Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Good morning and thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our committee hearings in the O Street Building.

I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have nine bills on today's agenda, two of which are on consent. File item number four, AB 2118, and file item number eight, AB 2728. We do not have a quorum, and we're waiting for presenters to come. Okay. We're going to take a recess until we get an author to come.

You may begin. Okay. Local Government Committee will meet as a subcommittee because our quorum is not established. And we have Assembly Member Harabedian for item number three, AB 258. When you are ready, we are ready.

Thank you, Mister vice Chair, and thank you to the staff again for their work on this bill. It's officially my favorite committee now because your analysis are so fun to read. And I wanna thank the committee for the amendments. I will formally be accepting the amendments which clarify that local enforcement agencies retain the authority to issue withhold certificates of occupancy and allow permitting inspection fees to exceed the 50% cap when a local enforcement agency provides documentation demonstrating why a higher fee is necessary.

AB 2058 takes a practical step toward addressing California's housing shortage by modernizing rules for factory built housing.

Factory built housing is built and fully inspected in state regulated factories under HCD oversight before they ever reach a construction site, allowing for higher efficiency, faster delivery, and lower construction costs. However, current law still allows duplicative local inspections and full permitting fees for work that has already been completed and approved at the state level. The result of this is delay redundancy and added cost precisely the barriers we should be removing.

This bill brings the process in line with actual work being done and it prevents unnecessary disassembling during inspections. It allows the use of local or third party inspectors and caps inspection and permitting fees at 50% of those for traditional site built housing.

Importantly, however, AB 2058 maintains all building and safety standards and preserves local land use authority. It's a practical step forward, and hopefully, it will deliver more housing. But as the analysis, points out, we will see. Factory built housing has been around for a long time and it hasn't solved our housing crisis just yet. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote at the right time.

With me today is Marina Espinosa on behalf of the California Housing Consortium.

Good morning, Mister vice Chair. Marina Espinosa here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing, and we're here in strong support of AB 2058. There is a lot of interest in using innovative construction methods like factory built housing to build more affordable housing in California. However, there are barriers that need to be addressed for it to be adopted more broadly, and AB 2058 addresses some of those barriers.

One important aspect of this aspect of this bill, as, the author mentioned, is that it makes it possible for the state's third party inspectors to conduct on-site inspections of factory built projects. Under the current system, state inspectors review and approve modules off-site, and local inspectors review modules when they are are installed on-site. This leads to duplication and redundancy. The lack of broad familiarity with this construction method can sometimes result in inefficiencies, which hinders the progress that can be achieved.

Local agencies may or may not have the expertise needed to conduct on-site installation inspections of these projects.

We've heard excellent reviews of HCD's factory built housing unit and the inspectors they work with. AB 2058 would expand the state's capacity in this area to inspect the installation of modules on-site, which the state already reviews off-site in the factory. AB 2058 promotes the production of more housing in California by increasing efficiency, removing redundancy and lowering construction costs for factory built projects. Thank you.

Thank you. Any second witness? Any me too statements to add on support?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Megan Burry with the Weidemann Group on behalf of Autodesk in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California here in support.

Thank you. Any opposition witness in the audience? Okay. I'm the only committee member, and I would strongly support because this bill measures streamlining unnecessary duplicative inspections. But I do have a question.

At the time of building the premanufactured, the factory built manufactured homes, are they meaning the local inspectors come out regularly and throughout the building construction period? Do they inspect just like regular homes?

The inspectors from HED do. The state inspectors do. And they go to the actual factory.

Local and the state?

Not local. So local inspectors do not come to the factories to inspect. Local government

The oh. Go ahead.

Factory manufactured homes are inspected by the state?

Yes. So the state will come in and inspect the factory built housing as it's being built and after it's built in the factories. Once it goes to the site to be assembled on-site, that's when the local inspectors are here. The third party inspectors would do their inspection. And a lot of it at that point is duplicative.

Are they are they install the inspecting installations, safety only, or any other aspects?

Well, historically, they will just reinspect everything and charge for that. And that's what this bill is trying to do. It's trying to streamline the inspection process, but also reduce the cost because the state through HCD has already inspected the majority of the build. And really what the local inspectors have to oversee is electrical connections, foundation connections, and then they obviously get to address the occupancy permit at the end.

But what we've seen is historically local governments being a bit overzealous if you will, deconstructing the factory build housing, reinspecting everything that the state has already signed off on, and it has really just added cost and made the efficiencies of factory build housing less efficient.

So this would actually bring, I think, some just practical changes to the local inspection process.

Sounds like it beats the purpose of a pre manufactured factory built homes are disassembled for inspection.

It's a real process.

Yeah. If you talk to factory built housing companies and folks that do this, it's a real problem. What about any pre manufactured homes built in another state, such as Arizona, and I may order their product? Yep. What happens?

So HED will inspect those on-site as well. So a lot of these are being inspected in Utah, and they will be inspected. And I can be corrected if I'm wrong. They are inspected by HED inspectors at some point in the process before they become a assembled on-site.

By our state inspector? By our state inspectors. When when they the the the home is is has arrived in the site.

I think they actually do it before in the factory. And, yeah, I think that is correct. They actually go to the factory and do it. If a home is coming to California, state inspectors go to the factory.

No. I mean, the when my contractor Yep. Or some somebody has ordered that the product will be shipped directly from the manufacturer in out of state to my home site rather than going elsewhere for inspection purposes. What's the process?

Well, in that case so you're asking if a factory built house is or multi unit housing development is being manufactured, let's say, in Utah?

Yeah. What is this So our inspectors go to Utah?

Yes. They go to Utah. They go to the factory.

When it's sold, then they call and our inspector goes out?

I'm not exactly sure, you know, the exact timing, but I do know it's after it has been built, the inspector goes there. I'm not sure, you know, if there's a call or how it's how the ordering happens, but they actually fly to the factory and do the inspection on-site.

Yeah. Without knowing any process and the authorities that out of state inspectors and my our state inspectors or what the quality differences will be with the reciprocal agreements that can be made honoring their inspector check qualities, etcetera, that might be even better?

That's a great question. I don't I don't think others I don't think we have that type of reciprocity. It would be actually great if we could if, you know

Maybe you can follow as of future

future inspectors from that state. It's not a bad idea.

Okay. And thank you. Thank you. Without any the other question or closing statement?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

Okay. Quorum is established, then we'll vote on that.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. First one. Now we are ready for file number one, AB 1945 by Assemblymember Hadwick.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I would first like to thank the Chair and committee staff for working with me on this important issue. I especially appreciate the committee's diligence and thoughtfulness, and I accept the committee's amendments. This bill delivers more affordable, accessible energy for hardworking Californians in my district. Most utility customers are billed monthly for energy use.

While this billing system works well for many households, it can create burdens for residents with poor or no credit history who may struggle with large deposits. When times are hard, financial problems can lead to late payments and in worst case power being shut off. When an account is closed, the fee to start service and pay a large deposit can be financially crippling for some residents. AB 1945 provides a simple solution.

This bill allows customers served by Lassen Municipal Utility District to prepay for electricity, applying a credit to their account, which is billed on a pay as you go basis.

Most importantly, a customer using the prepayment option under this bill would not be subject to start service fees and a deposit requirement. If a customer runs out of their credit, they can simply add more to their balance without paying an additional start service fee. This option also allows residents with tight budgets and poor credit to more carefully manage energy use. Customers in Lassen County has specifically asked for a billing option that does not require deposit. The prepayment option provided by this bill does just that.

Under this bill, traditional billing options are still available, and participation in the program is completely voluntary. The bill further protects rate payers by establishing key consumer protections related to billing, information sharing, and balance and suspension alerts. AB 1945 expands consumer choice, protects rate payers, and cuts costly deposits and fees for low income residents with poor credit in Lassen County. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by the bill's sponsor, Lassen Municipal Utility District General Manager, Nicholas Dominguez.

Okay. You have two minutes.

Thank you, vice Chair, committee members, and staff for your hard work on AB 1945, helping to make energy more affordable and accessible in our district. I'm Nick Dominguez, General Manager of Lassen Municipal Utility District. We're a small municipal owned utility in Northern California. We serve about 11,000 customers, and our cost of electricity is less than half of our neighboring investor owned utility.

AB 1945 aims to modernize the Municipal Utility District Act, allowing our customers to opt in to exclusively receiving notifications related to termination of service electronically, which is an option we cannot make available to them now under current law.

Additionally, Assembly Bill 1945 allows us to offer to customers a voluntary prepay option, which will eliminate utility deposits, late fees, and termination fees for those customers that opt into the program. The program adds another tool to our tool belt to help ensure that we can continue to keep energy affordable and accessible for our customers.

All of the amendments to the statute that are being proposed today expand choice for our customers and helps us take advantage of new technologies to develop programs that were never envisioned when the Municipal Utility District Act was originally passed. So I'm excited today for this opportunity to improve and modernize the statute that governs us and to expand customer choice to better serve their needs. Thank you again, and I'm available if you need any questions.

Okay. Any second witness?

Just me too.

Okay. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Derek Dolfie on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Any other me too supports?

Good morning. Shane Levine on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Nacker on behalf of the Golden State Power Cooperative is also in support. Thank you.

Okay. Any main opposition witness? Okay. None. And the midterm opposition statements?

No? Okay. Now our Chair is back. Chair, I will ask you to make a, still we are lack of a call, make a closing statement.

Thank you for hearing the bill today. I respectfully ask for aye vote when it's appropriate.

Many utility companies and support must be very good.

It's very, very unique and district support.

Okay. Thank you for your presentation. When we are ready, we'll vote on your bill.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. I want Chase back. Time is back to her.

Okay. Just in time. Great. Okay. It looks like we got just in time, Assemblymember Mark Gonzales.

That's item six, AB 2418. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments. And I wanna thank you again for your time last week. I know it was extremely busy, but the Chair and I chatted at length, so thank you, Madam Chair, for that again.

These amendments do the following. They remove the deem approved language, add anti displacement labor protections, give local governments flexibility to determine what kind of projects this bill would apply to, and narrows down the bill to three story group b occupancy buildings.

I'm pleased to present AB 2418, which will streamline nonresidential commercial building permit applications by creating timelines for plan reviews and inspections for group b occupancy buildings. It also allows, if local agency can't complete a plan check after an excessive delay, for an applicant to use a private plan checker.

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

Small business, especially in the historic ethnic enclaves of my district like Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Historic Filipino Town, Pico, and Boyle Heights, have been hit hardest. Increasing those delays means increasing those costs. When these businesses are just hanging on, one delayed permit could leave doors chained and windows shuttered, another business lost because of California's bureaucracy.

This bill will tackle delays by mimicking streamline housing permitting process and cutting through that red tape. First, requiring local agencies to provide applicants with an estimated timeline. Second, requiring local agencies to, upon request, contract with or employ a third party plan checker if the estimated time line they gave results in excessive delay of thirty days all at the applicant's expense.

And third, if a third party plan checker is used, it requires a local agency to issue a permit to an applicant within ten days of receiving the report from the private plan checker or to notify the applicant of any noncompliant aspects of their plan. Fourth, it's... Excuse me. Fourth, it's protect local agencies by requiring an applicant who uses a private plan checker to identify the local agency by creating predictable timelines and reliable backup option for when the excessive delays happen. AB 2014 will reduce costs and help our local businesses thrive. Are witnesses here? Oh, okay. If I could have... Is it Jacob? Okay. Jacob Brint with the California Retailer Association, primary witness in support.

I'm sorry. Thank you very much for being here, and good morning. Just before we go on, there was one amendment limiting to tenant improvements. Just wanna make sure that you...

On there? Yes. I accept that amendment as well.

Okay. Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Oh, and our other witness is Skyler. Do you want him up here, Madam Chair, or would you like him at that...

Yeah. You can come up here. And you'll each have two minutes.

And just for the record, Madam Chair, yes, we'll accept the recommendation of the tenant piece.

Okay. Two minutes each. Don't get too settled in. So I guess you go first.

Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association and Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Property Association. Take it away.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. I'm Jacob Brint on behalf of the California Retailers Association here in strong support of AB 2418. The California Retailers Association is the only statewide trade association representing every segment of the retail industry. A lot of the businesses you'll see along the main streets in your district. Plan check delays continue to be a growing challenge for businesses across the state, including retailers trying to open, renovate, or improve commercial spaces.

Our members continue to experience excessive plan check delays for even relatively straightforward tenant improvement projects, which is why CRA is sponsoring AB 1693 by Assembly Members Zbur, a similar permit streamlining measure that this committee heard and passed last week.

AB 2014 advances the same basic goal, help local jurisdictions address plan check backlogs while giving applicants a more predictable path forward by allowing temporary use of qualified third party plan review when local agencies need additional capacity. For these reasons, CRA respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2418. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam... Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Skyler Wonnacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Los Angeles, the proud sponsors of AB 2418. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for its thoughtful analysis of the bill and for working collaboratively with stakeholders on amendments to address the committee's concerns. I apologize.

I was running here to get to this committee hearing. And I appreciate the water. Thank you so much. AB 2418 aims to provide local planning desks and building permit applicants with an additional tool to help ensure that plan checks are completed in a timely manner by building on recent legislative efforts enacted to streamline residential permitting by extending those same provisions to nonresidential projects.

Excessive plan check delays across the state are impacting everything from routine tenant improvements to basic interior remodels to projects necessary to comply with California's energy efficiency, green building, and other code requirements. AB 2418 allows a building applicant at the applicant's expense to utilize a qualified third party plan checker when a project experiences excessive delays more than 50 business days while ensuring local governments have full oversight and final decision making authority. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Take it easy. Have a drink. I mean, water. Okay. All others in support of AB 2418, please come forward.

Good morning, Chair. Adam Regele on behalf of NAIOP SoCal, one of the proud co-sponsors. I wanna thank the staff and Chair and the author and all sponsors for all their work on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Esau Flores at the California Restaurant Association, also the CRA, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in strong support, and thank the author for his leadership.

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

Morning, Chair and Senators. Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association, also in support.

Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 2418? No principal witnesses? Opposition? Okay. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it... Any questions, Senator Choi? You're the only one here.

No. Including tenant improvement measure, I think this is a very good one and streamlining the process time and the net cost of the, not the government, but the private builder or owner of the project. I think that this is a fair measure and I'll be in support.

Thank you, Senator.

Great. Alright. Well, I also will be supporting. Thank you to the author for working with us on issues. It's been a process over the last couple of years to address this issue in a number of different sectors of our of our businesses, including housing. So it started housing, then restaurants, retail. This, yours covers a much broader, but still looking primarily, I think, to offices and services.

So it's a good way to take the step forward and then also really understand other factors that impact the ability of businesses to get to make the kind of improvements that they need to be able to function and do better as a business. So we're glad to support this. We do not have enough Members here to be able to hear the bill. But if you would like to close, you're welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Choi and others, and the committee staff and my staff. I know I've been working very, very hard on this. And, again, just to reiterate, we met last week, and I know you guys have been very instrumental as well. We all agree something needs to be fixed, and we're getting to that pathway to do that. And we're gonna continue to engage with our labor and business partners to ensure that the bill moves forward with all voices at the table and making sure that we get to a place of yes. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. We will be taking a recess until another author appears. Okay.

Coming back, from recess in ten seconds. So glad to see you Assembly member. Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Go.

Alright. We are now moving on to AB 2760 by Assembly member Sharp Collins. Good morning. Welcome. Glad to have you there here.

Thank you. Alright.

Good morning, madam chairs and and and members. Today, I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2760, a bill that allows, but not require, counties that already have an office of Inspector General to expand the OIG's oversight to include probation departments and animal control. Assembly Bill 2760 strengthens oversight of local public safety systems. By broadening the OIG's jurisdiction. The bill promotes transparency, accountability and consistent standards across the agency that play a critical role in community safety and well-being.

Traditionally, OIGs have focused on law enforcement entities such as police and sheriff's departments, reflecting longstanding concerns around the use of force, misconduct and public trust. Public safety extends beyond traditional policing, probation departments supervise individuals in the community, including youth and adults, and play a central role in the rehabilitation and recidivism. At the same time, animal control agencies are increasingly on the front lines of public health and safety. They respond to issues such as dangerous animals, neglect, and also disease risk.

Counties are currently responsible for overseeing these departments.

And unfortunately, in my county, San Diego, the board lacks the actual capacity to effectively fulfill this duty. Since this is the local government's committee, I should note that you have received letters of support from a majority of these of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. So let me be clear about this this overall bill is that the bill, it is permissive and the bill is not a requirement.

Counties currently have oversight authority over all of their departments, and they also have the existing ability to create an OIG to oversee their sheriff's department. This bill simply allows counties that so choose to delegate oversight authority of probation and animal control to the OIG that still reports directly to the county supervisors.

This is not a new oversight and as mentioned by opposition, but rather a tool to allow counties to effectively do their jobs when they are unable to do so based on capacity standpoints. As far as having witness here to testify, one of my representatives from the county board wasn't able to get here today and I was just asking for permission if I can read her statement if that's okay.

No objections, Senator Choi. That's fine. You can go.

Thank you so much. Okay. It says, as vice Chair of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, Aye, county board of supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp, expressed my strong support for Assembly bill 2760. This bill includes the probation and county animal control departments under the jurisdiction of an office of Inspector General.

Although the probation and animal control departments are under the direct purview of the Board of Supervisors, Allowing the office of the inspector general to have oversight over these departments would be another much needed tool to ensure that public safety is achieved in a transparent, fair, and equitable manner.

My office often receives complaints from parents of youth who are in detention and from animal rights activists regarding perceived wrongdoings within our local animal control, and we do not have the ability or capacity to investigate every complaint on our own. Allowing the office of the inspector general to have this broader jurisdiction would greatly relieve this burden, particularly at a time when San Diego's probation department is still under state investigation and complaints are numerous.

While our local citizens law enforcement review board has the authority to investigate probation, CLERB is often required to to summarily dismiss those cases because they are unable to access access records. Sorry. Moreover, CLERB may only investigate if a complaint is filed, while the inspector general has the ability to conduct his own audits and inspections or conduct an investigation on his own initiative.

And so with this, we are truly asking for additional support by asking you to vote I on Assembly bill 2760 as our county is is a county that needs this additional oversight. And this is signed, County Board of Supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone in support of AB 2760 that would like to no. Okay.

Is there anyone opposed to AB 2760?

Good morning, madam Chair, members. Libby Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in opposition to this measure. County probation departments serve the counties in which they operate and are governed not just by a body of state laws, but by local laws as well, ensuring consistency and interoperability. That interoperability and consistency is key here.

What we have noticed is that when there are duplicative or potentially contradictory oversight authorities, they're that gives rise to delay, inaction, and, inability to actually comply with the laws that are in place at the time.

CPOC has no opposition to authority and oversight. To the contrary, we comply with a number of oversight entities. We serve as an arm of the court. We serve at the pleasure of the county board of supervisors in every county in which we operate. It is not a question of oversight and accountability.

We believe oversight and accountability is a fundamental component of public service, and we want to adhere to it and do adhere to it where it exists. The problem only gives rise to when there are pieces of legislation like this that we cannot point to a gap or inaccurate in inadequacy in existing law that it is trying to address. And instead, we've strongly believe would result in duplicative and potentially contradictory authority and oversight over probation. For those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2760? Okay. Seeing none. Any questions or comments?

Okay. Seeing none.

Yeah. I won't be able to support it as you heard from the opposition witness and then also our bill analyst states that this bill is trying to borrow. The idea is a governance model that was created for elected sheriff and then applies to where it simply doesn't fit. Sheriffs are independently elected constitutional officers, which is why the legislature authorized counties to create inspector generals and the civilian oversight. Probation departments and animal control agencies are different.

There are county departments that already answer directly to the Board of Supervisors. It is a board if a board believes more oversight is needed, it already has both the authority and the responsibility to provide it. We shouldn't create a new layer of bureaucracy to oversight the departments the board already controls. So this is the same vein as the opposition witness has stated. So I won't be able to support it.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else. As you can see, we don't have members here to be able to vote on your bill. Sure.

But you could respond if you want or just wrap up and Sure. With your your remarks and I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you so much. Just to clarify a few things that majority of my board of supervisors say that that they don't have capacity to oversee probation and animal control. And so when they're coming to us saying that we don't have capacity, then what are we saying to our constituents? This bill is not something that is that is adding additional oversight. Counties already have this particular responsibility.

So within San Diego, the county finds that they just don't have the capacity, and they would like to be able to have someone else to step in to help support them to try to get things going before basically, to start the investigations before there's different types of court hearings and so forth to save to save the county and and also to save the state money. And so as we continue to move forward, we put our trust in our counties.

We, and and we we put our trust in our counties to oversee the operations of our different types of departments, and the public depends on that particular oversight. Assembly Bill 26 truly, in my opinion, allows any voluntary pathway to make good on the promise to the public of effective oversight. So once again, today, San Diego is asking for additional support as they need that support, especially when they are their probation is still under investigation.

And and they truly believe and so do I that this will help, kinda help minimize some of the additional caseloads that that come about after things move forward. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on 2760. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Assembly member.

You're welcome. Thank you for having me. Okay. Anyone

else? Okay. We will be taking a recess until we get more authors. You're the only one I know who could do that. Okay.

Here we go. I don't know which one is it?

We're gonna start a number.

We will be starting our meeting in five seconds.

1234.

7. Quick five seconds.

Okay. We will get started again of our, local Gov Committee. We're moving on with AB 2433 to be presented by Assembly Member Alvarez. Thank you.

Thank thank you, madam Chair, and thank you committee members. Appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 2433. This bill is related to the density bonus law. Some of you may be very familiar with this. Density bonus law allows you to allows the construction of more housing with the commitment of affordable housing being built, by the developer.

And so, this bill is really focused primarily on the issue of, allowing for more housing to be built if housing that is for sale is also built at affordable rates, deed deed restricted. This comes from the issue of we are seeing the success of density bonus law. It has been the most successful creation. We have seen the most amount of affordable housing being built as a result of density bonus law, and I think some of our, witnesses will speak to that.

But we've seen it happen in the affordable housing for rent, market, which is important.

We need to build for rent housing for sure. That's affordable and deed restricted. We haven't seen as much, success with, projects being built that are for sale for people who wanna buy homes. And so this bill would, allow the con the program to continue as is with the addition now that if you build affordable housing for sale that is deed restricted long term, then you are able to get more of the, density bonus, program that the program makes available to you.

We feel very strongly that more incentives here could lead to the building of more affordable housing for sale.

Again, we've seen the success with affordable housing on the rental side. For sale is a product that we still need to do more work in the state, and that's the main impetus behind behind this bill. Appreciate the analysis by the committee and staff identifying the concerns on the buy right issue. Thank to the Chair as well for the conversation on that.

We are removing that from the bill as we move forward to ensure that that conversation probably needs to happen with more time as we discussed, and I think there may be some opportunities there in the future.

But at this moment, in order to be successful with the legislation the way it is, we are removing that as part of the bill. We have two witnesses who are gonna testify. We'll begin with Mister Colin Parent.

You can both come up to the front if you want. Great. Wherever you want. And you'll each have, two minutes. Good morning.

Welcome.

Good morning. Is this Oh, there we go.

Good morning. Thank you for having us. Thank you, Assemblymember. My name is Colin Parent. I'm the CEO and general counsel of Circulate Planning and Policy and serve two terms as a city council member in the great city of La Mesa.

My organization published earlier this year a report, titled win win bonus that documented the success of California's bonus law using data from HCD. And, just to speak to a couple of the data points in there in in reference to to, some of the committee analysis. So SB 35, you know, was has been used in 2024. 2,500 units in in California were approved, using that policy. Whereas, in bonus law in 2024, 48,000 units were approved using the policy.

When you total up all of the streamlining laws tracked by HCD, SB 35, AB 2011, SB 6, SB 9, bonus law was used in 2024 ten times more than all of those combined. So bonus law truly is the has become the flagship housing policy in the state of California. The highest, most impactful thing that, the legislature can do to help for housing is to create enhancements to bonus law, like with AB 2433 here.

The bill provides a variety of clarifications to make sure that the law is equally, utilized across different jurisdictions. And and while I recognize that the ministerial component is being removed, do wanna reflect that the initial proposal tied it to AB 130, which is for infill environmental provisions, and also notably has labor provisions for projects over 85 feet.

And those are the projects that are most capable of supporting that. We've had some very productive conversations with both both staff and and also the staff of the building trades, actually, just last night. And so I do think there's a path forward on this in the future, if not in this building and elsewhere and look forward to having an opportunity to work on that in good faith with everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jed liano, council member, City of Clermont and board member of the LA County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency. Proud to present in support of AB 2433. City of Claremont in the last, in the current cycle of our housing element, we have approved eight housing development projects and seven of the eight have relied on state density bonus law. Without state density bonus law concessions, the projects simply don't pencil.

And so what I hope that we're able to do as this bill moves forward is to build on the things that have been successful in communities like Claremont, but then also focus on where we are lacking. We don't have enough incentives in the city of Claremont to produce homeownership opportunities for young families that are trying to start. And at the same time, we are facing an existential crisis for our school district.

So we need to be able to attract young families to come to our community and help fill those seats in our local public schools. 87% of our housing units are currently relying on state density bonus law.

However, we do not have an adequate vehicle to incentivize developers to create those crucial homeownership opportunities that will firm up and stabilize our current school district. And so I hope that we will use this bill as an opportunity to create new homeownership opportunities in Claremont, build on what has been successful, 8787% of our projects are relying on state density bonus concessions to be able to move forward and hope that we can continue to work towards solutions that create those homeownership opportunities in our city.

Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here to support AB 2433, please come forward?

Madam Chair, Mister vice Chair, Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundson junior in strong support.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, cosponsor of the bill in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce also in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur, a proud cosponsor and in support Habitat for Humanity California Abundant Housing Los Angeles San Diego Housing Commission. And thank you.

Good morning, Chair members of the committee. Jordan Plano Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California here in support.

Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 2433? Please come forward.

Not opposition. Damon Conco with the League of California Cities. Just wanted to thank the author for taking the amendments to remove the ministerial provisions. We're dropping our opposition and look forward to seeing those that new language in print. So thank you very much.

Thank you, madam Chair, members of the committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. If I could take the two minutes, I would appreciate it. Is that okay, madam Chair? Thank you.

We look forward to seeing the amendments in print described by the author, and we had a nice conversation last night. I'm pointing to Colin here, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. Unfortunately, the bill in print, you know, gifts developers providing minimum amounts of affordable housing with a by right CEQA exempt ministerial process, without requiring them to maximize housing development at the site. We understand the ministerial part is coming out. We appreciate that.

Again, we look forward to seeing that in print. It also exempts housing projects from environmental public health review without including any baseline environmental public health standards. Again, this could be fixed in the proposed amendments. We look forward to seeing, again, what those look like in print. And, finally, it includes, approval process for AB 130 projects, that qualify under this density bonus law, including the location design, environmental, and labor standards specified in AB 130.

We appreciate that. We appreciate that. The labor standards in AB 130 are not the labor standards that we would have chosen to put into AB 130. There was a lot going on with that bill last year that we needed to fix that had nothing to do with the housing housing portion of it. There was a minimum wage standard for construction workers, and we needed to get that out.

That is not the author's fault. That is not the sponsor's fault. That's just a fact of life here in in the capital. The labor standards we do prefer and that it seems as though the legislature has settled upon over the last eighteen months is the SB 423 labor standards. We would appreciate that those be considered in this situation.

And finally, there is a bill moving through the legislature. I believe it moved through this committee to a b SB 1383 about waiving local labor standards as a concession in this space.

We would we would hope that the bill would either maybe be combined with thirteen eighty three or include some of that language so that any local labor standards that might be better than SB 423 labor standards in this space would be able to be not waived and intact at the local level. So, as I said, we've had good conversations just last night, as you said. We look forward to continuing those.

I know the bill is being heard tomorrow. This looks like it might be a July, August, thing for us, for Colin and Aye, but, we look forward to talking and appreciate the hard work of the committee and the Chair, for the amendments today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2433? Okay. Seeing none.

Oh, there's time.

Oh, of course.

Sorry. Good morning. Kindra Begley on behalf of the City of Belmont, respectful opposition. And on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, Town of Truckee, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members, respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Okay. Come to the dias. Any questions or comments here? No?

Thanks a lot.

See none. I I wanna thank you Assemblymember for working together and addressing these issues. And it's great to hear such openness and such a positive way of saying, we take these steps. We look forward to taking these other steps and working together with other interest. Labor standards and affordability, for me, are just the mantra that I we repeat over and over and over again.

So I know there's pieces connected to that. I know there's policies that connected to that, but that's the for me, that's the core is we've gotta be able to address both of them. So, I appreciate the amendments that were made and the future amendments that could be made that could make something like this even better and even stronger. And especially for for sale homes. That has become impossible for people, and there's no reason why it should be.

So if this works, let's use it. Thank you very much. If you wanna end end with Yes.

Thank you, madam Chair. Your last point exactly, if we see something that's working as a policy, let's try to use that policy to produce the type of housing that we are seeing not being produced. That is the entire intent. You will have heard time and time again the number of housing units we're behind, we need to build.

We often forget talking about the missed opportunity for, like, people like me, my parents never own a home to enter the middle class if you actually are at one point able to own a starter home.

I think that's that's a component that's missing in this conversation that I think is significant. Again, thank you and the committee for, the work and the analysis we gave. Definitely, we'll be working on those amendments, making sure that the folks who came and testified, are clear on what we're doing. I think it's gonna be reflective of their concerns and your concerns.

And we do look forward to working on that maybe in the future to try to figure out how to best we were trying not to get in the middle of a lot of different thinking on that issue.

We're trying to avoid that. That's not the intent of this bill. So by removing this and taking this amendment, I think we do that. We can have that conversation at a future time to figure out how to best implement good labor standards, affordability, and all the things that we all care about. So with that, respectfully ask for your high vote.

Thank you. We do not have a quorum, so when we do, we will be taking on Thank

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So we're waiting for two more present.

you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So we're waiting for two more present.

We'll be, going on recess until we get another author.

We will be resuming in five seconds.

In five seconds. A five second notice. Yeah.

Seconds is up. Good morning. Welcome, Assemblymember.

Hello, Madam Chair.

Good to see you. We will move on now to AB 1976 to be presented by Assemblywoman Wicks, and you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members and staff and others for hanging in with me here. So, this this bill is really looking at pedestrian, bicycle safety, etcetera. There's been an increase in pedestrian-related accidents in California with many people who are seriously injured or killed in the state. There's approximately 1,00 to 1.200 pedestrian deaths per year, and there's been a 50% increase in deaths since 2014.

Those are not stats that we like to see. With the high number of pedestrian and bicycle safety injuries and accidents in California, we need to do more to make sure we're improving and implementing really sort of common-sense safety measures in order to provide safety and accessibility for people to live, walk, and travel safely on their streets. I've done a lot of work in the housing space by looking how we can, you know, streamline more housing, and we're kind of trying to take the similar approach—how do we streamline and get to "yes" more quickly on pedestrian and bicycle safety transportation projects?

While well intended, there are a number of processes and regulations that have made it harder to get much needed transportation safety projects done for pedestrians and bicyclists in all of our communities in California. For example, we've seen different jurisdictions have high thresholds just to get the process of getting simple speed bumps approved. There are also instances where excessive public meetings have delayed projects from being completed or approved at all.

To address some of these challenges that have caused delays in streamlining processes for these types of projects, my bill would, one, limit a city or county from holding community input meetings to reconsider, delay, or prevent implementation from a project after the project has passed the 90% of design threshold. Meetings are allowed on design features, aesthetics, or implementation details that do not material alter the project.

Two, limit canceling of contracts without having a public meeting if a city or county official makes specific formal findings and three, limit the threshold for the request for a traffic-calming measure to no more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residences are within 1,000 feet of the proposed traffic calming measures, as opposed to some cities who have a 67% or 75% threshold, again, often just for simple speed bumps. Establish, and lastly, establish—exempt the establishment of pedestrian malls from CEQA.

And with me here to testify is Mark Vukcevich from Streets for All, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right.

Okay, you may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. First and foremost, just want to thank the committee for all its hard work and appreciate the analysis and working so much with us. My name is Mark Vukcevich. I'm the Director of State Policy for Streets for All, a proud sponsor of AB 1976. This bill is about a simple question.

After a city or county has identified a dangerous street and has advanced a safety project to the brink of construction, should that project be able to die in delay and duplicative process? Too often, the answer is yes, and that delay is not neutral in terms of the effect and the public policy outcome it has on our streets. Every month, a proven safety project sits on the shelf.

It's another month people are asked to get around in our transportation system in conditions that we already know are dangerous. The people who pay the highest price are often children, seniors, people with disabilities, low income communities, and residents who just simply cannot drive where they need to go.

AB 1976 does not eliminate public input. It draws a reasonable line. Before a project reaches 90% design, there is planning, outreach, engineering, and public process. After that point, the bill says cities can't add additional process while still maintaining ground act meetings and public participation required by law.

If a city wants to cancel or materially lay a safety project, it's it can still do so, but needs to make public findings supported by substantial evidence, then not delivering the project outweighs the safety benefit or the project just can't be funded for some reason having to do with budgetary reasons.

Finally, AB 1976 keeps neighborhood traffic-calming petitions reasonable and also extends the extends CEQA streamlining to pedestrian malls, pedestrian malls like K Street in Sacramento or near, like, Mayauella—people-first spaces that serve local commerce, safety, and community life. At its core, this bill says public process should say should shape safety projects but not become a veto point over them.

If we're serious about saving lives on our streets, climate equity, and local safety plans, then improve safety projects,—nd I'll just note, these are only for projects that are actually within planning documents—have to actually get built. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support of AB 1976? Please come forward.

Good morning, Chair and members. David Azevedo, on behalf of AARP California. We strongly support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras of Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of California YIMBY, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1976? Go ahead.

Madam Chair and members, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We actually are—dropped our opposition. We're more concerned with—we appreciate the amendments. They're definitely welcomed.

I think our comments are reflected just more of local governments are aggressively trying to build out ATP projects, as we would see the projects are typically overly subscribed. Our major concern is really about getting direction from the legislature, as far as public engagement, community engagement, and we see bills like Senate Bill 569 over in the Assembly Transportation next week, which is going to require local governments to hold additional meetings and public input meetings on bikeways, and this bill goes in the opposite direction.

And so, we're just, you know, from city's perspective, asking the legislature for some consistency on what they would like to see from us. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and author. Mark Neuburger with the California State Association of Counties. Wanna align our comments to those provided by the Cal—both Cal Cities. Also, wanna thank the author and sponsor for their work—working through this on this bill but just wanted to know we still have the concerns outlined by Cal Cities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kendra Begley, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, respectfully in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no more come to the dais. Any questions or comments? Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. You know, while I really respect the intent of the bill, it's to enable these projects to happen. I don't know of any cities that don't want projects like this to occur. Their biggest obstacle, obvious, for most of these things is, is getting funding.

You know, they're competing for a pot of funding, for, for, for projects like this, while at the same time trying to keep pete from that—compete from that same pot, to, to do road projects that they desperately need that are increasing in value, making these projects even less.

And when you're making a choice between the two, they usually have to choose that other. And those are economic choices that are unfortunate. And I'd like to see our legislation from, from here be more in tune with enabling and reducing the costs for doing these.

And so, that when cities and communities do decide that, you know, this is an advantageous thing to do in this area because I think of all the cities that, including the one I used to represent on the council, of the things that we wanna do, but we couldn't do because of funding issues.

And, and, and so, you know, whenever we have a restricts county our cities from doing something, this being a local gov committee, I think everybody on this committee has been in local gov and, and gets it.

And, and, and so, those are the concerns I think we're hearing from the semi-opposition. And, and, and I, I kind of agree with them that know, we have to be careful with these type of bills. So, with that, I think we have a quorum.

Yes. We're going to—we're gonna take one second to.

Sure.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Assembly member, if you could respond to...

Sure.

The concerns that were raised. I, I do think there's merit in what they're saying in terms of community involvement, and how do you interpret that?

Yep.

Communities that are not used to it or haven't done it, start getting involved and then you're told, wait a minute, you can't go that far, so.

Yep. Happy to address and also, if my witness also wants to provide some, some more context of some of the experiences that they've had working on these projects in community, that'd be helpful too. But, you know, essentially, the way that we've now crafted with the new amendments, that we've discussed in the committee here is after we've reached the sort of 90% phase, this project is near completion.

And at a certain point, you know, we have traffic engineers in our cities who are experts on how to design these projects in a way that reach the intended goal. And we, we want to trust those folks. We want the community input going into that process, and then, we want the traffic experts to actually finalize the ultimate design, and what that looks like.

And so, often what we have seen before also is community process being used to sort of stop projects. I think there's an important aspect of community engagement leading into these conversations, leading into the actual design, but at a certain point, the engineers take over, much like how engineers take over, you know, air safety control and other, other things that we have in our lives. They're experts. They're professionals. It's what they do.

We want to empower them to be able to do that. So, I think the, the amendments that we have, I think, land, I think, a nice sweet spot of ensuring that we have that community engagement. Well, then, it gets turned over to the experts to actually implement the project itself. But I'm also happy to have Marc also talk through maybe some examples.

Yes. And Chair Durazo, and I also want to respond to Senator Seyarto's comments as well. I think the way that I see this bill is really encouraging a front loading of community input because when you have community, if, I'm just gonna say, I'm gonna speak to a different example like a transit project. Would you rather have a delay in the planning phase or in the construction phase?

If you have it in the construction phase, things are gonna go billions of dollars over budget, you know, substantially delay.

But if you have it in the planning phase, it's gonna cost more money in the long run, but at the end of the day, it's cheaper to do it in the planning phase. And what we're hoping is to say is that communities need to do that public input earlier in the process and get buy in from—buy in for their communities earlier in the process. Because at the point of just awarding a construction contract, that, that's essentially been decided.

The government has said—local government has said that we're, we're doing this and to sort of throw a project out at that point is wasting a ton of money, a ton of resources, a ton of, of staff time for something that has essentially already been decided when we, you know, really we relieve that, that community input, which is important to happen at the 0%, 30%, and 60% design phases to really happen and to be really critical to shape, you know, where does my garbage can go, where does—where do I walk my dog—all of those little intricacies that can happen on a, on a bicycle walk, you know, bicycle pedestrian or, or traffic safety project.

Yeah. I, I would just, in response to that, I think if we wanna accomplish that and have more involvement at the beginning, on the planning, then we need to do a better job of telling those communities that such and such project may be coming up and getting, getting their involvement. Because many, many community residents do not know and do not have the resources to know projects are coming up—potential projects are coming up.

So, they find out about them later, and then, they're told it's too late because of decision.

I mean, that happened in a project in my area recently. And so, so, that's, that's great. It sounds good. We just then have to figure out how to make sure that they really do have the opportunity to get involved early on and not be told later it's too late.

Yep.

Okay. Bill is moved. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The bill will remain on call. Thank you. Madam, welcome.

Good morning. Okay. We're on to item five, AB 2385, Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Pleased to join you this morning to present AB 2385. Thank you, Madam Chair, to you and your staff for your work on this bill, and we'll be accepting the committee amendments. Communities across California are facing more frequent and more severe natural disasters. But when disaster does strike, local authorities, local governments often lack clear authority to plan for and execute recovery.

A bit of background: forty years ago, the Legislature passed the Disaster Recovery Reconstruction Act to equip local governments with tools to proactively plan for disasters. This authorized regional entities to manage recovery with diverse powers, including tax increment financing and the authority to enter into contracts for large scale rebuilding. However, because this act references the now defunct community redevelopment agencies, the authority to perform this recovery work is effectively eliminated. This ambiguity delays rebuilding, increases costs, and leaves communities vulnerable to disorganized recovery and speculative development.

So the goal of this bill really is to give local governments the tools that they need to respond to and recover from disaster.

The bill clarifies state law by allowing local governments to create local reconstruction agencies. The bill enumerates specific powers necessary for comprehensive recovery. And finally, it offers state support, directing the California Office of Emergency Services and the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to develop model ordinances and provide technical assistance to local governments. Pleased to be joined today by Melissa Sparks-Kranz from the League of California Cities.

There we go. Good morning. Melissa Sparks-Kranz, two minutes. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities. We're pleased to be in support of AB 2385, and we thank Assemblymember Petrie-Norris for her leadership in carrying this bill.

AB 2385 clarifies state law that authorizes cities and counties to develop disaster recovery plans prior to a disaster occurring to help facilitate the expeditious and orderly recovery and reconstruction should a disaster occur. These disaster recovery plans would provide local agencies the ability to define their operational roles and their leadership roles in a coordinated effort in the face of a disaster, as well as their recovery priorities, strategies, and procedures to integrate with state and federal recovery frameworks.

Developing these plans does unlock a very powerful tool at the local level, which is to authorize the establishment of a local reconstruction agency, and that would empower the local governments to use a portion of their tax revenue to help finance disaster recovery efforts, akin to the former redevelopment agencies but specific to disaster recovery. Cities across the state share deep concerns about the threat of disaster in their communities, and it can look very different across different regions.

We talk to cities frequently about wildfire threats versus earthquake threats versus sea level rise or flooding. And so, regardless of disaster type, AB 2385 does provide a flexible but valuable tool that would support community recovery from future disasters. And I just wanted to note, this was an important recommendation from the report following the 2025 January Los Angeles fires that the Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire Safe Recovery published in collaboration with UCLA.

They did a really comprehensive after action report, and this was one of the recommendations included. So with that, we would respectfully request your aye vote on the bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in support of AB 2385, please come forward?

Good morning. Kendra Begley on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and Town of Truckee in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Please come forward.

Good morning. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting registering support on behalf of Climate Resolve. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition to AB 2385? Seeing none. Any comments or questions by anyone? I have a bill.

The bill has been moved by Senator Cervantes. Would you like to close?

Thank you, madam Chair. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We'll hold it.

Entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Oh. Can I have a motion on the consent calendar? Senator Cervantes moves the consent calendar. Ready to vote.

The consent calendar consists of file item number four, AB 2118, file item eight, AB 2728. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Senator durazo ? Aye. Durazo, aye.

Choi?

Choi, aye. Arlene Ashby Cervantes?

Aye.

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Laird Sayardo? Aye. Sayardo, aye. Four zero.

Okay.

The bill's on call, 4 zero. And we will yes. Let's go back.

We need a motion for file item.

Which one? Motion for file item one. One?

Okay. We need a motion for a file item number one, moved by Senator Seyarto.

File item number one, AB 1945. The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. Senator Spero? Aye. Spero?

Aye. Choi, aye. Adrienne Ashby Cervantes? Aye.

Moved by Senator Cervantes.

File item number three AB 2058. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators D'Orazzo? Aye. D'Orazzo, aye.

Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Abaguine? Ashby.

Ashby?

Aye

File item number six, AB 2418. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on judiciary.

We don't need a who's the motion? Who made the motion? Sorry.

We didn't have any motion. Who's the motion? Twenty four eighteen Gonzales. You need a motion?

Motion.

Okay. Moved by senators Cervantes.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on judiciary. Senators D'Orazzo? Aye. D'Orazzo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Seyarto? Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Five zero.

The bill is on call. Motion for

AB 24.

We need a motion on AB 2433 by Alvarez. Senator Cervantes? Motion. Motion.

File item number seven, AB 2433. The motion is do passed to the committee on housing. Senator D'Arazzo? Aye. D'Arousso, aye.

Aye.

Choi?

Choi, aye. Arreguin? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Syrato, aye.

50.

Bill's on call. 50. We need a motion on

D'Arzo, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Abigin?

Ashby? Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Segarardo?

Segarardo, no. 32.

No.

32. The item is on the bill is on call. Did we do what else are we doing?

So Austin.

Okay. You want to look at that? Yes. Thank you. And we did her bidding.

Back to Senator Leonard.

This is file item number one, AB 1945. The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is four zero with the Chair voting aye. Senators Regin, Ashby, Laird? Aye.

Laird, aye. Five

zero. Oh, Aragin. On

I don't know about it.

File item number one

Instant dissolution of Berkeley.

Whatever you want the bill to be. That's what it is.

File item number one, a B1945. Emotions, adding in Aye. Six zero.

On call? On call. Bill is on call six zero.

File item number two, AB 1976. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Transportation. The current vote is two to one. Senators Choi Araeen? Aye.

Araeen, aye. Ashby? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.

Three one.

Okay. The bill is on call. Three? 4. 4.

Oh, I'm sorry. That was 41. On call.

The bill's on call. Okay.

File item number three, AB 2058. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is four zero with each voting aye. Senators Adegin?

Aye.

Adegin, aye. Ashby? Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Six zero.

The bill is on call. Six zero.

File item number 5, AB 2385. The motion is do passed to the committee on emergency management. The current vote is three one with the Chair voting aye. Senators Aravind? Aye.

Aravind, aye. Ashby? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.

Five one.

Consent. Consent calendar, please?

The consent calendar consists of file item number four, AB 2118, and file item number eight, AB 2728. Senators Avegin? Aye. Avegin, aye. Ashby?

Aye. Ashby, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Seven zero.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So strong meeting.

The consent calendar is

adopted. Okay. Just go back.

File item number six, AB 2418. The motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is five zero. Senators Aregin?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Seven zero.

Bill is out? The bill is out. Seven zero.

File item number seven AB 2433. The motion is do passed to the committee on housing. The current vote is five zero. Senators Irene? Aye.

Irene, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. 70.

The bill is out. 70.

File item number 9AB2760. The motion is do passed to the Senate floor. The current vote is three two. Senators Areen? Aye.

Aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, Aye. Five two.

The bill is out. Five two.

File item number one, AB 1945. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is six zero. Senators Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Seven zero.

The bill is out. Seven zero.

File item number two, AB1976. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Transportation. The current vote is four one. Senators Choi Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Five one?

The bill is out. Five one.

File item number three, AB 2058. The motion is to pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is six zero with the Chair voting aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Seven zero.

The bill is out. Seven zero.

File item number five, AB 2385. The motion is do passed to the committee on emergency management. The current vote is five one with the Chair voting aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, aye. Six one.

The bill is out six one.

You're good. Okay.

You're good. Thank you.

Thank you,

madam Chair.

I think that's it. Okay. Come to the end of our meeting. Thank you to everyone who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate local gov committee or visit our website.

Your suggestions and comments are very important to us. We want to include them in the official hearing records. Thank you for everyone for your patience. Thank you to all of our staff. Appreciate you very much.