Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony through the position on the portal on the committee's website. How about now? Yeah.

Well, good afternoon, everyone. Once again, welcome. As we proceed with the witnesses in in public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goals of the hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeasy orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings.

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

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We have 32 bills today on our agenda with four items on consent. Those items are SB 607 by Senator Wiener, SB 992 by Senator Nilo, SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon, SB 1439 by the Seminole local government committee. In addition, Assembly member Pacheco will be presenting SB 1312 on behalf of Senator Richardson.

We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill.

These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All remaining witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. We do not have a quorum as of yet, so we'll operate as a subcommittee until we're able to establish quorum. First bill up today is item number seven, SB 802 by Senator Ashby. When you're ready, Senator.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, We are here today to present SB 802. We appreciate your time and the committee's hard work and help and support on this bill that we've been working on for quite some time. SB 802 requires the Sacramento region to form a joint powers authority to address our long standing lack of coordination on housing and homelessness. I've actually spent over sixteen years working on this and and over a year negotiating many iterations of the language in this bill.

Worked closely with regional partners including the County Of Sacramento, City Of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Folsom, the continuum of care, Sacramento steps forward, unions, housing organizations, business groups, service providers, community leaders, and many, many local elected officials.

Members, most of you spend a portion of your week living here in Senate District 8 with us. So you've witnessed firsthand some of the dysfunction on the streets of Sacramento. Some of you have very personal stories about encounters you've had on the streets of Sacramento, which means you will not be surprised to hear that homelessness is the top concern for residents in this region with over 7,500 people experiencing homelessness on the streets of Sacramento County right now.

Recent data shows Sacramento County has experienced a 13% increase in homelessness, far surpassing the rest of the state's 3% decrease in homelessness. Students are among the most affected with an almost 20% rise in student homelessness here in Sacramento, more than double the rest of the state's increase.

Sacramento has spent over twenty years trying and failing to create a joint powers authority to address this issue. Sacramento alone has received half $1,000,000,000 in state funding from all of us in just the past four years. But to this day, still lacks a coordinated strategic plan to spend it and implement effectively. Without a regional strategy, these funds have been directed towards separate and at times conflicting priorities and programs.

Sacramento's current system is fragmented among multiple government agencies and planning bodies that operate independently with limited oversight and almost no coordination.

In fact, there are more than eight boards and nearly 90 Board Members working in silos on homelessness across our region. Families seeking assistance must navigate multiple agencies and service providers, each directing them to different parts of our system, creating confusion and delay. Since the introduction of this bill, local efforts to form a joint powers authority have advanced, and that's a good thing.

The county of Sacramento and its cities have signed an agreement largely led by the city of Sacramento to discuss forming a governing body that addresses constituents' most pressing issue, homelessness and housing. A joint powers authority is the strongest and most accountable governance structure available for this type of coordination.

Unlike agreements, a JPA has the legal authority to manage funds, enter contracts, pursue grants, and implement regional strategies. This bill does not replace local control. It brings local governments together to make better regional decisions. Local jurisdictions maintain control over their zoning, their funding, and their programs. I worked closely with the small cities of this region and the city of Sacramento to ensure that local decision making was protected.

As currently written, SB 802 requires the county of Sacramento, the city of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, and Folsom to participate in this new body. Jurisdiction the jurisdictions have established a task force of elected officials, which is expected to convene this July. This is an important component.

It is my sincerest hope that the local entities in July, when they meet, will form a joint powers authority on their own and that they will mirror many of the requirements that we're talking about today in SB 802. Obviously, if that happens, there will be no need for s B802 when we come back in August.

But for now, it is critical so that we can continue the dialogue in our region towards better coordination and accountability of precious resources. Sacramento has the opportunity to lead, to create a model of efficiency, and to truly serve residents, proving that we are at our best when we are working together. With me today, there are three folks at the table that I am extremely excited for you to hear from.

The first of which is a face that people in this building know very well, and that is the former pro tem and former mayor of Sacramento, Darrell Steinberg. I said this to the housing committee.

It is always incumbent upon us to bring an expert with us on this particular issue. He is not an expert. He is the expert. He has addressed this from every angle possible for almost the entirety of his career, and I'm thrilled that he took the time to come be with us today. Next to him is an incredible leader in Sacramento, a council member Katie Maple, who has been championing this issue since she joined the board of the City Council four years ago.

Also with us is Joe Smith, who's here for technical expertise if you have questions. He is the Chair of the continuum of care. Joe currently runs several of the most successful programs in Sacramento County, and he himself has lived experience on the streets of Sacramento and has risen to be an incredible leader in this space for our region. So I'm honored to have all three of them with me. And at your at your pleasure, Chair, I would defer to my witnesses.

Please proceed first witness.

Thank you very much, Mister chairman and members of the committee, and thank you, Senator Ashby, for your outstanding leadership in bringing forward a very tough, tough bill. As Senator Ashby said, I have been on both sides of the equation, so to speak. I was president of the Senate for six years, member of this legislature, including the Assembly for for fourteen and then mayor of Sacramento. And it's easy, I know, around any issue to point fingers. Well, it's the state.

No. It's the county. No. It's the city. There's nobody at fault here, but we do have a common enemy.

And the common enemy is inertia. The common enemy is believing that because we have had some success and we have in Sacramento, getting thousands of people off the streets over the course of the last decade, that that somehow is enough when there are still too many people suffering unnecessarily. And so I've seen how this actually works. And, of course, the city itself, cities throughout California and the city of Sacramento and the other cities in the county have a responsibility.

It's a responsibility around shelter, tiny homes, and housing.

And the county has its responsibility, I know, in authoring California's Mental Health Services Act in 2004, the tax on millionaires. That was my my, initiative generating 35 plus billion dollars for mental health in California. All the money goes to the county. And purposefully, because they're the health and human services subdivision of the state of California. But I asked this question to you, Mister chairman.

Under what theory of good government does it make sense for the cities and county to govern the issues of homelessness separately? Especially when in many instances, especially where people are the most chronically homeless, there is a crossover between the need for shelter, tiny homes and housing, and the need for intensive services.

And if we're honest about it in Sacramento, and I think this is true throughout California, we have all done a good job city and county together building more shelter beds and building more housing, temporary and permanent housing for people. But where we are still falling short collectively is ensuring that people who are the sickest of the sick, those who the public complaints most about, who are languishing intent encampments, walking down up and down our streets and sidewalks barefoot and obviously in tremendous need.

When it comes to the numbers, I know this following the Mental Health Service Act.

220,000 full service partnerships since Prop 63 passed and too small of a percentage going to people who are chronically homeless. The services are not getting to people who are the sickest of the sick in large enough numbers. So what this bill would do would require the city and county simply to govern together.

Thank you.

That's all. That's all. Thank you.

Second witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Katie Maple, and I'm proud I probably represent nearly 70,000 residents right here in the 5th District of the city of Sacramento. I wear many hats in this work, but perhaps the most important is that I've lived this issue from multiple perspectives. When I was 16 years old, I left home. There are times I lived in my car trying to finish high school, work in restaurants, and simply find stable housing.

My story is not unique. In fact, it has only become more common as housing costs have continued to rise in our city and, of course, across the state. Years later, before I was elected to public office, I spent much of my free time doing mutual aid work in Sacramento as well. So serving those who are, living on the streets, including delivering meals, survival supplies, and basic necessities to those who are living in parks, under overpasses, and beyond.

And what I got to know as I talked to folks who were in those experiences was that the biggest obstacle was not that they didn't qualify for the help.

It was that they couldn't figure out how to get it. Someone would tell me to call one agency, that agency would send me somewhere else. Families would spread months waiting for housing and other needs, and I'm sure this story can be replicated across California. So the system wasn't really built to help individuals in the true sense. And so as I navigated that work, and then finally ran for office, I I thought at the time, wow, you know, this is really disjointed.

It doesn't appear to me that these these entities are working well together. And as I've been now on the inside, elected to office for the last four years, I realized that it's actually worse than I thought on the inside. And so I discovered that there's not one single entity that's responsible for Sacramento's homeless response. It doesn't mean that people aren't working incredibly hard. It's actually the opposite.

We've got really hardworking people everywhere from the continuum of care to our agencies, to the county, to the cities and beyond. Everyday they're working and they care deeply. But they're working with this system that was never designed to function as one. And so, also in my work, I serve at on several regional boards to help oversee our transit system. I serve as the vice Chair of the air air quality management district and the public library authority among many others.

And what I've realized in all of that work is that we've created these joint powers authorities, these boards that we sit on that have representatives from cities and counties, sometimes multiple counties or one county in the cities, and they serve one function. They recognize that when there's a policy issue that doesn't know jurisdictional boundaries, we need to come together as one and create one place where we can share resources.

And most importantly, where individuals can from the public can come and learn about the work that we're doing, and petition their government when they are unhappy with it. And so that is what this bill aims to do. A lot of what has already been mentioned by Senator Ashby, I won't go into detail, but I will say that there is a local process happening on the ground now.

I've been advocating for this for many years, and I can say that that would not be the case if not for this bill. I am also very concerned that if this bill doesn't move forward, that we won't have what we need to make sure that it actually comes to fruition. So, yes, we've started the conversations. Yes, we have the letter of intent that's signed. And, yes, we have some some conversations that are planned on the calendar, and yet, we do not have a signed agreement.

And so it is my, respectful request for your aye vote, to continue this bill moving forward so that we can continue that work on

the ground. And with that, thank you.

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

Hello, chairman. I am council member Lisa Kaplan. I replace our honorable Senator Ashby as the council member re representing that area. I'm in strong support for all the reasons, Ted. Please support we need to move this forward.

Thank you.

Hi, chairman. My name is Elisa Hergej. I'm here on behalf of Council member Eric Guerra. He's unable to make it today, but he's in strong support of this bill. Thank

you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ben Avey with WellSpace Health, the region's largest provider of health care services to people experiencing homelessness in strong support.

Good afternoon. Crystal Strait representing the Steinberg Institute in support.

Daniel Conway, here as former chief of staff to Mayor Johnson, cofounder of the LA Alliance for Human Rights, cofounder of Sacramento for Safe and Clean Streets, in strong support of regional cooperation. Thank you all for your leadership.

Monica Lee on behalf of vice mayor Corina Talamantes in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Madeline Noel with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a property based improvement district serving over a 100 blocks in our central city here in downtown in strong support. Thank you.

Nolan Gray for California MB in strong support.

John Paniocchi, CEO of the Sacramento Regional Business Leaders Council in strong support. Thank you.

Eldra Jackson, the third inside circle, strong support of SB 802.

Sumathi Mehta, Natomas Unified School Board Trustee, strong support of the bill. Thank you for your leadership. Sati Satikar, commissioner on Sacramento disability advisory. I strongly support it's better to work together than in silos. Thank you.

Lynn Lindsey, president, North Natomas Community Coalition. We are in strong support of this coordinated approach and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Tiffany Scott, president and CEO of Paratransit Inc, NPI Housing, a new nonprofit that's building public private attainable housing and in strong support of a c c eight zero two. Good afternoon. Karina Reymundo on behalf of Midtown Association in support.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Napankola of Sacramento Asian Chamber in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your leadership. Dominique Denay, local education advocate in strong support.

Mister chairman, members, Jason Jason Gonzales representing the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova. We are neutral, but it feels like sponsorship to get to that point. So thank the author and and all the supporters. Thank you.

Chair Carrillo, thank you. Good to see you. My name is William Franco. I'm the commander of the Veterans Affiliated Council. We're here in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Asher. I'm representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary opposition? This measure, please come to the desk. And each of you also get three minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the committee. I'm Siobhan Katari, deputy county executive for Sacramento County, and I'm here today to respectfully oppose SB 802. Sacramento County sees the impact of homelessness in our communities every day. The county, the city, our cities, and the COC each bring something different to this work, and we have agreed to work together with urgency on this critical issue. This isn't a choice between the status quo or SB 802.

Our board has already voted in support of this regional model and has appointed members to this task force shaping it. A letter of intent signed by our county CEO and our city managers commits us to finalize this structure by year's end. Our continuum of care has already been chosen as a willing partner in this model. SB 80's SB 802's mandate for the COC to participate doesn't strengthen this partnership. It only risks overriding the federal authority that governs how COCs operate.

We appreciate Senator Ashby's recent amendments to SB 802 reflected in the work that on the model that we are building, but they don't yet resolve our core concern. The type of legal structure that governs this region must be locally determined, not written into state statute. SB 802 breaks the core principle that makes JPA's work. JPA's function because participation is voluntary and partners join with shared goals and mutual accountability.

SB 802 would create the first mandatory JPA in California history and sets bad precedent by taking away local authority.

We ask that the Senator and this committee give local elected officials the opportunity to see this through or to accept amendments giving us the latitude to design this locally. We respectfully ask that you vote no on SB 802 as currently written. Thank you.

Chair Carrillo, members of the committee, thank you for having us today. My name is Justin Raethal, and I'm serving as the mayor of the city of Folsom. Here to respectfully oppose, SB 802 on behalf of my city. Sacramento region has a proven track record, as you've already heard, of working together to solve regional challenges. Folsom participates in eight joint powers authorities, and we successfully collaborate regionally, each and every day.

We have signed the letter of intent, to form a JPA, and I will personally be serving on that committee once it is formed. Folsom and the Sacramento Region are also leaders in building housing. The Sacog Region has outperformed all the other metro areas in the state for the last eight years, and per capita housing production and 18 of the last twenty four. Folsom has built over a thousand affordable housing units using our local affordable housing trust fund.

And to say that we need a special statute, in order to build housing just doesn't match the data that we see.

Folsom, Sacramento County, and our neighboring cities are already at the table, designing a regional approach that reflects how we wanna work together. If the state proceeds with the creation of the first mandated JPA in the history of California, there's a strong chance this JPA is litigated and the JPA formation is actually delayed. Since this bill lacks funding for the mandate, we'd also have a claim to recoup costs from the state of California when our regional entities should be the one paying those costs.

JPA's function because participation is voluntary. Partners join with shared goals and mutual accountability.

And if you take away that voluntary framework, you undermine our collaboration. While I appreciate Senator Ashby's efforts to highlight the need for regional collaboration, we'd ask this committee to let our local government process finish before locking a structure into the state statute. The city of Olson respectfully opposes s v eight zero two and ask for your no vote today.

Thank you for that testimony. Any others that wanna add on in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California in respectful opposition due to the precedent setting nature of the bill. Thank you.

Linda Wheaton from SAC Act in also in respectful opposition for the reasons stated in our letter and lifted up in your alleged analysis. Sacramento is not unique.

Thank you.

JP is not a magic bullet.

Thank you.

Meg Gunderson with Sacramento Area Congregations Together respectfully oppose. Laurel Hollis? Also with SEC Act, respectfully oppose. Thanks.

Karen Humphrey from Sacramento Act, former mayor of Fresno, and a big fan of many of the people here, But I must oppose this coerced convert coerced collaboration isn't collaboration.

Thank you very much.

I'm Jan Chartless, and I oppose for the reasons given in the SAC Act. I'm a member of Westminster Presbyterian Church. We have a respite program with about a 122 homeless people that we serve every week.

Thank you.

Hi. Alicia Dean Stalsow from Sacramento Act. I respectfully oppose SB 80

two. Hi. I'm Trent Simmons, interim CEO with Sacramento Steps Forward, and I oppose for legal concerns that

I have with the bill related to

the COC program. Thank you very much. Committee members, questions, comments? What's in front of us? Assembly member Ward?

be happy to kick off the conversation. I wanna thank Senator Ashkey for working really hard on this, and it's great to see. Not sure if mayor or Senator is a higher title.

I'd

Formerly honorable. The formerly honorable.

It's time it's Darryl Steinberg with us again here today. And I appreciate your efforts, not just on really trying to tackle this issue, but sincerely the overarching nature of, you know, more manually response being more manually responsible around our solutions to homelessness.

And I remember from my time as a city council member and the Chair of my COC and the dysfunction and discoordination that we had at that time down in San Diego, that coordination was everything to be able to make sure that your counties, your cities, your nonprofit organizations, and others, and all of a sudden I'm Chair. So that everybody is on the same page and they are talking about these issues really, with a concerted effort right now.

And that's how you make more responsible decisions, and Senator Ashby certainly gets that.

That this is, like, an idea that, like, of course, is already eligible and available for the Sacramento region. But, you know, homelessness does not stop at your city boundaries. It does not stop at the river line. It does not stop at even in our county boundaries. But when you can find that area that we are all kinda governmentally, federally, statewide, and regionally, like, trying to be able to kinda coordinate these better, that is a more optimal structure.

And the the, the win is out there in some form, but the win is also out there for the locals to come together and be able to do that the right way. And I know that that is your intent right now. Eight zero two is just a vehicle. And however we get there, is is the end goal that you're leading on right now.

And I'm glad you're in the driver's seat really sort of stroked soaking that question because something's gotta be able to break for, the matter, I would say, of, using our funds more responsibly, having better outcomes, but most importantly, helping people lives.

Yeah. And and I know that that is, like, you know, what's really driving you to really soak that conversation. And and eight zero two is really gonna press that question in a much more direct way. So I'm happy to be able I'd say, I had the chance to review this, in the Assembly Housing Committee, and I'm down here to sort of offer thoughts here in this committee right now to continue to support your efforts because a lot of work can be done over the summer recess.

And I know that's your intent. So happy to be able to support that today. When we have a quorum, I'll be happy to make a motion to move the bill. Thank you. Thank you for your efforts and I thank you for being here again.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

Any other any member questions or comments? I'm no longer Chair.

Thank you. So if you indulge me for a moment to close, and I can maybe address a couple of the things that came up in my in my close, if that's alright. And then thank you, my colleagues, so much for your your comments and your input and your time and your patience. And I know this is an issue that many of you have heard a lot about from a lot of folks in this room.

And, hopefully, you can tell that I know everyone says it's respectful opposition or respectful support.

This truly is. We're trying to find our way forward, and everybody is working on it. But for twenty six years, we've been working on it. And the county has the opportunity to do this right now. They don't need to wait for me.

They can do it in July. They could have done it in October. They could have done it last year. In 2010, long before anybody up here, I think besides me, was in play in local government, this guy was busy leading this building. We took a vote.

The county took a vote and the city took a vote to form a JPA for housing and homelessness. That's how Sacramento steps forward was created. But the JPA was never formed. They could never come to the agreement. They spent years negotiating.

Two grand jury reports later, one valid initiative, an excellent mayor who spent eight years trying and actually wrote the foundational document, a partnership agreement that could be used to advance this, but there's no legal framework to use it. A lawsuit from the district attorney still pending an outcome. All of those things have happened during the time that we said we were working on it together. That's why this bill is so important.

The pressure of the bill has moved us faster than anything else has in twenty six years.

It is way past time way past time for the regional leaders in this community to come together on this issue. There was a question about latitude and giving them latitude, giving the county latitude to do this. I want you to know I am the number one cheerleader for you to be the person that brings this forward, for the county and the cities, all of them, to agree to this without me.

I just don't believe after twenty six years of watching the negotiations that it will happen without that pressure. And that is what I am trying to create here.

As to the legal issue, legislative council put together an 11 page response that I am happy to provide to any of you that very clearly lays out the legislature's ability to do what eight zero two proffers. I feel very confident that the Ledge Council spend a significant amount of time on that finding, and you I'm sure if you read it, you too will agree with Ledge Council's work.

I want to reiterate some of the folks who support this bill and then respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have a quorum later. LA Alliance for Human Rights. This is the group that's gone before us and made mistakes that we're learning from to try to push for something different in Sacramento.

WellSpace, that's not just a small name. That's the largest mental health provider in Northern California to people who are experiencing homelessness. Greater Sacramento Urban League, the businesses are united here. All of the business groups, so are all of the neighborhood groups. Every neighborhood group that's weighed in has weighed in in support.

California, YIMBY, SEIU California, the majority of the Sacramento City Council, including their vice mayor and their mayor pro tem. You heard from one of the lobbyists today representing the small cities. They started out deeply opposed, held a press conference. They have moved to neutral. I've taken every amendment they've asked me for.

I've taken every amendment that any group that has reasonably asked me to amend it that doesn't change the integrity of the idea of creating a JPA and having accountability. I've taken those amends. Because my goal here is not to dictate to them how they do it. My goal here is for them to come together on their own. Youth forward, AARP, two ends of the life spectrum who want the same thing, people to be served in their community.

SAC advocates for transit and many, many, many former local elected officials who have tried hard also over the years to move this ball down the field. We are all rooting for councilwoman Maple who's carrying that ball for all of us right now. When I introduced eight zero two, the three of us were standing alone.

As you can see, that is no longer the case because we've spent the last year of our lives with our minds and our hearts and our ears open, taking in input from everyone in this region. I'll end with this.

I believe deeply in Sacramento's ability. Folsom, Rancho, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, all of them. I believe in you. I believe in the elected officials who are serving right now in this region. I know they can do this, but they need a governance structure that will help them just like they have in transportation, just like they have when they're dealing with sewage or the library or anything else of import in this region.

We cannot solve our region's largest and most persistent problem without working together. When you have a quorum, Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes. Aye, I want to thanks. I want to thank the Senator and want to really appreciate your patience, your dedication, and your passion. I had a meeting with you, and I want to tell you the truth that your passion, your dedication really convinced me. I was mayor before.

So I understand I was mayor for ten years. I understand completely 100% of all the concerns from the city and from the from the local agency. But at the end of the day, the Senator really want all

the

city to work together, you know, to sit out together. Because if we don't have any be if we don't if we don't have any second point, how can a city willing to sit out together? And at the state, we want the city to sit out together to come up with Yes. Solution. So I really appreciate your time, your dedication, and and your patience.

I am strongly, strongly supporting your view. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you.

So we have the next bills, SB226.

Okay. I would have forgotten. We're going out of five order.

Oh oh oh, I'm sorry. We go by the five order. Oh. Right. Is that right?

Yeah. SBSB226. That's 222. Oh. 222.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry. Yeah. I'm really sorry

again. Okay.

Senator, you may begin, please.

Thank you very much, Mister vice Chair. I'm here to present SB 222, the Heat Pump Access Act, which will make a which will make cost saving heat pump, water heater, and HVAC installations faster, simpler, and more affordable by streamlining the permitting process, and thus helping to reduce people's energy bills. Heat pumps are a highly efficient, zero pollution option for HVAC systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer, and more affordable.

Heat pumps are so energy efficient that they reduce electric use, for heating by up to 75% and allow customers across the state to experience significantly lower energy bills. Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump eliminates harmful pollutants as well.

We know that Californians face sky high energy costs, and we have significant air pollution. Heat heat pumps will help. Streamlining the permit process for heat pumps will help us meet governor Newsom's aggressive goal of installing 6,000,000 heat pumps by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. We are, on our way to meeting that goal, but have a long way, to go. The current permitting process, it's all over the maps, city by city.

It can require multiple permits. It can take a long time. The inspection process can be onerous, and the cost can be very high. SB 222 will help to streamline that process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me to testify as Alan, Obs with the Bay Area, Air District, and Ben Segru with Sheet Metal Workers Local one zero four.

Good afternoon, vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the legislative officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The board of which is comprised of 24 county supervisors and city mayors and council members in the nine county Bay Area region.

The air district is a cosponsor of SB 222, and we thank Senator Wiener for this leader for his leadership on this issue because fossil fuel appliances are a significant source of smog forming pollutants, and switching to heat pump technology reduces regional smog pollution.

California has set an ambitious goal of 6,000,000 heat pump installations by 2030, and streamlining the permit system is just one step toward achieving that goal. Permitting affects one's decision to change from a fossil fuel device to a heat pump, and the more difficult that process is, the greater the chance that someone either sticks with a fossil fuel device and or installs a new device without a permit.

Currently, permit fees and requirements can vary substantially from city to city within the same region, including multiple different fees and percentage based fees added to the basic cost. Permits also generally take longer than fossil fuel devices, and in some HOAs, aesthetic and other restrictions add time or outright ban their installation.

In the end, if a homeowner that wants to switch to a heat pump has these types of immediate barriers just when they think about it, that they end up being encouraged to stick with fossil fuel devices, which we don't wanna have happen.

S B 222 seeks to make this choice easier by automating permitting for certain heat pump installations, establishing a more transparent permit fee process, and establishes limitations that prevent heat pump installations in residentials within HOAs. SB 222 does establish a soft permit fee cap, but also allows jurisdictions to exceed those permit fee levels through a public process.

You may hear reference to cities you represent with low fees, and I think that actually emphasizes why we think other cities can follow their examples and have similar low fees. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you so much.

My name is Vince Segru, state legislative director from Sheet Metal Workers Local one zero four, and I'm before you today in strong support of SB 222. Our members are on the front lines of California's clean energy transition. Sheet metal workers are the skilled HVAC technicians designing, sizing, installing, and maintaining the heat pump systems that California homeowners are being asked to rely on for their comfort, indoor air quality, and energy efficiency needs.

But for the clean energy transition to work, the process has to work in the real world. What we hear from our union contractors and technicians is consistent.

The permitting process for residential heat pump installations is often fragmented, inconsistent, and slow. Standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Time lines are unpredictable. And for contractors and technicians trying to do the work the right way, that lack of standardization creates delays, added costs, and makes an unfortunate excuse for low road contractors to avoid the permitting system altogether. SB 222 helps address that problem by creating a more standardized and efficient permitting process for qualifying residential heat pump installations, while still preserving important safeguards.

This bill will help streamline permitting, while still recognizing that proper design, sizing, and installation are all essential to system performance. It preserves local authority to apply workforce labor standards, including prevailing wages and the use of approved apprentices, and that matters because heat pump installation should be made more accessible and efficient without compromising safety, quality, or craftsmanship. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support.

Alright. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the bill, please? Come up.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters

of California in strong support. Thank you.

Madison Vanderklay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund is a proud cosponsor. Also asked to register support from our cosponsor SPUR, as well as the California environmental voters, Sierra Club California, Center for Biological Diversity, the Sausalito Sustainability Commission, the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, the US Green Building Council California, Association for Energy Affordability, and Efficiency First California. Thank you.

Marquis Skim Mason with that research defense council in support. Thanks so much.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thanks.

Craig Scholl on behalf of the Ava Community Energy in support.

Good afternoon. Kai Colosson on behalf of Ceres in support. Thank you.

Mark Fenstermaker for justice in support.

Margie Lee Samson, advisors here on behalf of A. O. Smith Corporation in support. Chair members, Alicia Priego on behalf of the city of San Jose and San Jose Clean Energy in support.

Steven Sandsler on behalf of Permit Power and the Abundance Network in support.

Tim Dacca on behalf of Climate Future California in support.

Aria Repetana on behalf of Daikin US in support.

Don excuse me. Don Koepke on behalf of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and Green Building Initiative in support.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witness in opposition?

Hello, Mister Chair and members. Damon Compton with the League of California Cities. We've shared our thoughts with the author's office and the sponsors were very supportive of, you know, the state making ambitious and aggressive maneuvers to transition our way from dirty fossil fuels and into cleaner energy efficient appliances. However,

we

have to really ask ourselves what problem are we trying to solve here. We've looked at if the issue is the permits, the cost of permits, then as a barrier for a widespread adoption, then And we have to look at permit fees across the state. We pulled all the permit fees across the state. They roughly average around one to 4% of actual cost of installation of these projects. We've also gone to state agencies.

We looked at the CPUC, the CEC, and they have consistently shown that the number one barrier to adoption is the high upfront costs. They've also we've also pulled data from multiple industry installation surveys from respondents from that are contractors that install heat pumps and HVAC systems. They say this is the number one profitable installation for them, and the number one barrier is upfront cost, and government fees don't even top the top don't even hit the top 10, barriers. So this bill is misplaced, unfortunately.

And and and the these but what it does do is it requires locals to acquire a streamlined automated system that costs money.

And currently, across the state, local permitting authorities treat these installations as over the counter, same day installations. So why the need for, automating something that's already same day? And so for those reasons, we respectfully oppose.

Well, thank you so much. Do we have anyone else in opposition?

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Rural County representatives in California would like to align our comments with that of Cal Cities in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Neuberger on behalf of

the California State Associations and Counties, also I would

like to align our comments to

those of Cal Cities, and

we're also opposed as well. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the

City of Thousand Oaks, in respect for opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any comment from committee members? I see none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. One thing I do just wanna point out in the analysis, and I know it was corrected, it said that the pipe trades were opposed. That's not accurate. They have removed their opposition, and I know I appreciate the committee corrected the analysis, but just to make sure there's no confusion about that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, we will we when we have call on.

Thank you. Thank you.

The next bill oh. Yes. So, Senator,

with your

do that

s b

bill SB 67

seven. Six seven seven. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair, colleagues. SB 677 will help California to continue to efficiently build more housing, particularly affordable housing in the face of our state's housing crisis.

I wanna start by accepting the committee's amendments, excuse me, as outlined in the analysis. We've worked very hard over the last decade or more to cut red tape, streamline housing approvals, and fund more affordable housing construction. However, folks who don't wanna see housing get built continue to find new and creative ways, to undermine that process, and this bill addresses two very discreet, challenges.

The first is that opponents are abusing the subdivision map act, parcel map appeal process and filing appeals that really have nothing to do with the subdivision process and everything to do with them just not liking, the, the project. We've seen this happen several times in San Francisco.

The appeals have been rejected, but it, creates delays and so, at times, jeopardizes the financing of the of the project. So this bill will limit the ability to appeal for interested parties in in infill developments. The second thing has to do with the Tefra project, the approval of of tax exempt bonds under federal law. They have to be approved. It is typically a pro form a process because the money is not coming from the local entities.

And we have seen in some cities where they simply will not hold a hearing to try to slow play or even kill the project. And so the bill as in print defines that as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. We are changing that language. We've requested a committee amendment, and we appreciate that committee amendment moving forward to shift it over to the treasurer.

And we're gonna continue to work with stakeholders and the committee over the summer to make sure we're getting right so the process is as good as it can be.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today to testify is John Lovell with Mission Housing Development Corporation and Garrett Borges, vice president of real estate development at Cypress Equity Investments.

Good afternoon, everyone.

is John Lovell. I'm the associate director of housing development with Mission Housing. We're a nonprofit affordable housing developer, that's been building housing in San Francisco since nineteen seventies. I'd like to thank Senator Scott Wiener for sponsoring SB 677 and inviting me here to speak to you all this afternoon. Mission Housing had to deal with the frivolous appeal of a subdivision map for one of our new affordable housing developments last year.

My name

The project of the marvel in the mission by the community, is a culmination of years of grassroots organizing to bring almost 400 units of 100% affordable housing to a large infill site next to the 16th And Mission BART Station in San Francisco. Because of the widespread community support that the project enjoyed, we easily received our planning entitlements. However, I have to admit that everyone was caught off guard when a small handful of neighbors submitted an appeal of our subdivision map.

The stated reasons for the appeal had absolutely nothing to do with the map or the process itself and everything to do, with the reasons we're all used to hearing about why people don't want affordable housing built in their their neighborhood, especially in our case for the a 136 units in the first phase of the project that were dedicated as permanent support of housing for homeless individuals.

Well, I'm pleased to be able to say that we were able to beat this appeal and start construction on the marvel earlier this year.

Despite that victory, beating the appeal came out of cost, particularly, in fees that we had to pay for our land use attorney as well as staff time in my agency and all the multiple city departments that had to respond to the appeal. I know there's been a lot of discussion in this legislature about how expensive it is to build affordable housing and how that's largely a product of the complicated approval and financing processes that each project has to go through, which can often be weaponized.

Secondly, even though the subdivision appeal was handily beaten, the delay itself was enough to cause serious concern about whether our funding would be jeopardized. And that's because state funding awards from agencies like the state treasurer's office and HCD always come with strict deadlines to close escrow and start construction at the risk of losing your funds if you don't meet that deadline.

While we were able to beat that deadline with time to spare, the next affordable housing project that has its subdivision map might not be so fortunate.

That's why I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon. My name is Garrett Borges with Cypress Equity Investments, which was founded in 2001 and has since invested in over 21,000 multifamily units. Most recently, I've been working on an affordable project in Antioch, California. Cypress worked closely with staff over six months through their administrative approval process to bring this affordable housing to the specific site that the city told us wanted in they wanted it at and designed specifically how they told us they wanted it designed.

We submitted for our bond application last semender September, was approved in December, giving us just a hundred and eighty days to commence construction.

Cypress worked with our bond issuer, CMFA, to get all of the financial puzzle pieces in place to meet this deadline, including the IRS required TEFRA public hearing, which historically has been a simple consent agenda item. Unfortunately, the Antioch City Council used our TEFRA hearing to grandstand their frustrations with state law. Protesting the streamlining efforts that the state has put in place to help developers bring this much needed affordable housing to the communities.

As we began utilizing these house these housing laws, we are seeing more city officials complain about them. As Antioch City Council members proclaimed in our hearing, the state mandates are a gun to our head.

The state is shoving this down our throats. If we don't protest, this is going to continue. And if we deny the Tefra, will the project come back to the council so we can comment on the design? Looking for any loophole to obstruct and ultimately prevent these affordable housing units from being constructed. Despite having no public opponents, the city council voted to deny our Tephra as an act of defiance using affordable housing and the people who depend on it most as political pawns to protest state law.

Only after immense political pressure, legal letters, and HCD warnings, the city council finally revoted to approve our Tefra, wasting valuable time, money, and resources that could have otherwise been used towards providing affordable housing across the state.

Alright. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak

in support? Michael Lane with Spur and Support.

Raymond Contreras on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.

Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California in support.

Steven Sandler with California Council for Affordable Housing as a proud cosponsor in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition as a strong cosponsor in support.

Nolan Gray, California MB, another proud cosponsor in strong support.

Ben Barker, municipal adviser to the California Municipal Finance Authority of the JPA. We are in strong support.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? I see none. Anyone else? Oh.

Sorry. Good afternoon. Kim Delfino. I'm here on behalf of California Native Plant Society, and we have a small issue in this bill, but I do we do have to come up and do an oppose unless amended until it's addressed. It is just it is around the issue about preserving subdivision map appeals for third parties for projects located on habitat lands and under approved habitat conservation plan and NCCP or natural community conservation plan lands.

So let me first apologize to the author for my late opposition. I did not realize the bill had been amended and I reached out on Friday as soon as I saw the, amendments. And I did have an exchange with the Senator staff, and the staff at RCRC to ask why habitat lands and NCCPHP lands were not included. And the response was that the list of exclusions to the exemption for third party appeals was based on this question.

Would an interested party have a legitimate concern that agency staff may not catch or may not may not catch or may not share?

This is a reasonable standard. However, the standard actually argues in favor of including Habitat and NCCP lands rather than excluding them. Subdivision approvals affecting Habitat lands routinely involve complex determinations about Habitat boundaries, wildlife corridors, and compliance with NCCPs and HCP Reserve designs. These are not simple or objective determinations, and this is precisely why administrative appeals are valuable because they provide an efficient opportunity to correct errors before the vested subdivision rights are created.

Consider who would lose the ability to appeal, a nonprofit responsible for managing a habitat preserve, a tribal government with knowledge of the biological and cultural resources on the site, or a land trust that is helping to implement an approved HCP or NCCP.

These entities often possess important information that local staff may not have. And so, these are exactly the kind of issues that an administrative appeal is intended to resolve before these rights vest. Our requested amendment is narrow. It simply preserves an important safeguard on habitat conservation lands by allowing third party appeals.

And for these reasons, we urge for we actually just urge that maybe we just keep the conversation going on this bill so that we could resolve the issue maybe in July as the bill continues to move along.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much. Anyone else who I would like to speak in opposition?

Good afternoon, committee members. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We align our concerns with that expressed by Kim Duffy now, up as in the submitted.

Alright. Any question concerns from member from the committee? I see none. Senator, would you like to

We respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. And you have one more bill.

Five zero the shortest one of

them all.

Thank you, colleagues. SB908 will streamline the permit process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements and ensures that, basically, if someone wants to weatherize their home, replace a window with a more energy efficient window, which will lower their energy costs, allow them to keep their home warmer or cooler, they will be able to do so. Right now, there are some cities and some HOAs that either ban or dramatically restrict people's ability to choose a more energy efficient window.

Sometimes they will require them to do a replica window, which is dramatically more expensive, and so this will limit their ability to do so. We do have certain historic landmark exemptions in the bill to take that into account, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And and with you today, we'll welcome back Mister Lowell from Mission Housing Development Corporation. I will also note that specifically for the city of San Francisco, new construction will be covered as well, but only for San Francisco. That was a Senate local government amendment. Thank you.

Thank you again. I'd like to thank Senator Wiener again. I also thank the legislature for all the work that you've done recently to make it easier to approve housing in San Francisco, especially 100% affordable housing developments like the kind that Mission Housing builds. Despite all this great work, one area where we still run into consistent challenges is with arbitrary and subjective restrictions on what kind of windows we can put in buildings.

At Mission Housing, besides the new buildings we've built over the past ten years, some of our proudest accomplishments have involved the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing stock.

In many cases, these are buildings that either Mission Housing built ourself back in the nineteen seventies and the eighties or that were built by the housing authority and are in dire need of repair, in the same decade. What should be fairly straightforward window replacements in case like these can still get tied up in red tape with in red tape with arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions on what kind of window materials we're allowed to use.

Often, it seems like the point of these rules is to treat a building that was built within the lifetime of many of us in this room as if it was a Victorian building that survived the nineteen o six earthquake. That to me makes absolutely no sense. This is a consistent challenge with, new construction as well.

The city approved as recently as 2024 what it called objective design standards that outright prohibit vinyl frame windows on any part of the building that could be seen from a public right of way. Despite these rules, vinyl frame windows are often substantially less expensive than their aluminum counterparts and are superior at insulating heat, which leads to lower energy usage over time.

On one of our recent new construction projects, we were only able to get vinyl frame windows approved by using one of the five density bonus waivers were allowed under the state density bonus program. While this allowed us to save 6 figures in hard costs for the project, It really shouldn't take a density bonus waiver to do this. It should just take some common sense.

Reliability is also a key concern here. Over the past decade, supply chains have been rocked by a series of disruptions from the pandemic and ongoing volatility in global trade policy. I've even had locally sourced aluminum windows manufactured at a plant in Northern California that were disrupted by wildfires and PG and E power outages.

In cases like this, it's absolutely critical for us to be able to pivot to another manufacturer or product without having our hands tied by the arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions of a public agency, and that's why I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room to show support on the measure, please name, affiliation, and position on the bill?

Madison Vanderklay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support.

Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of Mayor Daniel Leary in support. Thank you.

Nolan Gray, California, in support.

Thank you. Before we go to opposition, we have established quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo?

Here.

Ta? Here. Johnson? Here. Pacheco?

Here. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio? Stephanie?

Here. Ward? Yeah. Wilson?

Thank you. Now is there any primary opposition on this measure? We are service quorum. See nobody having a motion. Anybody else that wants to just add on, the record propositions?

See nobody. Committee members, comments, questions? We do have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by miss Stephanie.

Senator, would you like to close?

Well, welcome back, Mister Chair. And I recently asked for an aye vote.

Thank you for for Senator Bill. I will be a supreme appeal today. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

For item number nine, s B908, the motion is do passed and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Cario?

Aye.

Cario, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.

Ramos? Ransom? Rubio? Stephanie? Aye.

Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

The bill goes south six zero, and we'll leave it on call.

Thank you very much.

Well, the bill is out and in call. Senator Kebaldon, please. Item number two, SB226, whenever you're ready, sir.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mister Chair. SB226 makes a a small but important clarification to, the statute for and the definitions and the eligible uses in the infrastructure revitalization financing districts. Now there is only one such district in California today, and that is on Treasure Island in San Francisco, but it follows in the long line of other tax increment financing districts that have been important in California.

This bill is intended in part to clear the path so that California's bid for the next Major League Baseball expansion team can proceed.

Major League Baseball's announced that in 2028, they will select two new expansion cities in the country, one in the West and one in the East. This is California's principal candidate will be just across the river in the city of West Sacramento as a as a Sacramento regional proposal. And in order to assemble the package of various financing insurance instruments necessary to make this happen, an infrastructure revitalization district is part of the equation. Now you may know there's already a baseball stadium there.

That was my first project as mayor, and it is financed through through other bond districts, and then all that there's an infrastructure sorry, an infrastructure enhanced infrastructure financing district overlay on the entire area except for the stadium itself, because the stadium what was in public ownership.

And so there is an opportunity uniquely in that city because of its property tax share agreements with the county and with our taxing agencies and the the existing property assessed valuation in that city to be able to find is a substantial portion of the of the, infrastructure related to the state in Mid South. And so this is an essential part of that in order to layer on top of the existing eIFD, with an IRFD as well.

The West Sacramento has been one of the state's leading cities in terms of tax increment financing, and much of what's there today is as a result. The that this district would only take effect if we were selected to to and and we were prepared to go to construction on this project.

There would with in the absence of that stadium project and the new team, it wouldn't generate this tax revenue anyway, and so a 100% of the value of this will be captured and then deployed for the benefit of the project and for the citizens of the community.

That is all so current law provides for commercial facilities, but does not specifically say sports and entertainment. And although, I think those of us who have been city government and we've they these are commercial facilities. We wanna be absolutely sure because the risk is simply that litigation will tie up the project or threaten to tie up the project, which will put this California proposal at a disadvantage relative to cities and other states. That's the sum total of what the bill does.

I have with me today Doug Drozd, who's the deputy city manager of the city of West Sacramento to provide some testimony, and with that, I'd urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mister chairman and members of the committee. As the Senator said, I'm Doug Dross, deputy city manager for the city of West Sacramento. The Senator gave a comprehensive summary of the bill, but I'll just add a couple points from the city's perspective. As he said, we have identified an IRFD as a prudent and feasible mechanism for the city to support the stadium project in the expansion bid.

The certainty provided by this bill will be key to attracting a majority ownership group for the proposed franchise as well as increasing the competitiveness of Sacramento's expansion bid. Just to be clear, the tax increment generated by the district will only come from the stadium itself and the immediately surrounding development once they are constructed and will have no impact on the city or state's general fund. Additionally, the district would not impact Yolo County or local school district share of property tax revenues from the district.

We're excited about the opportunity to put Sacramento forward as a viable site for an MLB team, and we believe that a stadium in West Sacramento, will catalyze the dense urban infill development that we wanna see along our riverfront, while providing significant private investment, jobs, housing, and public infrastructure improvements. SB 226 will solidify the city's ability to execute on that plan.

And for those reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote and thank Senator Kovalvin for introducing this critical legislation.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the city of Sacramento in support.

Daniel Conway, once again, here as a former chief of staff to Mayor Johnson who knows what this man can deliver and cheering you on. Thank you, sir.

Thanks. Yeah. Julie Malnasky Ball, California Hotel and Lodging Association, pleased to support.

Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in support. Thank you.

Michelle Balgava, baseball fan, in support.

Any primary opposition? Seeing no one. Any opposition at all? Seeing no opposition. Committee members, Assembly member Ward.

But thanks, sir, for bringing this measure forward. We had a lot of dialogue in the Assembly housing committee as well. I really appreciate all the thoughtful answers. I know this can be an credible tool to be able to help, realize the vision that you're setting forward and, wish you best of luck, without having to make a motion. We'll squeeze in support.

Thank you. Anybody else?

That was your committee.

We have a first and a second.

Yeah. Would

you like to close No.

I simply asked for an aye vote. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you for presenting your bill today, Senator Kebaldon. I will be supporting the bill. We do have a motion by, Assemblymember Wirtz, seconded by vice Chair Ta. The motion is to pass. Executive, please call the wrong.

For item number two, SB 226, the motion is do passed. Curio?

Aye.

Ta? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson?

Aye. Curio, aye. Ta, aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos, Ransom, Rubio, Stephanie? Stephanie I Ward, Ward I Wilson.

The bill is south six zero for now. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair and members. May I turn to s v a two h?

Yes, please.

Alright. Thank you very much. Mister Chair, we are today is the one year anniversary of the massive explosion in Esparza, California, where seven people were killed when unlicensed fireworks warehouse in my district exploded. The warehouse was storing 1,000,000 pounds of illegal fireworks and pyrotechnics without proper zoning, without permits, and with the licensee who is ineligible for the equivalent federal license due to a prior criminal conviction. This didn't have to happen.

State local officials were unaware of what was sitting in that warehouse because the require the law didn't require anyone to tell them. Didn't require the state and the county and the fire district to share information. It didn't require anyone to tell folks in Esparter that a raid in Commerce, California just weeks before had uncovered fireworks and pyrotechnics destined for Esparto. SB 828 closes those gaps.

It requires fireworks licensees to disclose where they are storing fireworks, prove that they have the local permits, and then they're not disqualified from holding the the license their activities already require.

It empowers local fire agencies to inspect storage facilities at least once a year and gives law local law enforcement the explicit authority to seize illegal fireworks, authority that remarkably they did not have. And it increases fines for fireworks ordinance infractions to levels that actually reflect the public safety risk involved, up to $5,000 for repeat violations with a five year look back.

These are reforms that were developed by the Office of State Fire Marshal's own public safety fireworks enforcement task force, supplemented by our own experience and investigations in Yolo County as a result of the fireworks disaster. This is not the end of the story. We have much more work to do to to to intercept, attack, and shut down the sometimes criminal and organized rings that are that are threatening public safety across the state and really across the country and across the globe.

But these are important reforms to assure that the state and local failures, and gaps that are that are that led to that helped to contribute to the explosion in Esparto do not happen again. I'm very pleased, to that today we're joined in support of SB 828 by Steve Aubert from the Contra Costa, Fire Protection District, and I would ask for an aye vote.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Steve Aubert. I'm here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, And, we respectfully urge, support and thank the Senator for bringing SBA 28. It does close those critical gaps in fireworks licensing and storage laws that eliminated the ability of local fire marshals to effectively oversee a high hazard fireworks facilities.

Obviously, we've seen real world examples where fireworks and explosives, were stored without local permits, without inspections, in some cases, without fire departments even knowing the hazard existed until the emergency occurred. These gaps place firefighters, first responders, and surrounding communities at serious risk. SB 828 reinforces that central role of the local fire and building officials by requiring that verification of local land use and permitting approvals as a condition of a state licensure.

The local permitting process allows fire and building officials to review the proposed structures, construction features, and fire protection systems before any explosives are stored. This proactive review is critical to ensuring the compliance of Fire and Life Safety Codes and preventing unsafe conditions that could otherwise result in catastrophic incidents.

SBA 28 is prevention focused common sense measure that strengthens oversight, supports firefighter operations, and enhances public safety. For these reasons, California Fire Chiefs Association and Fire Districts Association of California, request an aye vote.

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

Michelle Ravalcaba with Nielsen Merksemer on behalf of Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Doug Supers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

See no one else. Any primary opposition, please come on in.

Good afternoon, Mister chairman, members of the committee. I apologize for for being late. Paul Gonzales here in support of the bill on behalf of TNT Fireworks. We look forward to continuing the conversations with the Senator, and thank you for thank him for his continued conversations thus far. Thank you.

No opposition, primary opposition, or opposition at all? Seeing none. Yes, sir. Coming up.

Mister Chair, members, Senator, good afternoon. My name is James Eady. I am a state licensed pyrotechnic operator speaking on my own behalf. Respectfully, I must oppose Senate bill 828 unless amended because the bill penalizes licensees for failing to produce a permit that their local jurisdiction has no process to issue. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Anybody else? See, nobody, committee members, comments, questions, a motion? Removed by Assemblymember Pacheco, seconded by Assemblymember Stephanie. Would you like to close, sir?

Yes. Thank you thank you so much, Mister chairman. So that that horrible tragedy one year ago today, seven seven Californians, most of them my constituents, but some, some constituents of of even folks in this at this at this dais, whose young people were doing a summer job at a facility that they thought was safe because it was the government must have taken care of that.

Or communities that were rocked physically rocked by the explosion and then their community torn apart who had no idea that such an explosive facility even existed within blocks of their home or their farm. That should never happen to any communities in any California.

SBA 28 will go a long way. We have more work to do, but it's an important start in order to assure that we're protecting the safety of every California with that at S for an aye vote.

Senator, I appreciate your work to help ensure that this terrible tragedy in its part is never repeated and that the fireworks in our state are truly safe and sane. I'm pleased to support your bill, with a motion by Assemblymember Pacheco, seconded by Stephanie. The motion is to pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number eight, SB 828, the motion is do passed and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Curio?

Aye.

Curio, aye. Ta?

Not voting.

Ta, not voting. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio?

Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson.

The bill is south six here. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Congratulations. We are gonna go back to file order seeing only Senator we have.

That will be item number 22 on the agenda, SB 1193. Senator, when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you. That's all I need. Right?

Alright.

Chair and members, I appreciate your time. This is gonna be a little bit long just because of the fact that this is my own district bill, if you will. So SB 1193 is how we prevent waste, fraud, abuse, favoritism, and conflicts of interest before they become scandals. Public money is not a favor. It is not a political prize.

It is not a private account for public officials to use without meaningful oversight. It is the hard earned money of working families, seniors, renters, homeowners, and small businesses. Every dollar should have a clear public purpose, a public record, and a public benefit. That is how we prevent waste, fraud, abuse, favoritism, and conflicts of interest. Alameda County is wealthy, highly educated, and has a large tax base.

It is the fifth wealthiest county, the seventh largest county, and the highest tax county in California. Yet the outcomes are uneven. Many residents still face homelessness, crushing housing costs, food insecurity, delayed public services, and a child welfare system that has repeatedly failed to meet basic standards. Many of you guys know that I grew up in the foster care system. I specifically was a ward of Alameda County's foster care system.

The question is whether you know, the question is not whether Alameda County has needs. It clearly does. The question is whether a county with this level of wealth and public spending is delivering the transparency, urgency, and measurable results that residents deserve. The county's own social services budget tells an important story. The preliminary budget increasing appropriations by roughly 1%, while staffing is essentially flat.

At the same time, 98% of the agency's revenue comes from federal aid, state aid, and state realignment funds. That does not mean Alameda County contributions, contributes nothing. It just means that the locally controlled dollars that the county does have must be guarded carefully.

And when flexible dollars are available, they should be directed toward real needs, not a black hole of spending, political access, or favored relations, let alone the documented ceremonies, luncheons, after parties, and so much more, all of which can be paid for by personal funds or political accounts. That is the problem, and the need for SB 1193 is undeniable.

On 01/01/2024, Alameda County had 916 youth and child welfare placements. California state auditor found that Alameda County was late in initiating 956 non immediate child abuse and neglect investigations in the fiscal year twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four. That is nearly 50% of those referrals compared with an 8% statewide average. Really wanna highlight that. Statewide, 8%.

Alameda County, 50% late in child abuse cases. How is one of the wealthiest counties such a failure in doing their core job of providing safety to children at risk? The auditor also found that 59% of non immediate investigations were closed late, let alone a lack of documentation and so much more. These are not merely administrative delays. These are children waiting for safety, children in in violent homes, dealing with drug use, sexual abuse, trafficking, and more.

They are families waiting for help. They are social workers carrying impossible case loads. They are tax Alameda County civil grand jury documented serious concerns regarding discretionary funds. The grand jury concluded that large amounts of county money could be directed to nonprofits without a competitive process, written contracts, or meaningful independent oversight.

It also found that a county employee held dual roles as both a county employee and a leader of a nonprofit receiving discretionary funds, with the grand grand jury described as a failure of good governance and a conflict of interest.

And we are specifically talking about millions of dollars being directed. The board had an opportunity to adopt stronger safeguards. Instead, it rejected the grand jury's recommendations regarding discretionary spending. That is why SB 1193 is necessary. Over ten years, there have been numerous reports and investigations tied to Alameda County's governance, spending, services, or accountability.

In fact, 10 civil grand jury annual reports, 30 county related grand jury chapters, one major state auditor report, one major DOJ investigation, four major court cases and lawsuits, and a number of different media and internal investigations, and repeated concerns about governance spending services and accountability. This is not about one old incident. It is about a pattern we are seeing. Alameda County needs stronger systems for accountability, documentation, and public oversight.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle review, report reported that Alameda County supervisors directed roughly 51,000,000 in discretionary public funds over seven years to nonprofits and community organizations without a competitive selection process.

Not every award was improper. Not every nonprofit is undeserving. And SB 1193 does not say otherwise. But the public should not need to prove that every dollar was fraudulent before demanding a system that makes waste, fraud, abuse, harder to hide. Without transparency, discretion can become power without a receipt.

Without oversight, public funds can be a slush fund. And without clear ethical, rules, ethical non profits are forced to compete in a system where relationships matter more than results. SB 1193 changes that. It requires a majority of vote for the board of supervisors before discretionary funds are awarded, requires funds to serve a clear public purpose, requires an online public spending log to show who received taxpayer dollars, how much they received, why they received it, and how they actually plan to spend it.

It prevents discretionary rewards from being rushed through special meetings or buried on consent calendars.

And it documents the whistleblower process, so the public and county employees know where concerns can be raised. These are not radical reforms. These are the bare minimum standards the public deserves. SB 1193 does not eliminate non profit funding. It protects legitimate nonprofits by ensuring that funding is visible, fair, and tied to a public purpose.

It gives ethical organizations confidence. It gives taxpayers information, and it gives the public a way to see whether taxpayer dollars, paid for more meaningful services or simply access, visibility, ceremony, marketing, or political convenience. Alameda County had an opportunity to regulate itself. It not only failed to do so, it blatantly refused to adopt the safeguards necessary to restore public trust. This less legislation is of its own making.

When local governments fail to establish basic accountability after years of documented warnings, it becomes the responsibility of the state to step in. SB 1193 is a promise to Alameda County taxpayers. No secret spending, no buried awards, no taxpayer funded favoritism, no public dollars without a public purpose. With me today is Kirsten Scove, a District 1 resident who will share her personal experience and concerns regarding the use of discretionary funds.

And I will highlight for our communities, for nonprofits doing honest work, and for every taxpayer who deserves to know, where their money goes.

I do hope that everyone votes yes on SB 1190

three. Good afternoon. I'm a resident of unincorporated Alameda County, and my recent experience with our district one chief of staff, Sean Wilson, convinced me that this bill is not simply good policy. It's necessary. What began as my attempt to correct an issue where residents were pressured by d one staff under threat of enforcement to pay for trash services never legally required became months of wasted time, inconsistent responses, unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

I became deeply concerned about the extent to which Mister Wilson appeared to influence public decisions, unethically direct discretionary spending, engage in campaign activities on public time, and failed to publicly disclose his conflicts of interests. After refusing to discuss in writing, he demanded in person meetings during which he advised me to violate zoning laws and offered discretionary funds in the form of a charitable donation explicitly conditional on my silence. This was a handshake agreement, he said, between me, his office, and the trash company.

Anyone would characterize this as a bribe, and I have escalated extensive documentation of my claims to both the district attorney and another law enforcement agency. The matter remains unresolved, save for a grossly insufficient corrective email and a settlement offer from County Council that does nothing to address the entire community.

Despite continued media coverage of alleged wrongdoing, the county fails to place him on administrative leave and investigate, but proving all of this is not the point today. I'm speaking today because county residents are attempting to fight corruption after being ignored by our officials while they scoff at grand jury reports. We require the state legislator to step in as oversight, not overreach. Good government should not depend on the integrity of one person, but on laws that ensure legitimate use of discretionary funds.

This bill accomplishes that and will do nothing to prevent swift and proper distribution of funds to worthy causes despite what opposition may tell you momentarily.

By strengthening these safeguards, we can prevent favoritism, self dealing, and misuse of taxpayer dollars. Those protections benefit elected officials by increasing confidence that their decisions are made properly, fairly, and openly. For too long, Alameda County has faced recurring concerns about discretionary spending, ethics violations, and lack of oversight. We deserve accountability that is built into laws and processes, not toothless administrative codes. I respectfully urge everyone to support this bill.

Transparency is not a burden on honest government. It is one of its strongest protections. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that wants to add in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Mister Chair, members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Retired Public Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, con members. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy, and we are in support of the bill.

Thank you. I see no one else. Any primary opposition, please step forward. Can I have a seat on the desk, please? And you each also have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Amy Coste here on behalf of the board of supervisors of Alameda County to respectfully oppose SB 1193. Alameda County is the seventh most populous county in the state. We provide for the basic needs of the most vulnerable populations and are responsible for the social safety net of the entire county. We shared the senator's goal for public transparency and the use of taxpayer funds.

As a matter of course, all contracts that exceed $25,000 are bought before the board for approval as part of regular board agenda items. Alameda County has one of the most transparent budget processes in the state with our budget work groups, which include not only members of our board, department heads, but also members of the public. These meetings, in addition to the adoption and discussion of our budget, are noticed and open to the public, and all budget documents are posted on the county's website.

Unfortunately, the definition of discretionary funds in SB 1193 is overly broad and unduly restrictive during a time when counties are struggling to maintain our safety net. Earlier this week, our board balanced a $6,700,000,000 budget, all funds, which closed a $184,800,000 budget gap.

As this body is well aware, counties, much like the state, are under intense fiscal pressure due to HR 1. Maintaining our safety net services during this unprecedented time requires flexibility, not more bureaucracy. Our board offices can utilize their prior year savings to provide funding to community based organizations, which are some of the discretionary funds in question. This is based upon the savings achieved by those individual board offices. Our auditor has created a form that accompanies these board items that each office fills out.

The form includes measures to ensure there are no conflict of interest to the parties receiving the funding. These requests are put forward as regular board items and discussed in full open public Board Meetings as non consent items. Under government code, currently, these items require a four fifth vote of the board. The measure before you actually makes the these votes now a simple majority. The county of Alameda is fiscally responsible and sound.

Alameda County maintains top tier bond ratings from all of the major bond rating agencies, including Moody's, S and P, and Fitch, indicating the highest credit quality and low risk. With that, I respectfully ask for your no vote on SB 1193.