put downward pressure on wage rates is our belief. We also and then ultimately that that underpins the preventative wage across the board. But here's the the the problem the the significant problem. The authors have said that this won't have impact on anything else but townhome projects, and it won't undercut prevailing wage.

And they put language in the bill that says, DIR, you can't use these wages to determine prevailing wage. But guess what? The Federal Government doesn't care what the California legislature says. And the Federal Government sets prevailing wage rates for all projects in California that receive any federal funding. It's Davis Bacon applies.

Okay? They will go in, and now you create a $28 minimum wage. The Federal Government sets the preventive wage by the mode. Okay? So what is the wage rate that is, is most common in that particular market?

That will then easily become this minimum wage. That will get posted by the Trump administration, and now the prevailing wage for electricians in San Diego will be $28 an hour. And there's nothing that we can do about it in California. Okay.

Miss Warder's rebuttal. Mister Ward?

I'll just take the first part. Because I'm I'm I'm I'm not beyond sensitive. I, you know Yeah. I'm concerned.

Sure. Right?

About whether or not this could be a catalyst.

After that explanation, you should be, but that's not the reality of how the housing market works. So in the real world, a builder goes to build a townhome. He bids out various parts of the project, HVAC, you know, flooring, etcetera, the whole house. They get bids. The bids include not only the wage rate, but also the materials, etcetera, bid in for the various components of the home.

The only wage protection that's in current law is the minimum wage. We have a minimum wage in California.

Right.

It's $16.90 an hour. Yep. And guess what the minimum wage is for every private work townhome built in California? $16.90 an hour. So that is not undermining Davis Bacon last time I checked.

So how is raising the minimum from $16.90 to 28, and it's a minimum wage. We have separate minimum wages in California. We have them for fast food workers. You voted on that bill. I'm sure.

We have them for health care workers. How's that any different? So we're agreeing on behalf of New California Coalition, and we have some developers in our group, to raise the minimum wage on these projects. What what they really want, and we should just have the discussion, is they would like prevailing wage to be applied in this bill to all these townhome projects.

And we this is we

just not what they're saying.

Good. But but that's at the root of the issue. And because because this bill has nothing to do with prevailing wage.

Let let me take a shot because I know

you don't want to again, we're not gonna get into back and forth. Okay? And we try to set that up when just before you walk.

I I I appreciate that.

Let me clarify one thing. Look. The federal prevailing wage does not apply in California except when there's federal dollars, as Scott said. But if there's a state prevailing wage, which also applies, if there's any state money, the state prevailing wage supersedes the federal prevailing wage. End of discussion.

It's the higher of the two wages. To imply that raising a minimum wage up $12 or a minimum standard $12 will actually bring everybody else's wages down, defies comprehension. And that's kind of where I'm gonna leave. But the federal minimum of prevailing wage only applies in federal projects if there's no state money. If there's state money, then it's the state prevailing wage.

It's not what I do. Okay. So, well, I wanna Yeah. You have more questions?

Thank you, mister chair. I'll just maybe have some closing, like, thoughts. Obviously, this is a a consequence of having a important, but late amendment here of this nature that could have significant merit, but also raises legitimate concerns with individuals I work closely with on housing conversations as well.

And I will have ongoing concern whether or not we are missing the long term economic challenges here with personal economics when it comes to workers' economics that might seem like we're doing something beneficial in the short run at the risk of having a long term consequence that is going to depreciate and devalue the work of skilled workforce in the in in the long run here too.

And it's not enough time for me, I think, to have, like, a full vetting of that economic study here, especially when we're having such important and heated conversation over this issue.

Somebody is right here, and it's gonna take more for me to be convinced in the end that which side is right here.

I will be supporting this to be able to go forward today, but I will stay engaged with these viewpoints because we can't send this to the governor if we are gonna have some kind of long term economic harm on the and and depreciation, from what we see as righteous wages for the skilled trains the skilled workforce and these these these skilled professions that that deserve those those wages. That that can't be a consequence and outcome of this.

And I don't know if through further conversation, again, this all hit very last minute. There are ways to build in those protections in here as well to make sure that this work is not and these workers are not superseded by the lifting up of minimum wage workers who are being exploited.

Is there an opportunity here for a shared outcome as we sometimes find with s p four twenty three or other language as well? That's what I'm hoping this is heading for, should this move forward in the legislative process. So thank you for a chance, mister

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. I I do believe that you guys made a question statement. If not, you wanna do that?

As I was saying, I think, right before you, came in, is I am committed. We are committed to continuing conversations. And I know that this is said in almost every committee, and I know that many times members will say I'm going to give a courtesy vote to move this out, but I'm gonna, make sure that I kind of reserve my right on the floor. And I 100% agree that we are not close to agreement, and we have work to do. And I can commit that we will keep working on this.

And that is the way we craft legislation here. It's not pretty. Sometimes it can be quite ugly and contentious, but we have to have these conversations. And I'm pleased to be in a position where if we can move this and get to a place where there will be less opposition, that would be our goal, but we'll see each step of the way. But you are right that it has been a very quick turnaround from last week.

This is not the only bill that adds this type of, if you want to say, drama or excitement or last minute amendments. Let's be honest. This happens many, many times, and so, certainly, a light is being shined on this, and we'll continue to work on it.

Well, I thank you both. You're working in leadership in this issue is something that we appreciate. Assembly member Quirk Silva, you stated that, you're trimming out and and the work that you've done. It's certainly appreciated by Californians and by the legislature. Thank you for what you've done, and thanks for getting into how you started and and how you were supportive of these kind of measures.

I really appreciate your work and same thing for US amendment. We actually continue to be a leader in this space. And, we'll continue working on this issue because we do need to find a solution for this housing crisis. Still, some of the member work said somebody's right, somebody's wrong.

What we've been doing is not working clearly, and I do believe that this is one step in the right direction so that we can actually peel those housing units that we need along with all the packages that we're working for housing too.

So with that, thank you again. I will be supportive of your bill today. Again, we don't have a quorum yet. As soon as we do, we do have a motion by Assembly member Johnson, and we'll go through that once we get a quorum. Thank you both for being here.

And one second. Another bill.

Assemblymember, we actually you have a a bill.

Thank you.

That's item seven AB 1976.

Yeah. And I think that When

you're ready, please.

My witnesses yeah. Are coming. But I will start

Mister chair, I wanna thank the committee staff for their work, and I accept the committee amendments. I've done work in the housing space by looking at how we can make our processes more streamlined and more efficient in getting projects approved and implemented. By taking what I've done on housing, I wanna apply this idea of streamlining to transportation projects, specifically bicycle and pedestrian safety projects.

There are approximately one thousand to twelve hundred pedestrian deaths per year, and there has been a fifty percent increase in deaths since 2014. Knowing this, we need to start thinking more about how we can improve safety on our local streets and roads and how we can get some of these pedestrian and bicycle projects approved.

While well intended, there are a number of processes and regulations that have made it harder to get much needed transportation projects done for pedestrians and cyclists in our community. For example, we've seen jurisdictions have high thresholds just to get the process of getting a simple speed bump approved. There are also instances where excessive public meetings have delayed projects from being completed or approved, sort of death by meeting process, in order to get some of this stuff done. So that's what this bill does.

It tries to streamline and make it easier to do these projects.

So, the bill would, limit public meeting after the approval of a bicycle and pedestrian safety project through the circulation element of the general plan, limit canceling of contracts without having a public meeting if a city or county makes specific formal findings, Limit the threshold for their request for a traffic calming measure to no more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residents are located in harder in whole or part of 1,000 feet of the proposed traffic calming, and update the pedestrian mall act.

And I've taken the amendments on this specific piece. And I understand there's been concerns that have been raised, specifically around the limitation of public meeting input. I've had discussions with stakeholders, and I'm planning to make amendments to address these concerns. As I committed an assembly transportation committee on Monday, should the bill move forward out of the committee today, I'll be making those amendments to address those concerns around public meeting input when the bill is in appropriations committee.

We're working with stakeholders right now in opposition to figure out some language to help address some of those concerns, and I welcome that input. I will let my, witnesses self ident introduce and give their perspective.

Good afternoon, chair, committee. Marc vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We're the sponsor of AB 1976. This bill is about a simple question, which is when a city has already identified a dangerous area or an area that it wants to pedestrianize or do something with, and has done the planning and it's already approved that should the project still be able to die and delay in duplication, or should we add so much process, so much excess that it takes forever to actually deliver?

And so too often in California that the answer is yes, and that has real consequences.

I I've said this before. I'll I'll say it again that I think we've done quite a lot in the housing space to get government sort of out of the way. And I I think we have a lot to do in the transportation space to get government to to work really functionally and be able to deliver for its constituents. And so, you know, where people are killed and injured on the streets, it's just it's not a mystery. We know how to make the streets safer.

We know where traffic calming works. We know protected bikeways, pedestrian improvements, people centered design. But even after communities do all the work and do all of the planning, get all of the community input, and after all that engagement has happened and the project's ready to move on, we still require these additional hurdles. I know that there's projects in LA that are are cited at five years or maybe even three years of just the community input even though they're already within the general plan.

And so this bill makes and addresses some of these problems, and we are, you know, planning on amendments to to narrow those.

But we make sure that this is about, approved safety projects that actually get built. It prevents duplicative process after a pedestrian safety project is already in adopted plan. And yeah. I'll add additionally, the bill modernizes the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960 and appreciate the committee's amendments and refining that process as well to ensure that cities can create vibrant and people first public spaces in the way that, K Street in Sacramento is or 3rd Street Promenade in Sacramento is, etcetera.

And so, ultimately, this bill is about whether we're serious about safety and delivering projects in a way that is responsive to community needs, and or if we care more about process and letting letting projects die in that process.

So respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1976. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you for having us. My name is George Spies, and I'm a pedestrian safety advocate in Oakland, which, like many cities across California, have dangerous many dangerous high traffic streets, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. The status quo on California streets is killing four thousand people a year and seriously injuring hundreds of thousands of others. The outside the outsized proportion of whom are children, seniors, and disadvantaged people who are out on foot.

Currently, our laws and governance procedures give outsized power to those objecting to change, creating a systemic bias for this deadly status quo. However, this problem can actually be solved, and transportation engineers know the solutions. We need to allow them to enact the solutions in their jurisdictions as quickly as possible to lessen fatalities and serious injuries, and the permanent impacts for the families and communities across the state.

And there's plenty of evidence that streets safer for pedestrians and bikes are also safer for everyone in cars and are a boom for retail businesses. In Oakland, we saw how excessive project delays lead to loss of life.

The 14th Street Complete Streets project on the most dangerous street in Oakland's downtown went through three years of public review. One week before the final vote, Dmitry Putilov was struck and killed in front of his two children when trying to cross 14th Street. This is not a fluke, however. This is a pattern. By examining the state's Twitter's database, one can see that death on our roads is not mysterious, but utterly predictable.

Dimitri's death was not the first on 14th Street, but hopefully it will be the last. It took far too long to get done, and our DOT staff watched in helpless horror as people continued to die while they spent their time mollifying people who did not understand the threat, the engineering principles, or the solutions. I urge you to pass AB 71976 and allow life saving projects to move more swiftly.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to add on in support? Any primary opposition, please come to the desk and have a seat if you like.

Good afternoon, chair members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, respectfully with an opposed and less amended position. Appreciate the overarching goal here, which is to advance safety projects. That's something that our members care a lot about. And you can see from the fact that funding is oversubscribed for this purpose at both the state and local level that local agencies are taking it seriously and going after funding for these improvements.

What we do have concerns with are the provisions limiting public outreach. Looking forward to reviewing amendments on that, just because we don't think it's how our communities expect us to engage with them, and it's certainly not how our funding agencies expect us to engage with the communities.

You could have examples where projects were included in a plan ten or twenty years ago, and to prohibit, public meeting on that project just because it was in the general plan circulation element, in 2005 just doesn't seem like what our our our neighborhoods and constituents expect. There's sort of a premise there that public input is always a bad thing, not something that can result in design changes and improvements for users and things of that nature.

And then as to the budgetary provisions in the bill, we really wouldn't have concerns with this if it were something like a timely use of funds requirement.

We wanna make sure that we're taking state dollars when they're given to us and using those efficiently. But this language applies to any funding, whether it's local funding, whether it's federal funding, and we just have fundamental concerns with the precedent that's being established with those provisions and really think that they're better suited in some sort of, timely use of funds or penalty provision if you aren't delivering on state dollars. And so with those two issues resolved, we would happily remove opposition.

Sounds like the bill is moving in the right direction, but those are pretty serious concerns for us. So today, opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Dave McConklin with the League of California Cities. Would echo the the comments just now made. You know, Cal Cities, you know, were very supportive of, I think, the efforts here to improve pedestrian but bicycle safety. But the bill assumes that once a project is identified circular element, that no further public process is warranted. And so not to repeat what's already been said, so I'll save the committee the additional time to drill in on that.

But we do have major concerns with prohibiting public input and as well as ensuring that local municipalities are compliant with ATP grants, which are currently overly prescribed. We're working aggressively to build design these projects. So for those reasons, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room wants to add on an opposition, name, affiliation, and position?

Mark Newburger, California State Association of Counties. Just wanna agree with the comments provided by the urban counties of California and Cal Cities as well. We're also opposed unless amended, but look forward to working with the authors and the sponsors on that.

Thank

Thank you. Seeing no one else, Assemblymember Ward, any comments, questions?

you. The bill.

I appreciate the authors that work on this issue, and I'll be happy to support the bill today.

Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting today, and thank you for working with the committee on amendments. Within the amendments, they will support your bill today. But as you know, we still don't have a quorum. So once we do, we'll proceed. Thank you.

Thank you.

And and with that, we're gonna go with assembly member Papan phase two. She presented one of her bills. You wanna come up? You wanna do your other data center? Yeah.

The other data center, which is

The HDD 1.

Yes. Item 23ab2619.

2619? Is that what you yes, sir.

You did the first one already. So you're on the second. I am. Thank you.

I am.

And I'm gonna be stepping out. I gotta present a bill too. Someone, like, handle the gavel too. Assembly member work. Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, miss Pappan. When you're situated with your witnesses, you may begin.

Okay. Thank you, chair. And, chair. No other members. So this is my keeping track keep tracking what happens after we build data center bill.

You heard previously, 2469, which focuses on the decisions we make before projects built. AB 2619 picks up where that bill leaves off. As California continues to see growth in data centers, consistent and reliable information about their ongoing water demand is increasingly important. AB 20692619, I I'll get it right, has one simple but essential goal, ensuring that communities and water suppliers have the data they need about the actual and continuing water use of large facilities.

A water supply assessment required under AB 2469 occurs occurs only once, and that's at the start of the project.

That makes it difficult to answer basic questions afterward, like, how much water is a facility actually using year after year? Has demand increased as technology or operations evolve? How does usage compare across facilities or regions? AB 2619 establishes a very straightforward reporting requirement. It requires that data centers, provide estimates of both their expected and actual water use as a part of the business licensure project process.

Excuse me. So you estimate the first time you get a business license, and then once you're renewing every year, you would provide your actual water use. It also requires water agencies to incorporate data centers into their urban water management plans and their annual water supply and demand assessments.

Finally, the bill directs the Department of Water Resources to develop the best management practices for data centers and to create guidance that cities and counties can use when accessing projected water use efficiency measures and the cumulative water resource impacts of proposed facilities. All within the context of local and regional water management.

These two bills work together. AB 2469 ensures we make smart decisions before projects are approved, and AB 2619 ensures that we stay informed after they're operating. Planning and accountability, front end decisions, and long term oversight. Because when it comes to water and when it comes to California's future, we cannot manage what we do not measure. With that, I'll turn it over to Sean Bothwell Boswell.

Sorry. Sean Bothwell from California Coastkeepers Alliance.

Thanks. Good afternoon, committee member. Sean Bothwell of California Coastkeeper Alliance. I'll keep this fairly, brief. This bill's, you know, pretty straightforward.

Local governments should know, when a new high user of water comes in, how much water, is projected to be used before giving them a business license and then knowing throughout, annual reports how much water they're actually using. You know, our system is pretty built out, and so any new, demand on the system usually is gonna require a very much more expensive water supply to meet that demand. And so the local government should be aware of that before making those those local decisions.

Allows for the the look at best practices. It doesn't mandate any one best practice.

In fact, if it did, I probably wouldn't be sitting here in support because this data centers in particular are really innovating when it comes to cooling water and water efficiency. And so this bill allows, our agencies to look at emerging technologies and, recommend best practices. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any of the supporters in the room who wish to, state a position of support?

Santa Clara Valley Water. Jack Werson on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support.