Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Local government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. Senate welcomes the public in person. We are holding our committee hearings here in the Capitol Building.

I ask all members of the committee to be present in Room 112. Committee. We'll begin as sub committee. We'll begin as sub committee. We have 14 bills on today's agenda, One of which is on consent, file item 13, AB 2640.

Because we have a fairly long agenda, we would like to keep everybody ask everybody to keep your remarks short. Both vice chair, Choi and I will be moving back and forth between four other total four committees today. So everybody be patient. Senator Ashby will be absent today. Senator Seyarto will be presenting, item number ten and eleven on behalf of Assembly Member Johnson, who could not be here today.

So, bill presentation. Our first bill is Assembly Member Harabedian: AB 748. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair. How are you and Mr. Vice Chair? I will keep this moving along. I will take heed of your advice to keep it short. AB 748-- first of all, thank you to the Chair for her work on the bill. Thank you to staff. Staff analysis in this committee is always excellent, and it's the only time where I get to see the word hostage in a staff analysis about my bill, and so I did enjoy reading the analysis on both this and and my other bill. This is a bill that you saw last year.

It would expand the pre-approved plan model that we use for ADUs for small, single-family projects, any project where it is less than 10 units. We are currently using this model in Altadena, which I represent, and it is helping a lot with rebuild and recovery, and really what this bill is about is making sure that there's local control. Every city, every county that would be implementing this gets to decide what pre-approved housing plans look like.

But it also is trying to make sure that we're doing everything we can to expedite, streamline, and efficiently build housing throughout the state. We passed out of this committee last year unanimously, went through committee subsequently, and heard some feedback, so we've amended the bill to make sure that smaller counties and smaller cities--any county under 250,000 and any city under 25,000--would get delayed implementation, and this is something that other states are utilizing to great success, and we think it's a smart bill.

We don't think that this is a panacea to necessarily solve the housing crisis, but we think that this goes a long way to helping actually local government streamline processes and homeowners who are trying to build and rebuild their houses. So with that, happy to take any questions from the committee.

Do you have any support witness?

Just me, Mr. Vice Chair.

Okay. Anyone in the public who would like to support this, state your name and the organization and your position only. No statements.

Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Housing is a Human Right division, in strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair, Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Ahmanson Junior. He's in strong support.

Good morning. Nolan Gray, California YIMBY, in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Any opposition witness? Yeah, you can come over to the front. It's the table over there. You have two minutes. Yeah. Go ahead.

Hi. Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, and then I'm the only one. And since we don't have any quorum at this time as a subcommittee, we'll have to leave it open until enough people come back to vote on it. And for now, we'll leave it open for the vote later--

Great. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

--when quorum is established. Thank you. Okay. We move on to Number Two. I'm sorry?

Closing statements from the author. Does he want to close?

Speak louder.

Would you like me to close, Mr. Vice Chair?

Closing statement.

Yeah. Just respect-- thank you for your comments. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the right time. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. We'll leave it open and-- yeah, until a quorum is established. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move on to number-- File Number Two: AB 1786.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Me again. Appreciate it. Would first just like to thank, again, the committee consultants for all their work on this bill and the analysis. I am happy to accept the committee's amendments that move the sunset to 2032 and clarify exactly why the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments is explicitly mentioned in this bill. I'd like to thank the San Gabriel Valley COG for all their work on sponsoring and shepherding this bill through.

Cities across California are having to deliver increasingly difficult and expensive capital projects ranging from water and sewer infrastructure upgrades to affordable housing developments. Counties and other entities already benefit from best-value contracting, but general law cities are required to award construction contracts to the lowest bidder. What we see is that this actually limits a city's ability to account for various elements, such as contractor experience, safety performance, and management of complex staging requirements throughout the project.

It's actually leading to increased costs, less efficient outcomes, and a lose-lose for those involved. We also see inconsistency and delayed project timelines. This bill would address the gap by allowing general law cities and the San Gabriel Valley COG to use best-value contracting for projects over $500,000. It protects the integrity of existing safeguards, including labor compliance, transparency, and reporting, and creates consistency between local governments to efficiently deliver high-quality outcomes for their residents. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the right time. Here with me is Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.

Thank you, and good morning, Chair and members. Carlin Shelby, representing the SGB COG, here as a sponsor and in strong support of AB 1786. This bill extends best-value contracting authority for cities and specified joint powers authorities, including the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, creating parity with procurement tools that counties have successfully utilized for years. At its core, the bill is about giving local agencies the ability to consider more than just the lowest price when selecting a contractor.

Under the traditional low-bid process, agencies often are required to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. That approach can work well for straightforward projects. However, many of today's public infrastructure projects are increasingly complex, involving utility relocations, environmental compliance, traffic management, grant deadlines, and coordination among multiple agencies and stakeholders.

In those situations, experience matters, past performance matters, a contractor's ability to manage risk, coordinate effectively, and deliver a project on time and on budget matters. Best-value contracting does not eliminate competition, nor does it disregard price. Rather, it preserves competitive bidding while also allowing agencies to evaluate both cost and objective qualifications to determine which contractor offers the best overall value to taxpayers.

Counties have already demonstrated the value of this procurement tool approach. AB 1786 simply provides cities and regional agencies that same flexibility, ensuring parity across local governments and allowing agencies to choose the procurement tool that best fits the needs for that particular project. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now in the audience, support statements, your position only with your name.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Belmont and Thousand Oaks, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Elisa Arcidiacono, on behalf of the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Coalinga, Diamond Bar, Dinuba, Duarte, Glendora, Hesperia, Industry, Kingsburg, Monterey Park, Monrovia, Placentia, Rosemead, San Dimas, Sierra Madre, Soledad, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Stanton, Tulare, Walnut, and Westminster, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, in support.

Thank you. Okay. Any opposition? Main witness or in the public? I see none. We have one additional committee member. No comment? Okay. We'll leave it open until a quorum is achieved. And this one has been always, for me, best-value service and has been no problem for many years in practice. Simply, this one is extending the period and including other cities and the San Gabriel City, so I'll be in support later. Do you have any closing statement?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Appreciate the support from Senator Arreguín and from you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote from the rest of the committee at the proper time.

Thank you--

Thank you.

--very much. I don't see anybody.

File Item Number 6.

Which one is it? Number? Okay. Do we have Assembly Member Pacheco? Okay. Sorry you've been sitting there. Number Six: File Number AB 1712. When you're ready, you can proceed.

Thank you. And, good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator. Today, I am here to present AB 1712. This is a district specific bill to aid one of the cities that I represent, which is Santa Fe Springs.

Santa Fe Springs owns a water system that faces ground water contamination issues and requires urgent infrastructure upgrades. However, due to the system's small size, the city cannot afford to finance these upgrades without at least a 300% increase to customers rates. In contrast, if the city sells its system to a larger water provider, that provider will have the capacity to spread the cost across a much broader customer base, allowing rates to remain steady.

However, under current law, a public entity must hold a municipal election before selling its water system to a PUC regulated provider, adding cost and delay for the city and its residents. Instead, AB 1712 allows the city to proceed through a protest process facilitating a smoother, more affordable sale.

After the sale, the water system will be regulated by the PUC, which will help ensure reasonable and stable rates for residents. A similar approach was successful in the nearby city of Montebello under AB 850 in 2021, where rates remained stable after the sale. And with me today, to speak in support and also to answer any technical questions is James Enriquez, the city's public works director. And I'll hand it over to him, to proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. My name is James Enriquez. I'm the director of public works and city engineer for the city of Santa Fe Springs.

I'm here today representing the city of Santa Fe Springs to request the committee's support in moving forward assembly bill 1712. This bill would enable the city to expedite the consolidation of its water system through a sale to a larger water purveyor. This is critical since the city's water enterprise has been operating at a structural deficit for several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with subsidy by our general fund.

Like many small municipal water systems, Santa Fe Springs rates have, simply not kept up with inflation. And as a consequence, the city has deferred critical capital improvements for decades.

We currently have over a $150,000,000 in capital improvement needs with literally no capital funding. This includes an aging pipe distribution system and more importantly, no operable wells. Our two wells are shut down due to contamination that requires over 8,000,000 each in treatment upgrades. This requires us to depend 100% on imported water that is significantly more expensive and continues to rise in cost.

AB 1712 would enable the sale of the water system to a larger provider with a larger ratepayer base and more resources to implement capital improvements and provide a more reliable and cost effective water source to our residents.

This option has been successful for other cities in our region that that were or are in similar situation, and we believe this is the best option to provide a long term reliable water source and long term rate stabilization for our customers and residents. Although this although the city raised rates most recently in 2020 by more than 30% over a four year period, That simply has not been enough.

We estimate that the next increase would need to triple rates in order to include an adequate capital improvement program. As we have seen happen recently in other Southern California cities, We simply can no longer compete with the efficiency and economy of scale of large water purveyors, so we ask for your support in moving AB 1712 forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other supporters that made to statements in the public?

Good morning, vice chair. Kasia Hunt here with political solutions. I'm here on behalf of the California Water Association and the sponsor San Gabriel Valley Water Company, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition witness? Any opposition stand in the public? Seeing none, I'd like to ask from committee member. Have any question?

Okay. Motion has been made by assembly member no. No. Not the Senator. We are dealing with assembly members, Senator Ergen.

Later, and you can go ahead and make a statement. I'm I'm sure this bill will pass because of situation. Santa Fe Springs' water district is financial situation. You would like to consolidate with the larger water districts nearby. All the mechanism has been worked out if this bill allows you to consolidate, though you are ready to merge.

So you you you have worked out the the consolidation agreement already?

No. We haven't. After if this bill is successful, we will start down that road. It's it's about a a year long process.

So upon approval, you will begin talking?

Yes.

So it is pending?

Yes.

How the other nearby water district will consolidate with you or not?

There is an RFP process that that would we would go through.

I see. Okay. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to present this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. And I will wait until a quorum is made. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Who else is here?

Thank you.

Next.

File number four AB1679. I see assemblyman, Mark Gonzalez is ready. When you are ready, you can go ahead and make a presentation. Of course.

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, members of the committee and colleagues, the opportunity for you to speak, with you all here this morning. I'm pleased to present AB 1679, which creates a temporary commercial activation permit framework for local governments to allow Pop up businesses to operate for 120 days. I wanna begin by expressing my appreciation to the chair, to the committee, and their staff, for their work on this bill.

I also wanna thank the stakeholders who contributed to improving the bill and the opposition who have taken a neutral stance. In my district, in areas like Downtown Los Angeles, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and many of our downtowns, we see storefronts after storefronts boarded up and vacant.

COVID 19 had permanent impacts on the retail and restaurant sectors, forcing countless small businesses to close and high cost to entry make businesses prospects few and fair between. Pop up businesses are a proven effective way to activate these vacant spaces and give small businesses a boost. Imagine a traveling restaurant, a wedding dress trunk show, or a local artist showing off their new collection. Moving to these abandoned storefronts due to its temporary nature, people are more inclined to come out and shop at these innovative stores.

Pop up businesses drive local events, put traffic, sales, taxes, and positive spillover effects to nearby businesses, especially as we're seeing with the World Cup.

However, they are struggling to legally operate in our current permitting structure. Many temporary permits only last week, and the only other alternative is to apply for permanent occupancy. For a small business opening up temporary multiple cities for a single year, this is an extreme cost to that local entrepreneur. For example, Los Angeles, it can range from $80 to a $184 of a temporary food facility permit. Their permanent restaurant permit process will cost exponentially more.

Pop ups have been shut down because they lack a permanent, permanent permit or extensive renovations even if they're considered a low risk business. After trying to pursue their costly permanent permits, many businesses closed down and abandoned the space, leaving it vacant once again. Current requirements for pop up businesses are disproportionate to the scale and duration of their use.

AB 1679 will address these issues by requiring local governments to create a temporary commercial activation authorization, which will be consistent limited low risk framework to activate storefronts across our golden state. As amended, local enforcement officers will ensure businesses meet all necessary health and safety requirements.

The revitalization of downtown to neighborhood commercial corridors is a statewide priority, and AB 1679 addresses commercial stagnation by supporting entrepreneurship, reducing barriers to entry, and creating a pathway from temporary testing to permanent tenancy. This morning to testify in support of the bill are two of our amazing witnesses, Eddie Navarrete, who represents a sponsor of the bill, the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Alan Morales, first time to Sacramento, who owns Civil Coffee in Downtown Los Angeles in the heart of my district.

Would like to go first?

Each person will have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name again, Eddie Navarrete. I am the president of the Independent Hospitality Coalition. I represent a diverse network of small businesses across the LA County landscape.

Across California, we are facing a growing challenge that can be seen in every community, rising commercial vacancies and sometimes empty storefronts that are sitting idle for months or years. In Los Angeles alone, retail vacancy has climbed to some of its highest levels in over a decade. These vacancies are not just an economic issue. They have real impacts to our neighborhoods, such as empty storefronts, reducing foot traffic, discouraging new investment, and create a ripple effect where surrounding businesses struggle to survive.

When one space goes dark, it often leads to others following, weakening entire commercial corridors that the communities depend on.

At the same time, we have no shortage of entrepreneurs ready to open for business. What they lack is access. The cost and complexity of permanent construction has pushed too many operators out before they open. For many small businesses, the requirement to commit to a full build up upfront is simply not achievable in today's economic climate. AB 1679 provides a practical solution by creating a pathway for temporary commercial activations of vacant storefronts.

This allows small businesses to enter a space with lower upfront cost, test concepts, and build towards permanence without taking on overwhelming financial risk. This includes a wide range of businesses such as a yoga studio, a fitness studio, could be a tea shop, could be a coffee shop, or it could be the businesses that we still have yet to discover. At its core, this is about giving small businesses the opportunity to execute their resiliency.

Our small business community has continued to adapt through some of its most challenging economic conditions in recent history, but our policies have not kept pace. We need regulatory framework that reflects the progress of the small business community.

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

Chair and members, my name is Alan Morales. I am the cofounder of Civil Coffee established in 2015, a Mexican American coffee company in Los Angeles that my brother and I built from a simple pop up into multiple cafes in Highland Park, Studio City and Downtown LA employing dozens of people. My family story is out of an immigrant story.

We started with very little capital but we were willing to work hard and take risks and like many entrepreneurs in California, our first step was not signing a lease. It was the test of an idea through pop ups and temporary operations.

That opportunity is critical in industry where so many businesses fell. Before Civil Coffee, my parents invested what little they could to help my brother and me pursue our dream and if we had failed, they could have lost everything they worked for. Many aspiring entrepreneurs are never given the chance to test an idea before taking on enormous financial risk. The challenge was that there was almost no pathway for businesses like ours.

No clear guidance, no road map and no practical infrastructure designed to help entrepreneurs prove a concept before committing to a permanent location.

Too often the answer is simply just no. Today, I've become a resource for aspiring coffee entrepreneurs. Every year, I receive calls from people asking me how to start their coffee business and I want to encourage them but the reality is that the current system often makes that journey unnecessarily difficult. I would like to change that and I want future entrepreneurs to feel that success is possible and that California supports the entrepreneur spirit.

AB 1679 creates a bridge between an idea and a permanent business and it provides entrepreneurs a pathway to operate legally, responsibly and transparently while they test their concept, build customers and create the resources needed for a permanent location.

Without the opportunity to start small, Civil Coffee would not exist today. The jobs we've created would not exist. The communities we serve would not have our cafes. I respectfully ask for your support and vote for AB 1679. Thank you.

Any support of witnesses, are not witnesses, but supporting this, measure. You can state your name and, company and your stance on that.

Good morning. Shanta Paikian on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support.

Good morning. Ana Maria Santiago, policy intern at Mesa Verde Group, and on behalf of the oh, Inclusive Action for the City and the California Community Foundation in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition witness? Any in the audience who oppose? Okay. Now, committee member Arreguin, do you have any questions?

This is a great bill. Thank you so very much, assembly member, for bringing it forward. I think this not just solves a problem in a lot of our downtowns and commercial districts where we have ground floor vacancies and wanting to activate those vacancies to have more foot traffic, to improve public safety and economic vitality, but also helps provide incubation spaces for small businesses. Happy to support this bill, move the bill today. I'd love to be a co author of the bill if it's acceptable.

I did notice a very minor drafting error in Section 51028.9 subdivision a, where you wanted to, I think, add a, I think, a semicolon, so that the the particular stand you where you're specifying certain standards that could be modified. So I'll just I'll share that with you. But I think this is a, great bill and I think it's gonna do a lot to help activate our downtowns and help support small businesses. And thank you very much for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Senator.

And Senator, you represent a diverse area that I I know we've talked about that would benefit extremely from this and young entrepreneurship as well. So thank you for that.

Okay. Thank you. My position is that I realize how difficult it is to find a permanent place, with the high, you know, rent and fixed commercial areas. And therefore, we do see these many pop ups, many different cities. But I wonder, each city is already doing their job depending upon their local situations.

This one bill is requiring every city, county, to allow the pop ups rather than leaving it to the local control. Cities, the counties, depending upon location, the character, sometimes they may not would like to see that kind of establishments. How would you like to respond? Why mandating by the state legislature legislation will govern requiring all the cities and counties rather than leaving this kind of decisions to local government.

No. You can go ahead. Either way.

If you wouldn't mind, my name I also have a day job. I'm a restaurant architect, and I I see a lot of these, you know, permit, barriers for businesses and what these vacant spaces, how hard they are to develop. I I've also experienced many different jurisdictions that are not built the same. There are a lot of inconsistencies, and there's lack of guidance in infrastructure for those jurisdictions and how to apply certain codes. What this bill does is it creates that that infrastructure.

It creates within the health code. It inserts within language that's already there within temporary events. We just slip in this language so it doesn't have to put the burden on health officials.

We actually have been working with the health departments on this, extensively with regulators, and this is actually an example of working with the regulators boots on the ground about the issues that they deal with every day to come up with something that brings not only alignment, but as a workable solution to come up with this very creative and beneficial program.

Yes. And, Senator, local control will still be sustained. This is just a blueprint and guidance for local control, local municipalities to utilize this as as that footprint to, establish these temporary pop up businesses.

Okay. Chairwoman, now we we are dealing with the number four, file number 1679, and all the support statements and then all comments have been made. You you you can proceed from here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for taking over. If we're all done, we'll just Closing. Closing.

Okay.

Thank you, Senator. Whether you are a rural or urban area, it's a common sight to see empty storefronts. Our small businesses and residents are desperate to fill them. AB 1679 creates a clear, accessible way to bring those spaces back to life. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I I wanna thank the the author and all the work that you're doing about this in our districts that that overlap. This would be very, very helpful to anyone wanting to go through the path of of building a business. So thank you very much for the the idea and for the sensitivity to our community. So now ready to vote?

No quorum. Oh, no quorum. We'll take it up when we get the

Thank you, Senator. And from our our respective district, did you wanna say your name and put your business up one more time for the Senator?

Alan Morales. I established Civil Coffee in Los Angeles Yeah.

In our Downtown LA.

Great. Great to meet you.

Thank you. Thanks, Alan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Oh, we're gonna jump. Think we're gonna move on to Assemblymember Carrillo. You wanna come good morning.

Good morning.

And this is AB1738. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Senators. First, I would like to thank the Chair and committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Today, I am presenting AB 1738, which requires jurisdictions to offer a virtual option for four simple inspections for single-family homes. Members, before I was your colleague--

Members, before I was your colleague

Assembly Member-- I'm sorry. I apologize. I just wanna establish the quorum before anybody has to leave. Thank you very much. Sorry.

[Roll call]. You have a quorum.

Here.

Serrazzo here. Choi?

Choi here. Aregin? Here. Aregin here. Ashby Cervantes Cervantes here.

Here.

Laird Sayardo, you have a quorum.

I apologize. Go ahead.

you. Good morning, chair and senators. First, I would like to thank the chair and committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB 1738, which requires jurisdictions to offer a virtual inspection for four simple inspections for single family homes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and senators. First, I would like to thank the Chair and committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB 1738, which requires jurisdictions to offer a virtual inspection for four simple inspections for single-family homes.

Members, before I was your colleague, I was an urban planner. I would conduct final inspections together with building inspectors, and I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues faced. This backlog further exacerbates the housing crisis as building departments juggle the multiple inspections required for new housing projects with having to also travel to perform on-site inspections for routine home renovations.

What should be a straightforward step in the process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable wait, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place added financial and logistical strain on California families. AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations. Requiring remote inspections will speed up the process for the homeowners and the building departments, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster.

AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations. Process for the homeowners in the building departments, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster. AB 1738 takes a measured approach. It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already been implemented successfully across California.

AB 1738 takes a measured approach. It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already being implemented successfully across California. Colleagues, remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs, and save time for homeowners and inspectors. I respectfully ask an aye vote at the appropriate time. With me to testify are Colleen Corrigan with SPUR, Tim Wegner, with-- our former Chief Building Inspector for Placer County. Thank you.

Colleagues, remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs, for homeowners and inspectors.

I respectfully ask when I vote at the appropriate time. With me to testify are Colleen Corrigan with SPUR, Tim Wagner, with our our former chief building inspector for Placer County. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at SPUR, which is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1738. Homeowners and contractors often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take just five to 15 minutes, adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative and standby costs. As a result, only 10 to 20% of HVAC installations statewide are permitted in California, and one CCA we talked to estimated that 30% of incentive money coming from the state is being spent for-- electrification is being spent on permitting and inspections.

As a result, only 10 to 20% of HVAC installations statewide are permitted in California, and one CCA we talked to estimated that 30% of incentive money coming from the state is being spent for electrification is being spent on permitting and inspections.

Remote inspections aren't a far-fetched technology of the future. They're proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and being used by over 20 jurisdictions in California, small and large. Life and safety concerns are not grounded in the reality that the most populous county in the state, along with other jurisdictions, have safely conducted hundreds of thousands of remote inspections for over seven years without a single instant.

Nothing about the inspection process or the plan check or code compliance changes under remote inspection except that inspectors don't have to drive an hour and a half to look at a smoke detector for a project. Contractors still bring the same tools and equipment to perform the same physical tests and checks for things like grounding of solar systems or water heater drain pipe length or roof pitch.

The city of Sacramento requires these permits and more to be inspected remotely because it saves them such significant time and money. AB 1738 preserves full discretion for inspectors to require in-person when necessary while establishing much-needed best practices and standards statewide. California's housing crisis requires rethinking the status quo and building on the innovation of expertise of local governments. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, good morning, Chair and Senate members. My name is Tim Wegner. I'm a retired local government safety official with 34 years of experience, 19 of those years here most recently with Placer County as their Chief Building Official and the head of their building department, and I'm here today to discuss video safety inspections with you.

Community safety has been my primary objective during my career, and to exemplify this, I proudly improved Placer County's Building Code effectiveness rating system through the insurance office to nearly a perfect score during my tenure there. Building Code compliance and safety equivalency were our objectives when developing the Video Inspection Program. We developed a list of less complex inspections and established video requirements and protocols. The county's video inspection program was born in 2019.

And to exemplify this, I proudly improved Placer County's building code effectiveness rating system through the insurance office, to nearly a perfect score during my tenure there, building code compliance and safety equivalency were our objectives when developing the video inspection program, We developed a list of less complex inspections and established video requirements and protocols. The county's video inspection program was born in 2019.

As a testimony to the program success, the program has since expanded based upon the inspection team's confidence in the video process and intended safety outcomes. Placer County offers more than 40 inspection types today. This past year, Placer County conducted more than 800 successful video inspections. Over a six-year video program experience, my team did not encounter any fraud or other incidents that would question the integrity of safety inspections. To implement video inspections, there are really three low cost or no cost requirements. It's a scheduling system many times already in place with the communities.

My team did not encounter any fraud or other incidents that would question the integrity of safety inspections, to implement video inspections. There are really three low cost or no cost requirements. It's a scheduling system many times already in place with the communities.

The city and counties already use this for in-field inspections. Some type of video streaming system, many times Microsoft Teams, Google Meeting, and Zooms are already used by the cities and counties as our current business platforms, and then an inspection resulting system, which the cities and counties already use to result their current in-field inspection. So really low or no cost to utilize existing systems.

My experience is that video inspections keep jobs moving, save time and money for the contractor, the homeowner, and ultimately for the county's operating costs, and really resulted in the same safety results. With that, I'm here to answer any questions regarding video inspections.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to ask if there's anyone in support of AB 1738.

for a meeting day is due

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Habitat for Humanity California, in support.

to Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Habitat for Humanity California in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Ahmanson Junior in support.

Nolan Gray, California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of Permit Power, a proud sponsor of this legislation, Housing Action Coalition, in support, and I've also been asked to register support for the California Environmental Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Climate Action Coalition, U.S. Green Building Council, the Climate Center, and the Central City Association of Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We wanna move on to those in opposition. Please come forward. Good morning.

Please come forward. Good morning.

Madam Chair and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. We appreciate all the work that this committee and the author and the previous committees have done on the bill. Unfortunately, we still have a number of concerns. First and foremost, you know, Los Angeles County is most widely pointed to as the example.

Los Angeles' building department, of which I represent the majority of the workers, is the most sophisticated building department arguably not just in California but in the United States. So to put the same mandates on the City of Isleton or small little jurisdictions that perhaps weren't sophisticated enough to put together a program with all the protections that you need to allow for video inspections is something that should be considered.

This mandate should be limited to larger counties and larger cities. Secondarily, we are vehemently opposed to the inclusion of photovoltaic and battery systems. The evidence on the number of residential fires that have occurred through those is quite exhaustive. It doesn't put any size limit. Just because it's a single-family home doesn't mean that it's not a 15,000 square foot home in the Palisades or in Malibu.

Typical residential photovoltaic systems are 3 kV to 15 kV. That would be 40 square feet for 3 kV--that's pretty big space--to 180 square feet for 15. But we commonly see big giant McMansions and other houses with systems of 15 kV to 30 kV. Now you're talking 1,700 square feet. You're talking about multiple inverters. The engineering that go into these systems is much more sophisticated. It doesn't lend itself to a video inspection. So we believe that there's still work to be done on this bill, and so, at this juncture, we're still opposed but hope to see amendments in future committees. Thank you.

Now you're talking 1,700 square feet. You're talking about multiple inverters. The engineering that go into these systems is much more sophisticated. It doesn't lend itself to a video inspection. So, we believe that there's still work to be done on this bill.

And so, at this juncture, we're still opposed, but hope to see amendments in future committees. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition?

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

the city of Thousand Oaks in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Gina Gonzalez, with the city of Lake Elsinore. While we do support the efficiencies in this bill, there is some work that needs to be done at the local level to-- how are we going to implement costs, recovering those? You guys should really leave it up to the local jurisdictions to decide which types of inspections should be streamlined through the remote inspections. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Having-- seeing no one else in opposition, I bring it to questions or comments. Yes. Senator Arreguín.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanna thank the author for the recent amendments to the bill. This bill is also dual referred to the Senate Housing Committee, so if this bill moves out today, we'll be hearing it next. And appreciate the consideration of the application of the bill based on size of jurisdiction. I do think Mr. Wetch raises a good point. Not every jurisdiction has the staff or the systems in place to be able to implement this. So I just wanted to have the author give further consideration to that point if this moves forward, but I will move the bill.

I do think mister Welch raises a good point. Not every jurisdiction has the staff or the systems in place to be able to implement this. So I just wanted to have the author give further consideration to that point if this moves forward. But I will move the bill.

I appreciate the work that's been done on this bill and also for things that are not significant electrical or life-safety related permits to give homeowners and property owners the ability to have a remote inspection so we can get those permits issued more efficiently, get homes built, which I think is our goal in the end. So thank you, and I'll be supporting the bill today.

So thank you, and I'll be supporting the bill today.

Thank you. Senator Cervantes.

Yes, I just wanted to ask if there was any response as it relates to the concerns that were brought up by the opposition by the author.

Sure. Thank you for that opportunity. Yeah, I did sign Los Angeles County. I do have experience asking in scheduling building inspections in Los Angeles County, as my mom owns a home in Los Angeles County. I did build an ADU. I did build room additions, and I can tell you that on the homeowner's perspective, calling for an inspection in LA County takes weeks. You have to go into a website portal, request an inspection at least two weeks in advance, and seldom they actually have to reschedule inspections because of the lack of building inspectors.

As my mom owns a home in Los Angeles County, I did build an ADU. I do I did build room additions, and I can tell you that on the homeowner's perspective, calling for an inspection in LA County takes weeks. You have to go into a website portal, request an inspection at least two weeks in advance, and seldom, they actually have to reschedule inspections because of the lack of building inspectors.

So there's a differences of opinions on when it comes to what their position said to what homeowners go through when they are requesting building inspections through Los Angeles County. I'd also like to mention that during COVID, when-- again, with my experience being a city planner, we did a lot of virtual inspections because of the COVID pandemic that we had.

So based on that experience, I do feel that this will actually move more building homes and room additions and things like that even further. We had also included ADUs in the bill. We had agreed to do a lot of concessions so that we can move forward with the bill, but again, it's just the differences of opinion when you have opposition stating how this would be counterproductive, but as homeowners struggle to get building inspections, again, with my experience, not only being a city planner, but also building room additions and ADUs in LA County, there is a big frustration in doing that.

But as homeowners struggle to get building inspections, again, with my experience, not only being a city planner, but also, building room additions and ad use in LA County, there is a big frustration in doing that.

Also, there's other jurisdictions that are already doing a lot of these things here, like here in Sacramento. We also consider to not include HVAC units because of the committee's proposed amendments, but again, to answer-- I hope that answers some of your questions that you had. In terms of photovoltaic inspections, the opposition mentioned there's a lot of fires because they're doing rooftop photovoltaic system and solar panels. I don't recall seeing anything about a fire on a panel-- solar panels in single-family residential, but, again, just difference of opinions, and I hope that answered your question, Senator.

But, again, she's difference of opinions, and I hope that answered your questions, Senator.

So I do wanna recognize that I believe there is validity in having certain permitting with remote inspections. I, as a homeowner, have had my own issues with my water heater busting and having to wait for the city to respond, and when you're in an emergency situation, you need action immediately. And so I think that there is ways-- I'm hoping there's ways we can figure out a balance here. And just hearing the concerns, I'm hoping that, as moving forward, you will continue working with the opposition to address those. I will support the bill today but will further consider where I'm at in the future.

I'm hoping that, as moving forward, you will continue working with the opposition to address those.

I will support the bill today, but will further consider, where I'm at in the future.

Senator Choi.

Yeah. I have a couple questions. Number one is that I'm sure your bill intend-- to me, I understand that's to expedite the building process and the permitting process because cities sometimes delay the inspector inspection and which causes money, and that's a good thing, but your bill is limited to single-family units and two-family units only. No more than that or commercial buildings?

Correct.

This is a-- is there any reason for that? If they are good enough for single-family homes or two units, that should be also good enough of any other size?

Thank you for that comment, Senator Choi. Yeah, it is intended for single-family and duplexes. Again, the intention is to expedite the inspection process so that those premiers can be finalized in a faster manner. Again, because of the delays, you know, again, in my experience with LA County, you have to schedule inspections two weeks ahead of time.

Sometimes they have to be rescheduled. And also, don't forget that homeowners work and the inspections are done Monday through Friday, and sometimes they do miss a day of work to be able to be available for that inspection, but in short, to answer your question, yes, single-family and duplexes.

Okay. And this will apply to new home building constructions as well as remodeling?

It-- originally, it was intended for new construction. We wanted to have virtual inspections for the entire building process. With the exception of the foundation and the framing, inspections don't have to be by an inspector. But, again, with the amendments that were proposed to us, we accept not to include those, but--

You have specified exceptions?

Yes.

I see. So this will-- now you said it applies to new constructions, but also, will it apply to remodeling if studied and restarting many things all over?

A room addition would be new construction. Yes. For new home construction, yes.

Re-- yeah. Room addition is a new construction, but the remodeling.

Remodeling too, with the exceptions of electrical, plumbing, and the other amendments that we took from the committees.

Yeah. Currently, there are several counties and the cities utilizing this remote video inspections under the current law, so it is determined by the local governments and yours is mandating, requiring all the cities to do so, and the only good positive side I see that the option of the homeowner or the contractor's request, a city shall provide the remote inspection.

That is correct. If a homeowner or a contractor wants to have an inspector come over to do the inspections, they can do that. Yes.

And from the experience, and since you stated that you have experience in building inspections, the safety issue, obviously, when we talk about this approval or no approval will be, even visual inspection sometimes may be subjective, but this video inspection will avoid the human eye inspections, the thorough inspections. Isn't there any concern for the safety?

Well, I think that what you stated with the video inspection, I think I understood that you said it's better for those that could miss the human eye. So to your point, if it's a video inspection, it could be safer. But again, with-- because we are taking amendments from the committee because of safety, one of those were the electrical inspections and plumbing inspections not to be virtual inspections. An inspector would have to make those inspections.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments, colleagues? We worked really hard on this--

--bill--

We did.

Thank you.

--with the author, and because we basically don't believe that faster and saving money is more important than safety. We had to take that into consideration. So we made a number of amendments. I-- you know, there's the discussion of how far you go and how many exceptions do you make, but I-- for today, I feel I will support the bill, of course, with all of these amendments, but I do urge the author to continue to have the discussions because the issues that have been brought up have been very much in good faith about the safety aspect, so maybe it's something between now and and Housing Committee that can continue those conversations. So with that, take the vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Close, close.

But I do urge the author to continue to have the discussions because the issues that have been brought up have been very much in good faith about the safety safety aspect. So maybe it's something between now and and housing committee that can continue those conversations. So with that, take the vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Close close

No, thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate all the work you and the committee put into this bill. We appreciate the hard work and the open communication that we had. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to the--

Oh, we need a motion. Motion, Arreguín? Okay.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Housing. [Roll call]. Three/zero.

Abstain.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Arin. Arin. Arin. Arin.

Ar

Okay. The vote is three zero. The bill will remain on call. And we're going to go back now to file order. The next one in order is assembly member Jackson, AB 1578.

Good morning.

Thank you, very much, madam chair and committee members. This is AB 1578, which seeks to require elected local and state officials to take anti hate speech training by incorporating it into their existing sexual harassment training. While California has made some progress, with hate crimes, overall, hate crime offenses have still increased by 8.9% from 2023 to 2024. There is evidence that rhetoric from political leaders help to promote and shape norms that shift behavior.

Hate based rhetoric from political leaders has the power to embolden others to express and act on their prejudices.

Conversely, messages from political leaders can also pacify violent attitudes. Elected officials must be aware of the implementation implications of their words on social norms and democracy, and training can still instill a sense of responsibility in upholding these principles. With that, madam chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support?

My gift to you, no witnesses, madam chair.

Okay. Wait. Somebody did any anybody in support? Anybody in support of AB 1578?

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

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Seeing none, anyone in, opposition to AB 1578? Yes. Please come forward.

Good morning. Morning. Chair members, my name is Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, and we strongly oppose AB 1578. At the last hearing, I said you cannot regulate what you cannot define. Since then, the author added a definition.

It does not solve the problem. It only proves it. Remember what this bill does. It mandates anti hate training for elected officials, not the public, the lawmakers themselves. Government deciding which views its own, officials need to be retrained out of.

The bill targets speech that vilifies, humiliates, and cites hatred, but those words mean different things to different people. What humiliates depends on the beliefs of the listener. So here's the real issue. The whole a whole category of belief rooted in conservative Christian conviction is now routinely branded as hateful, not argued against, but branded. Those who disagree have stopped trying to persuade.

They slander and shame instead. The goal is not dialogue. It's to shame people into silence. That is what this bill does to elected officials. It is a censorship strategy dressed up as training.

So let me ask you plainly, under the definition, is it hateful to say a child cannot be born in the wrong body? That girl sport should be reserved for female bodies? That a school should not change a child's name without telling the parents? What about the elected official who decides not to use preferred pronouns out of a sincere religious conviction? Every one of those views can be called humiliating by someone.

Assemblymember Jackson, you have given up persuading your colleagues on parental rights and pronouns and girls sports, and now you wanna retrain them to teach the elected officials chosen by the voters that their views

Could you make your comments to us, not to the Okay. Thank you.

Alright. That was a Christian thing to do.

To teach the elected officials chosen by the voters that their views are hateful, no longer acceptable to speak out loud. This new definition does not fix that. It confirms that. Please vote no.

Anyone else in opposition? Please come forward.

Hi, I'm Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capitol Ministry on behalf of six California Baptist churches, Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascadero and Lighthouse in Santa Maria. We're in opposition.

Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capitol Ministry on behalf of these five California Baptist churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock in Bellflower, Silicon Valley Chinese in Santa Clara, oppose.

Christine Campbell, in opposition.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, California Baptist for Biblical values, pastor of the Faith Baptist Church in opposition.

Damian Julian, full time college student in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no more, bring to the dais. Comments, questions? Senator Choi?

Yeah. I won't be able to support this bill. This is to require additional training for state and the local officials to receive, specifically, anti hate speech. This is very subjective, anti hate, meaning depending upon, you know, what the category subjective subjectivity of that definition that the one holds can be hateful speech. So who's gonna who's who's gonna monitor?

Every speech that the individual makes is protected under the constitution. How however, also, the responsibility follows. What I say, I will have to defend. I have to be responsible, not anybody else. Workplace conduct or sexual harassment, all kinds of, seminars that we are mandated to go through to take. This is not different from already mandated that required training that the elected officials will have to receive.

This is specifically, language, anti hate speech, the training, is, very troublesome and, is, against the our constitution, freedom of speech. So, therefore, I won't be able to

Senator Arreguin.

Already the law in California that you can't discriminate people based on protected characteristics and federal and state law. I think this builds on that. I move the bill to appropriate time.

Thank you. I have a question for the author. With regards to how you would define hate, what would your what is your response to that?

We define hate by the definition that we have, also been given in consultation with the commission on hate. And so this is not a definition that I just came up with or anything. This is about making sure that we're talking to professionals who actually have done and have a sole responsibility to combat hate in California. And so we've been working very closely with the commission on hate and its chair, on this, on this definition. So I think that's one thing that's important.

This is not a hate speech regulation bill. We're very clear on people's First Amendment's rights. But what we are saying though and what evidence and research does show is that there's a direct correlation between how elected officials, public figures, talk about and dehumanize people and the rise in hate on those specific groups in which they're talking about. The evidence is clear. But we also have to recognize that sometimes, elected officials don't actually know the connection sometimes.

And so we just need to make sure elected officials are aware. You have the right to say whatever you want. However, you need to understand that you should be careful about what you say because it could actually lead to the death and hate crimes against particular groups. Now once you're aware of that, you can no longer say, well, that wasn't my intent.

Well, many things we say may not be our intent, but it can lead to what we what we say and what we do, in which I believe that's also a Christian principle we should be following.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I certainly intend to support your bill today, and I'm glad you're raising this. Hate has you know, takes over a lot of our communities and leads to violence, and it leads to other other other things that really hurt our community. So I'm very concerned about the level of hate that can go up.

Sometimes it goes down. There's hate against anti there's antisemitism, there's anti Asian hate. Lots of examples in our communities. So I'm very concerned about that, and I think it's important to to know and to have some kind of training and education on that that would help all of us. So I support your bill and ask for an aye vote.

Oh, so sorry. You get closing remarks.

You you you know, madam chair, I I think not a lot of people know that before I was sworn in, the Sunday before, I had to resign in my position as a youth minister in my congregation, as well as a Sunday school teacher. And my colleagues know I'm a person of deep faith, but I do not weaponize my faith against them, nor do I try to use the apparatus of the government to force people to believe what I believe and live the way I live.

And I believe it is a core principle to ensure, that we are being as loving and accepting of all of God's people, regardless of what they do and what they say. And so I believe that if anyone is going to profess to be a part of the Christian faith, then maybe they should try to start using rhetoric of love, instead of attacking people, which is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus himself.

And so I think that at the end of the day, this real this bill is really about the idea that as a Christian, I see people hurt, and I'm gonna do everything that I can to make sure that they are protected and safe, and they have the resources that they need so that they will have the opportunity to be able to hear and accept and obey the teachings of our savior.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Move on to vote.

The motion is do passed to the committee on governmental organizations. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi?

No. Choi, no. Arreguin. Aye. Arreguin, Aye.

Ashby. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird?

Seyarto? Three one.

We're moving on to item five, AB 1693, Assembly Member Zbur. Good morning. You may proceed.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office, and we'll be accepting the committee's amendments today. Just wanna really do thank you. I know that this was a lot of time and effort over the last couple days, and I'm very grateful for that.

I know we're still working on some of the details of the, of the amended language with the committee staff, and the changes will be made when the bill gets to the Senate Judiciary Committee for timing purposes. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick and mortar retail sector.

In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3 million Californians across 500,000 retail establishments, supporting statewide local economies. This sector is one of California's largest small business employers, providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities and others.

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

Just this weekend, I was actually at the gay pride parade in Hollywood, and I was going down those streets and started taking pictures because I noticed just how many closed retail establishments we actually had on Hollywood and Sunset Boulevard and just noting how important it is that we make sure that these retail, that we bring life back into these communities. And when we do that, that it is done in a manner that is quick and is supporting this really important industry.

Current law creates a streamlined approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects. Establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small businesses to thrive in California and bring back our brick and mortar retail sector, which has been struggling. AB 1693 aims to address this by requiring local building departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and ensure those improvements meet all applicable building health and safety codes.

The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application. The deemed approved provisions that were previously in the bill, we've agreed, obviously, to take out at the request of some of the important stakeholders.

Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt.

AB 1693 is critical, as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards. Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill is Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association, which is one of the sponsors of the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association, and we are proud co-sponsors of AB 1693. We thank Assembly Member Zbur for working with us to address the issue of lengthy delays in tenant improvement projects retailers have experienced across the state.

The California Retailers Association is the only state wide trade association representing all segments of the retail industry, including general merchandise, department stores, mass merchandisers, supermarkets and grocery stores, chain drug, and specialty retail such as auto, vision, jewelry, hardware, and home stores. These are the stores that you often see along main streets in your districts.

As Assembly Member Zbur stated, AB 1693 requires a sped up process for approving or denying tenant improvement applications within 20 days. This is needed, as retailers have conveyed to us that permit turnaround times for tenant improvements routinely stretch into multiple months across California with average processing times around 12 weeks, but also reaching 31 weeks or more in some jurisdictions. Retailers continue to experience reoccurring challenges, including extended review periods, multiple rounds of comments, portal outages, and unanticipated intake requirements.

We've heard from a member this past week that an application submitted in April has not yet been reviewed, and if they do not get approval by July, they won't have time to complete tenant improvements by the holiday season. Just as one example. These lengthy review periods significantly delayed basic interior build outs.

Time is critical, especially for small and mid sized retailers. Delays can mean lost revenue, higher construction cost, and in some cases, decisions to not move forward at all. For these reasons, the California Retailers Association is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1693, and we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Anyone else in support of AB 1693?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California. We have no formal position on the bill, but just wanna thank the committee, the author, and his staff for working with us to address our concerns. Thank you.

Good morning. Shant Apekian on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support.

Hi. Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, BOMA, and NAIOP in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we'll have anybody in opposition. Anybody wanna speak in opposition as a witness? No? Okay. Anyone on the dais, colleagues, any comments or questions? Moved by Senator Choi. Anybody else? Question, comment?

No. Seeing none. I just wanna say I was glad to work with you and your staff to come up with this. We always wanna do better by our small businesses, and so this is important to them. And I think also is to remind ourselves that the more resources we have available at that level, we're gonna be able to do more and do it faster.

And so I just wanna remind ourselves, it's not where sometimes we think local government is holding back or not doing the right thing. I really do think at the core of it is resources. So we wanna make sure that, you know, we're not taking away resources at the same time that we need more resources. So with that, thank you. Glad to work with you on this bill. Closing remarks?

Again, I just wanna thank the Chair for your focus and steering of this bill into a good place, and I thank your staff again and respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Chair will have to go to another committee meeting. So file number eight, AB 1914, and Assembly Member Schiavo is ready. Thank you, ma'am. You are ready. Go ahead.

Thank you. Hi. Thank you so much, mister chair, members. I am, really appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1914 with that would require local governments to include childcare in their general planning efforts. Affordable access to childcare is one of the most impactful things that we and our local partners can do to address our affordability crisis in our state.

Child care than they are for rent or mortgages. In my own family, we had to make the decision when my leave was up and I went back to work for my spouse to not work. And stay home with my child because it was going to be a wash and at least he could be there for our kid. So, you know, too many families are having to make these choices where they forego income, education, careers, careers, because of lack of child care. And this harms families and our economy.

In my community of Santa Clarita, there is a development that's building 20,000 homes right now over a ten year period. And there is no plan for child care for those families.

There's a better way. And when we don't support and encourage planning for child care, it's not going to magically appear without intentionality. And that intentionality is what AB 1914 brings. AB 1914 would require city, county, and city and county, no later than 01/01/2033, to prepare and adopt a childcare plan or integrate a childcare plan into the next adoption of their general plan to address the childcare needs of that jurisdiction. It highlights the importance of planning for childcare in emergencies.

As we saw play out in the LA fires, how critical that is. And it also has a flexibility that is allowed by existing childcare plans to meet the requirement of the bill. What this bill does not do is require certain amounts of childcare. Smaller cities with little demand can simply say they don't have demands for additional childcare, and the needs of the bill are met. But, we have heard that childcare leaders have tried to engage in this local process only to be met with confused looks and being brushed off that they don't belong in the conversation.

So, if we plan for parks, where our kids play for maybe a couple hours a day, a few days a week, then we should definitely be planning for safe care of our children, where they spend eight or more hours a day.

And childcare stakeholders like parents and childcare providers need to be a part of that conversation and planning process. We took amendments from cities to address major concerns. I am thankful for local leaders and city support that we've received. And wanna note, or highlight the city of Mountain View support letter, pointing out the bill's flexibility and preservation of local control. The bill is supported by First5 California, Build Up California, California commission on the status of women and girls, Child Action Now, and Children Now, and the Child Care Resource Center.

And today I have witnesses with me, Shelly Masur, vice president for advisory and state policy for the Low Income Investment Fund, and Pamela Campos, who's a San Jose City Council member.

Okay. Each of you only have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, vice chair, committee members, staff. As you heard, I'm doctor Shelley Masur. I'm the vice president of advisory and policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIFT is a national CDFI with a vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being.

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

We're grateful to the assembly member for offering this authoring the bill, and we are very grateful to staff for working with us, very helpful, amendments to the bill. As a former city council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building the supply of childcare.

We believe that, like housing, childcare supply requires planning, and that cities and counties can support that through including childcare in their general plans, or by creating a separate plan. Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a childcare crisis that is exacerbated by lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB 1914 offers one by engaging cities and counties and further planning for the needs of their community by planning for childcare.

My own city, Redwood City, has included childcare in their general plan since 2010.

As the city continued to grow and plan, for growth in housing and its economic base. This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build childcare, rather to work with the community to plan for and support childcare facilities and programs. Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of childcare through work with cities. Planning for childcare is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. A second.

Good morning. Chair Durazo and committee members. I see she's not here. I'm sorry. My name is Pamela Campos, and I am the San Jose City Council member representing District 2.

But before I was a city council member, I was a preschool teacher, and so the opening remarks about how early childhood leaders are facing tremendous challenges and really looking to our elective leaders to help us make sure that this workforce and essential foundation for making sure children are on that right track for the best opportunities possible in their lifetime is why this work is so personally meaningful to me.

As a council member, I believe we have an obligation to support early childhood education and fully invest in the future generations of our residents. If we want to build a sustainable future, we need to view childcare and early childhood education as essential infrastructure in the same way that we look at housing, roads, and public safety. As it stands, we have significant unmet child care needs, and that needs to change.

I'm here today to advocate for AB 1914, which would reaffirm that cities and counties must play a role in support of childcare.

The bill makes a modest and reasonable request that we, in local government, consider and plan for adequate childcare services that will meet our future needs. As land use agencies, we have significant control over what gets built in our communities, and with that comes responsibility to proactively identify paths for more child care. I respectfully urge you all to support this bill, and I look forward to supporting its implementation in the city of San Jose. Thank you.

Okay. Me too supporters in the audience.

Good morning, vice chair and members. Jasmine Vai on behalf of California Coalition for Community Investment, Cal CCI, in support of this measure. Thank you.

Good morning. Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls proud cosponsor.

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

Ruby Arceo on behalf of Children Now in support.

Dani Kando-Kaiser here on behalf of CAMEO Network and myself as a mom who struggled with childcare for too many years in strong support.

Thank you. Any opposing witnesses in the opposing in the public? Okay. Go ahead.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing none. I would like to ask my Committee Members, any statements? Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this bill. You know, I do acknowledge the comments that were made by the League of California Cities that the state is imposing lots of unfunded mandates on jurisdictions, particularly in the area of planning, and that there also are many laws that have been passed, including bill last year by Assembly Member Ávila Farías, to streamline the production of the permitting of childcare facilities and mixed use developments.

Senator Skinner had a bill that allowed by right home childcare uses in California. But I think what this bill does is ensure that's part of the general plan process that cities and counties are thinking about and planning for where childcare can be located and develop programs and resources to help support more childcare in their jurisdiction. I think it works in tandem with those bills that have been approved to streamline the process for permitting of child care facilities. With that, I wanna thank the author for the bill, and I'll move the bill.

Okay. Thank you. With the rising cost of child care, parents are struggling and many times and sometimes childcare cost is even higher than what they bring home and making difficult choices. And this is a rising cost. Primarily, we can attribute one of the major factors will be lack of competition. And we need to, childcare is based upon the need of the population, and the population means how many homes will be planned in certain area.

So that belongs to the city planning and the zoning. And so certain area, obviously, city will have a plan for the in the general plan which area will be residential. If any cities are like a city that I come from is a planned city as a residential area and the commercial area, etcetera, which are separated, we know how many homes we are expecting and the certain number of homes that we project also number of people who will be residing in there.

So based upon that statistics, the childcare service can be estimated. And unfortunately, in that planning, childcare has not been part of that plan. And now with the current situation bringing into the general plan idea. Only questions that I have is that will this bill apply to new plan areas or existing homes in their general plan update that they have to artificially, in other words, the belated plan will have to be included even though CDE has been almost fully developed?

No. So, one of the reasons that we actually pushed the implementation out to 2033 is to allow for cities and counties to go through their natural planning process and just incorporate it as they're opening up their general plans. So we're not asking for a special process or any individual process. If they already have, you know, a plan for childcare in their community, that can also meet the requirement. And again, there's no specific requirement for a certain amount of childcare.

It's really the consideration, the discussion, you know, the, like you said, if there's a bunch of, or in my community, if you have thousands of homes going in that you think about, is there going to be a need for childcare and are we meeting that? And that that's part of the larger plan that is being made.

But I think, you know, to the point of Senator Arreguín, that this is really complimentary to bills that we have passed as a legislature before. Because while we've, I think, made it much easier for childcare facilities to open up, to start to, you know, be by right, to remove fees. All of those things are important, but it doesn't always make it happen. We've seen that in housing policy. Right?

We've removed CEQA, and we've done a ton of things to try to meet our housing need, and still not enough housing is being built, right? And so I think this helps bring the intentionality. Now we've removed a lot of barriers for these businesses to start, but let's stay about where we want to make sure, you know, where's there's the need, where these, where we want to make sure these businesses are included.

And, you know, and some cities can decide, look, if you're an apartment building or a condo building with over, you know, 300 units, then you need to have a childcare center in it. There could be decisions that communities make around that or certain requirements as community benefits for big projects coming in.

I think this is a good opportunity to think bigger about how we do planning and making sure that, you know, this is such a critical economic need of families to be able to, as a parent, go to work and know that your kid is being taken care of and safe. You can't go to work if you don't know that. And so this, I think, gives us the opportunity to be more intentional about making sure that that happens. And I don't know if you have anything to add.

Yeah. When your bill specific requirements in the general plan amendment, I'm envisioning a certain zoned area for residential. Obviously, these day care centers are not a home residence. It is a commercial activity. So there has to be carved area even though that specific large 10 acre, 20 acre area has been zoned as single family homes.

But in the corner, somewhere, it'll be easy place for families to drop them off. So it has to be integrated in the residential zoning with the exception carved out for commercial activities. So that's what I am interpreting Is in my understanding.

I agree. I mean, yeah. So I think you make a perfect example of how, you know, without intentionality, this is not gonna happen. Right? If you have a community that doesn't have the zoning to allow for this to happen, then it makes it harder. So I think that this creates a...

And there's, you know, local control still rules the day. And so communities still have that flexibility to decide, yes, that makes sense for this neighborhood that's being built, or no, there's a childcare center right nearby, and we don't need that. Right? So I think that it, you know, it creates that flexibility for communities to decide for themselves what really makes sense.

Yeah. Your bill triggered my another point of view that worship centers for churches are in the same situation. Because I've seen residential areas are not zoned for institutions like a church. And when population grows, worship centers are needed, and many pastors are looking for proper site and renting schools and sometimes a commercial industrial area, which is not amenable. And then also Sunday parking situation is difficult, so the commercial building space may be available, but the parking is not available.

So they have to seek for permission from residential and the the commercial industrial home the owners on Sundays, since you are not here, may we use your parking lot? And I've seen it in my city of Irvine like that. So I think that these churches, what we may call it, worship centers based upon the population, has to be part of the general plan just like childcare centers. That is another category. Maybe you can take up another bill later.

I think there's a lot to be said for making communities where people live more walkable, having the, you know, the kind of community you wanna build more accessible. And so I think this is one piece of it on the childcare side.

Oh, okay. With that, any no additional question. You can make a closing statement.

Thank you for the conversation. Really do think that, you know, this has been a priority of the Women's Caucus, something that we've been fighting for a long time around more childcare slots, more availability of childcare. And I think think that this is actually an incredibly impactful bill for the whole state to help us realize some of those goals. Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Motion? Okay. Motion has been made by Senator Arreguín. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Human Services. [Roll Call]

Okay. 2-0, leave it open. Okay. Next one is file number nine, AB 1997. I see Assembly Member Lee is here. When you're ready, begin.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 1997, the bill to shorten the review period for 90% affordable housing projects after the agency has certified the EIR. First, I'd like to thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I'm accepting amendments as described on page three of the analysis. The bill is intended to accelerate one portion of the approval process for affordable housing projects for very low and extremely low income households.

These projects are the most critical to the most vulnerable and can make a difference between homelessness and a safe path towards, safe path towards a better part in life. This bill is a narrow and focused and streamlining. With me today in support is Rand Martin representing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation. They are a substantial developer of low income housing in the city of Los Angeles. We all know what the state asserts we need in terms of housing in the state. We all know how far behind we are in achieving those numbers. We also know how many affordable housing units we're behind as well for the folks that Mr. Lee has mentioned in his opening.

The folks who have been watching these issues from the outside and inside the legislature have made it very clear. One of the primary reasons why we are so behind is time. I wanna quote from the RAND Corporation that released a report last year that said the biggest thing driving up California apartment cost, time.

The Assembly's own Select Committee on Permit Reform last year also said that collectively the result of our failed approach to permitting is an anemic level of construction for the projects necessary to address our housing crisis. This is a narrow bill. It is really a focus on affordable housing for those who are at the lowest income levels.

We think that reducing the amount of days to 30 for a permit to be approved after the environmental process has been completed will help to jump start that effort for those million homes that are needed for extremely and very low income people across the state of California. For those reasons, we ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the audience, me too support?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support.

Thank you. Any opposition witness? Okay. I don't see anyone. I would love to bring back to the Committee Members for any questions of file number 9, AB 1997, reducing the permitting process from 60 days to 30 days. Okay. If I don't I don't see, I have a question. Your bill is limiting for it's affordable housing units. Why not open to any building permit process?

Well, right now, this bill is narrow in this aspect. This is about affordable housing for those with the greatest need right now, but I'm always open to conversations about streamlining in general.

In general, any construction, sometimes they are waiting for the permit, and the waiting period is all cost to them. So, you know, encouraging, you know, any homes, many homes, affordable homes, any projects will be in the same boat. Just a thought. Okay? You're focusing on affordable homes. With that, would you like to make a closing comment?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Okay. Motion has been made by Senator Committee Member Arreguín. Clerk, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass do pass to the Committee on Housing. [Roll Call] 3-0.

Thank you. We'll leave it open. Okay. Next one is Dr. Arambula. It's number 14. Okay. Next one is file number 14.

I see assembly member of doctor Arambula, AB 2605. When you are ready, go ahead.

Thank you, mister vice chair and senators for the opportunity to present on Assembly bill 2605. California's long standing issues providing public defense to individuals who are accused of crimes has a real cost on the state's poorest and most under resourced communities. Though the sixth amendment enshrines the right to counsel for defendants in criminal prosecution, the state does not currently collect data on how this public defense is provided at a county level.

This has created a system where many defendants report never meeting their attorney and repeated failures to investigate the accusations made against them. AB 2605 addresses this issue by establishing reporting requirements on the nature of public defense services provided across the state.

Most other states appropriate significant funding for public defense services, and California is an outlier in shifting this responsibility to the local level. This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue. Here to testify in support of AB 2605 is Ignacio Hernandez with the Wren Collective and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Two minutes. Great. Excuse me.

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which is a statewide association of criminal defense attorneys and private practice. I also work in public defender offices and also on behalf of the BREN action group in support. It was stated by the author, I mean, counties are front lines in providing defense for indigent individuals in criminal cases. However, the way counties provide that service is varied and it differs.

There's no baseline approach. And oftentimes, when we talk about the need for additional services, their need for changes in policies and counties, it's difficult to impose a statewide one size fits all approach because each county may do it

a little bit differently. This is

more than just a reporting bill and data collection. This data, because it's being required every couple of years, will give a number of stakeholders and and the state of California the ability to monitor what is happening in various counties. As the author stated, there's one county, for example, that is under a lawsuit right now because over an eight year period, 50,000 individuals pled guilty to a misdemeanor without ever having an initial conversation with an attorney.

That's the kind those are the kinds of, you know, practices that we're concerned about. Those are the types of practices that we need to monitor and keep an eye on, and we need to identify what is happening in all the various counties.

We also have to see. I know the committee analysis mentions more funding would be helpful. Of course, it would. But every county is a little bit different, and if we don't know, then one county they're contracting with a private attorney firm, and have an over overload of cases versus another county that is have in house attorneys, but they just haven't filled vacancies. We don't know really where to put the money and where it's gonna be most effective depending on the county.

So this data would allow us, policy makers and others to make those assessments and terminations on what's gonna be best for each county so that we can ensure that if you need an attorney and you're assigned an attorney, it's your constitutional right to attorney, you're indigent, you will get the best legal representation possible. For those reasons, we're in support of the bill.

Okay. Any me too supporters in the audience? Any opposing witnesses? Okay. Committee member questions.

You sure? Senator Aragon?

Well, as the chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, I'm also joining the new independent commission on public defense along with, chair Schultz and the assembly, which is really looking at the issue of how we fund public defense in California, making sure we have enough staff and resources to provide public defense for people. Note that California, significantly underfunds public defense compared to other states.

I think this information would be very beneficial, not just to, the state public defender, but to the legislature as we're developing a state budget to make sure that we're putting the resources that are needed to guarantee right to counsel people in our counties throughout California. So I move the bill.

Okay. I have a question. I'm I'm sure this is something useful when you collect the data, but collecting data requirement on public defenders, what specific data are you referring to? Did I miss?

It's located within our fact sheet and it was

Are are you talking about the number or division?

I'll give you the six criteria that we're asking for. First, it's a brief explanation of whether the public defense system is a public defender or an alternate public defender, a private attorney program or a combination of these systems. Second, it's the method and timing of case assignment. Third, it's a budget and expenditure for each public defender, alternate public defender, or private attorney system. Fourth, it's funded and filled public defense positions by type.

Fifth, it's the number of cases assigned to each public defender, alternate public defender, or private attorney system, specifying the number of homicide, other felony, and misdemeanor cases in adult and juvenile court. And sixth, it's the description of the compensation model for each PD, APD, or private attorney program.

That's a lot of data that that that this bill will require, and, obviously, this kind of additional activities will require additional expenses. And my understanding is the local judiciary system right now, they are most of them are suffering with the shortage of their budget. And will I don't know, this is not the priority or prerogative of this committee to be concerned. More more of the appropriations committee may have to decide, but will there be additional resources provided to support this bill if it passes?

Recent amendments have added that it's conditional upon appropriation from the budget. We have a similar budget ask going on currently, and because of those amendments, we've had removal of opposition from the counties. So I believe since this is a policy committee, we should focus on the policy before us and appropriations is a better place to consider this. But we have our sixth constitutional right that we also need to make sure that we're protecting.

We we can't shirk that responsibility as the state by having the county implement this for us.

And ultimately, these are conversations that may need to happen during realignment, if there's ever a time to discuss which responsibilities are to be done by the county and the state. But we bear the responsibility here at the states to ensure that we have that right to counsel.

Okay. Thank you very much. Did you have the closing statement?

I just wanted to thank this committee for the opportunity to present. This ultimately is about fairness and ensuring that we have provided access to counsel. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. Thank you.

Did the committee member Aragon made the motion a while ago? Yeah. Okay. Then, clerk, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Senator Cerrado, Choi.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Arregin. Aye. Arregin, aye. Ashby.

Cervantes, aye. Blair Sejarto, three zero.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll place it on on call for absent members, and then we'll move on to number 12, AB 2224, assembly member Hardwick. There she is. You can begin when you are ready.

Thank you so much, mister 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 strong advocacy for the rural communities that she represents. I also represent 11 very rural and very under resourced counties. Every year, we ask our local governments to do more with 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 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.

But before 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 to 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 that they rely on fees that they change to provide this 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 in 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 Mine, Alpine, Amador, Lassen, Sierra, and Siskiyou, to name a few, do not have the 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 do reflect or that existing fees do reflect actual costs.