Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning, everybody. In the interest of time, we're gonna get started today. Thank you for being here.

Welcome to the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony to the position letter portal on the committee's website.

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

In order to facilitate the goal 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, impeach the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violating, violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We have six bills in our agenda this morning. 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 only. We don't have a quorum yet. We will operate as a subcommittee until we're able to establish a quorum and get an author to present their bill.

The first bill up today is item 2, AB 1757 by Assembly member Brian, and we don't have anybody yet. So if you're hearing from offices, please let your member know that they can come up and present their bill.

We'll just wait for one of them to come up. Thank you.

We have our first author of today, Senator Durazo.

And that's item number 5, SB 716 by Senator Durazo.

Great.

Before you start, Senator, we just established quorum.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay.

[roll call]

Okay. When you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you for all your support and working together on, on this bill. My constituents in East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights—Boyle Heights in Los Angeles—have lived for months beside decomposing fire-damaged material, an overwhelming rotting stench, rat and fly infestations, windows that cannot be opened. On June 17th, a structure fire broke out at Lineage Logistics Warehouse in Boyle Heights.

Two days later, Mayor Bass issued a declaration of local emergency, and Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency. The fire was finally extinguished on June 24th—almost eight days. After the flames were put out, nearly 88,000,000 pounds of spoiled food were left behind in the wreckage. County health inspections on July 15th and July 21st found violations still uncorrected a month after the fire. Los Angeles County issued fines at $500 per day.

Still, Lineage missed the LA City's cleanup deadline of August 14th and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's deadline of August 20th. These fines are too small to matter. SB 716 raises the ceiling on city and county ordinance fines for large, nonresidential structures so that penalties scale with the severity of the violation. If the violation results from a state or federal disaster declaration, these fines can be multiplied up to $50,000 per violation.

This escalating structure and the ability to multiply fines by a factor of 10 gives locals meaningful leverage to compel rapid remediation and prevent future disasters that cause long term damage to the health of our communities.

These penalties match, think about it, the short-term rental ordinance penalties that we've established, which also top out at $5,000. Water theft is $10,000 max, the same for unlicensed cannabis cultivation. The base fines in SB 716 are lower than the legislature has approved in recent years. For the 10 times emergency penalty, I made it clear with amendments that the bill applies to the tenant operator when the underlying condition is within their control, rather than the property owner.

And I further narrowed the application of this bill to violations that pose a health and safety threat before the new fine structure applies.

It is outrageous that the people in my community are expected to endure these conditions while cleanup continues at the company's slow pace. Health impacts are real and worsening. Rising mobile clinic and ER visits, respiratory illness, headaches, bloody noses, nauseous, and the kids.

Saint John's Health Clinics released a community health report last week as the private company responsible for this disaster missed legal deadlines for cleanup, which found that hundreds of residents have suffered health problems and that their symptoms were directly related to toxic exposure and smoke inhalation. These effects could be long-term.

This sits on top of decades of environmental justice. These communities shouldn't have to bear the cost of a private company's inaction. We need more tools. We need more tools to prevent this from happening again. Thinking about the community still suffering the consequences of these disasters, this bill would not be worth doing if industry wasn't opposed.

This means they are worried about the consequences, and, honestly, that's what we want to change. This behavior and the consequences of their actions are—respectfully ask for your aye vote. Today, I have Faith Borges from the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers and Sarah Dukett from Rural County representatives of California. Thank you very much, Mister Chair and members.

Good after—good morning, Chair Carillo and members. Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Counties have an important responsibility to enforce local ordinances that protect the health and safety of our communities. In most cases, our existing enforcement tools work, but there are circumstances involving very large commercial or industrial facilities where relatively modest fines may simply not be enough to encourage a responsible party to act quickly, and the aftermath of the Lineage Warehouse Fire illustrates that challenge.

Los Angeles County continues to inspect that facility, issue citations, and impose the maximum allowable fines while significant nuisance and public health conditions persisted in the surrounding communities. SB 716 give—gives—counties another tool in that toolbox for those exceptional circumstances. Its gradual penalty structure provides greater leverage when violations persist, while importantly leaving the decision about whether and when to use those enhanced penalties with local officials. This isn't about imposing larger fines for every code violation.

It's about making sure that when there's a serious or persistent violation that threatens the public health or safety and a responsible party isn't responding quickly enough, counties have a meaningful enforcement option available to help secure compliance.

We appreciate the author's work to provide local governments with this additional authority while preserving local discretion and respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Carrillo and members. Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, in support of Senate Bill 716. Code enforcement officers are responsible for enforcing state and local ordinances that protect health and safety and the quality of life of our communities. The goal of code enforcement is not penalties. It's compliance.

In most cases, existing enforcement tools are effective, but serious and persistent violations at a very large commercial facility are a different story. And this year gave us two devastating examples of why. In June, a fire destroyed an approximately 1,000,000 square foot medical facility to our warehouse in Tracy, generating significant smoke and promoting shelter in place precautions for the surrounding communities.

Days later, the Lineage Logistics Warehouse Fire in Los Angeles County left nearly 88,000,000 pounds of spoiled food on-site and nearby residents endured prolonged odors, pest infestations, and other nuisance conditions for months. Despite inspection, citations, and the imposition of maximum allowable fines, the violations and nuisance conditions persisted.

For an operator running a facility of that scale, existing penalties simply weren't enough incentive to act quickly. SB 716 gives local agencies another tool for exactly these circumstances. It creates a graduated penalty structure, so enforcement consequences can increase when violations persist, and it allows for additional penalty authority in extraordinary cases tied to the state or federal emergency declarations. Importantly, it does leave this discussion about when to use these tools with local officials who understand their communities best.

It's meant for a narrow set of cases when a large operator isn't responding to standard enforcement and where the community is bearing the cost of that delay.

We're thankful to the Senator for her work on this issue and her recognition of the role code enforcement officers play in keeping our community safe. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Those in support, please come up to the mic. Your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City, in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and board members. Jhonny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California...Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Gurnon, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair and members. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Mister Chair and members, good morning. Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, here today on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in support, and thanks to the author.

Morning, Chair and members. Mark Neuberger, on behalf of California State Association of Counties, in support.

Primary opposition, please come to the desk if there's any. And you each also have three minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott, here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, with a respectful opposed unless amended position. We recognize the incident at the Lineage facility was a serious and frightening event. The concern is not with the goal of...

The version in print extends well beyond the life and safety hazards response and creates a broad new penalty structure that encompasses all of commercial real property.

This is sweeping in Class A, Class B buildings, shiny tall buildings like the swing space a couple blocks over. And I do not believe that is the intent of this bill. The bill states a 20,000 square foot threshold. And like I said, it sweeps in far more than just the industrial focus that happened in Boyle Heights at the lineage facility.

Additionally, SB 716 stacks new enforcement layers on top of ones that already exist without coordinating. We have concerns that both cities and counties as well as CalARP could tack on the same, violation fines with a 10 times multiplier of 55 to $50,000 per emergency declaration.

So the fine structure itself along with the five year look back period for repeat violations, escalations is inconsistent with current statute, which uses a one year look back, and we recommend adhering to statutory precedent. And for these reasons, we're respectfully requesting a no vote for the bill to be amended, to address all of our concerns. Thank you.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and members. Alexander Rossitto here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in respectful opposition to Senate bill 716. We understand the purpose of this measure and do not take this issue lightly, and we fully share the goal of preventing future catastrophic events. We also appreciate the author's work to narrow the bill to threats to health and safety.

I appeared today to raise the concern that because threat to health and safety is not clear clearly defined here, the measure still casts a wide net.

In local codes, that phrase routinely encompasses minor nonemergency items from weed abatement to vending machines, well outside the severe scenarios this bill is intended to target. We strongly urge further clarification of the scope.

Further, we are concerned that this measure enhances liability based upon building size, which has no bearing on the conduct taking place within the facility. We urge the committee and the author to avoid creating a penalty scheme based upon square footage and instead focus on the severity of violations.

Thank you for your consideration, and I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Committee members, comments, questions, and what's oh, I'm sorry. Those in opposition, please come to the microphone, state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Mister Chair and members, good morning. Kirk Kimmelshue here this morning on behalf of the International Warehouse and Logistics Association in opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Round Table in opposition.

Morning, Chair members. Rachael O'Brien on behalf of the California Grocers Association.

Good morning, Chair and members. Sarah Bridge on behalf of Partner [inaudible] for PPG and the Can Manufacturers Institute. Respectful opposition.

Morning. Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition.

Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also in a on opposition. Thank you.

Marisol Ibarra-Bouslama on behalf of Consumer Brands Association and the Family Business Association, oppose unless amended.

Good morning. Allison Barnett on behalf of the California Self Storage Association, also opposed. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed unless amended.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Adam Regele on behalf of CRITA SoCal, formerly NAEP SoCal in respectful opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Seeing no one else coming to the microphone. Committee members, comments, questions, the motion?

Okay. No comments? No questions?

Okay. First and a second. Would you like to close, Senator?

Okay. Well, I think I made, I think I made my point in my opening remarks. This is, this is a really serious issue. I know there are a lot of communities, our communities, especially poor communities, immigrant communities, working class communities that are particularly impacted.

And we wanna keep that into consideration because when something a disaster like this by the way, it has to be a federal and state disaster for there to be this the scaled the 10 times penalty. So that's not taken lightly.

This is about health and safety. We narrowed it down to that. I don't know what else we could do short of gutting the bill that would satisfy the opposition.

The opposition, should be, should be glad that this sort of thing is being proposed so that they could take our issues more seriously. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you for presenting this bill. I'll share with you that I had concerns from the beginning when this was first drafted. Thank you for working on the amendment that you and I talked about. And with that, I am going to join on record for the members so you can vote your conscience. Please, secretary, call the roll.

For item number 5, SB 716 the motion is do passed.

[roll call]

Right now, it's 3-2, and we'll leave the roll open for two other members to add on. Thank you.

And if it were to get to that, would I ask for reconsideration now? Or

You can ask for that now.

After the vote?

You can ask for it now if you like.

Thank you.

We're gonna go to file order Assembly member Brian, item number 2.

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 1457, which closes a compliance gap in SB 1000 that was passed over a decade ago. It sets a clear deadline of 06/30/2031 for jurisdictions that have not yet adopted their environmental justice element.

It strengthens transparency so communities can see what's being proposed. It includes meaningful public engagement so residents can participate in shaping their own neighborhoods. We've also worked with local governments and other stakeholders to land on a deadline that was more comfortable for them.

Additionally, we explicitly added safe harbor language for local jurisdictions that have already completed their environmental justice element or are very close to doing so. This bill is sponsored by the California Department of Justice. And with me to testify today is Janice Standiford.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and committee members. My name is Janice Daniford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice. And on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I wanna start by thanking Assembly member Brian for authoring this important bill, which AG is proud to sponsor.

AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our Bureau of Environmental Justice to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards.

Our Environmental Justice Bureau developed this bill because a decade after the seminal SB 1000 passed in 2016, many local governments with disadvantaged communities in their jurisdiction have yet to address environmental justice in their general plans as envisioned by SB 1000. The trigger for SB 1000 has proven to be ineffective.

AB 1457 would instead set a deadline for local governments that are subject to SB 1000 and have not yet addressed environmental justice in their general plans. It would also add transparency and community engagement processes to SB 1000 modeled on the requirements for housing element adoption to ensure that local governments engage and consider the input of impacted communities as they plan.

The Attorney General is proud to sponsor AB 1457 to ensure that SB 1000 is fully implemented so that marginalized communities are not left behind as we plan for a healthier and more just future. We left behind as we plan for a healthier and more just future. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no other primary witness. Those in support, come to the mic, please.

Any primary opposition?

Support or opposition? Support? Name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Hi. Good morning. I'm Jennifer Ganata with Communities for Better Environment, but I'm also, doing me twos for Leadership Council for Accountability and Justice, Sierra Club California. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Gracia Roscoe here on behalf of the Center on the Race, Poverty, and Environment in support, but also on behalf of the following, SEHA Action and SEHA Partners, as well as the Central California Asthma Collaborative and the CCAEJ. Thank you so much.

Hi. I'm Deja McCauley with Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Any primary opposition?

No opposition at all. Committee members? Oh, someone coming. Please come up.

Hi. Tracy Ryan from Rural County Representatives of California. We were in opposition. We appreciate the author's amendments. We still do have concerns, but we are removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association. We did not have an opposed position, but did have concerns around how planners would implement this. We really appreciate working with the author and the sponsors.

Still remain concerned on how those jurisdictions who are already underway doing their environmental justice work under the existing law will, be affected by the change in the new requirements.

So we're hopeful that they have the opportunity to finish that work. We appreciate the six months, but it may not be enough time for all jurisdictions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, chair and members. Thank you for your time. Mark Neuburger of California State Association of Counties also have the same concerns outlined by RCRC and American Planning Association.

Thank you. Seeing no one else. Committee members, questions, comments, and motion? Motion by Pacheco, second by Ward. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting bill. I will be supporting your bill. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred. And, secretary, please call the roll.

For item number 2, AB 1457,. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Runners 5-1. We'll leave the roll open for us to add on. Next on the file order is AB2728 by Soria.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and members. AB 2728, will clarify existing law to ensure California's groundwater management law is working as intended. In 2014, the legislature enacted the sustainable groundwater management act or SGMA, to direct local entities to work collaboratively through groundwater sustainability agencies to manage their aquifers.

This allowed locals to consider their unique situation and come up with a groundwater sustainability plan that best suited the region's needs. One of the mandated aspects of these plans was groundwater monitoring.

Under SGMA Groundwater Sustainability agencies, agencies may collect fees from large groundwater extractors while specifically exempting the de minimis extractors, those that pump less than two acre feet per year. However, one agency has discovered a legal issue where this requirement could be perceived as conflicting with fee restrictions on prop 218 and prop 26.

In Monterey County, when their groundwater sustainability agency developed their monitoring plan, they decided to use the county's preexisting groundwater ground watering monitoring program instead of reinventing the wheel.

This program was supported by a fee on extractors under the authority of prop 26, which was strict legal standards on who can be exempted from paying fees. This raised a legal question as to whether the exemption for the de minimis extractors could be applied in Monterey's situation.

In order to eliminate legal confusion, AB 2728 clarifies that the existing groundwater monitoring fee exemption under SGMA meets the legal requirements under Prop 218 and Prop 26. Here with me today to testify in support is Ara Azhderian, General Manager of the Monterey County Water Resource Agency.

Good morning, Chair, members. Ara Azhderian, General Manager of Monterey County Water Resources Agency. It's an honor to be here with you today to talk about the need for AB 2728, which would restore protections for our most vulnerable well owners by allowing local governments the same authorities, held by groundwater sustainability agencies to exempt unregulated de minimis well owners from the implementation cost of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

SGMA clearly recognizes that in order to achieve sustainability, it is the, it is the significant extractions of groundwater that must be managed, and it did so in part by expressly authorizing groundwater sustainability agencies to exclude unregulated de minimis well owners from SGMA implementation costs.

In Monterey County and in Salinas Valley, specifically, there are two public agencies that are collaborating on the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. One is the Salinas Valley Basin GSA, which is primarily responsible for the planning, development, and implementation of management actions.

The other is the Water Resources Agency. Our focus has primarily been on the monitoring of groundwater, data analysis, and reporting findings to inform those management actions. Water resources agency is not a groundwater sustainability agency, and therefore, the authorities provided by SGMA do not clearly convey to us. AB 2728 fixes that.

It provides the clarity necessary to restore the exclusions that our most vulnerable well, owners enjoy, and shields them from costs that they were never intended to pay. So for these, reasons, the County of Monterey is proud to sponsor this bill. I'm honored to be here today to solicit your support and stand ready for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Those in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Thank you, Chair and members. Ashley Walker on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning. Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Delgado on behalf of California State Association of Counties in support.

Any primary opposition? Opposition on the measures? Seeing none, committee members, questions, comments? We have a motion by Pacheco, second by Ward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting your bill. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number 3, AB 2728. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

Thank you. Senator Grayson. So, that's Item Number 4, SB 328 by Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Mister Chair and esteemed committee members. I am pleased to present SB 328, which will provide an exemption within, not from, but within the supply—surplus—lands act, as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. I would like to express my thanks to the Chair and also committee staff for their help on this incredibly important bill.

SB 328 is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long-planned transit-oriented development on the side of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing, job create—creating—facilities, open space, and environmental improvements.

The Concord Reuse Project Area Plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units, with 25% of the units affordable to lower-income households, up to 1,600,000 square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, and sports facilities, as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space.

SB 328 will help bring this long anticipated and much needed project, which also has the potential to create years' worth of construction and construction-related jobs closer to reality. In 2010, after a multiyear process with substantial public input, the city certified an Environmental Impact Report, we know as EIR, under CEQA and adopted the Naval Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Plan.

In 2012, the city adopted an addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plans, policies, and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapon station storage facilities and the mixed-use, transit-oriented and sustainable community. The Navy completed the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA environmental review, of the disposal and reuse plan under the area plan and issued a record indecision on 2017.

Although redevelopment of the Concord Naval Web Station is under—undergone—nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under both CEQA and NEPA, as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process, implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years.

So, SB 328 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Weapon Station for qualifying projects that, among other things, maintaining 25% affordability, affordable housing, and labor agreements that fall within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents. SB 328 does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Weather Station projects from review and oversight.

It simply leverages review and oversight already completed for the Concord Naval Weather Station. The bill is supported by the city of Concord, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Building Trades and, and Construction Trades Council District, Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity, and Sheet Metal Workers Local 104.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. My witnesses can self-introduce, through the Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Two primary witnesses, please. Three minutes each.

Thank you. My name is Josh Roden. I'm with Brookfield Residential, the developer, working with the city of Concord and you all. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on SB 328. The project is within the City Of Concord limits.

It's included in the city's general plan and supported by completed CEQA review for the reuse plan and area plan, as the Senator has outlined in-depth. It will create more than 10,000 construction worker jobs and more than 16,000 permanent jobs. It creates 808—88—acres of additional parkland in addition to the 2,500 acres that's already been deeded to the East Bay Regional Park District that we will be providing utilities and infrastructure to.

And that's over $2,200,000,000 of infrastructure improvements and community benefits during the life cycle of the project. It's—10,000 homes is the minimum.

That's over 2,500 affordable homes in the community. These provisions reflect an extensive work with legislative committees and leadership—thank you—the Governor's Office, HCD, and the city of Concord housing advocates, labor, and environmental stakeholders. We didn't all get what we wanted.

There's a lot of compromises to get here and certainly appreciate the amount of effort and work that everybody took to do it. SB 328 gives this long-planned project CEQA and surplus land act certainty needed to move forward while maintaining environmental protections, labor commitments, and substantial community benefits. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support for SB 328. Thank you.

Mister Chairman and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union. I personally have been engaged on the conversion of the naval weapon station for over 20 years. In my 39 years of working in this building and working with the trades, I can't think of a project that has been more thoroughly discussed and reviewed.

The local community collaboration that this has, has gone on for over two decades. My clients have invested literally millions of dollars engaging on this particular project.

There is not another more consequential project in the Bay Area than this project. It impacts all nine Bay Area counties. It's a transit-oriented development. It is a unicorn that cannot be replicated anywhere else. It's an opportunity that simply cannot be lost.

And so, we would just urge your support. Thank you.

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

Mister Chair, Luis Ferrante with the Bay Area Council, here to help with any technical questions.

Appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers, in very strong support. I'd like to thank the author for his commitment work on this bill.

Hi. Sophia Quach, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any primary opposition? Please come to the desk.

Good afternoon, chairman. Brian Augusta on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project and a coalition of groups that have worked to expand and strengthen and enforce the Surplus Lands Act. I wanna be clear about our position on this bill because it hasn't changed from the initial introduction of SB 1145 earlier in the year and the conversations we've had with the author's office and we've been very clear on a number of issues.

Number 1, we're open to an exemption to the SLA provided that it ensures the production of affordable units and that that is an enforceable obligation. And that position has not changed.

And even when the bill changed, we came back to the table with additional ways in which we could make sure that that certainty was there. It's not as simple as putting 25% in the statute. We need to make sure it's 25% of a real number. We need to make sure that that real number is enforceable through the SLA which includes its enforcement and penalty provisions. So the bill before you today, we're pleased to say makes a lot of progress in that regard.

But there's also a lot of remaining ambiguity. And a lot of it hinges on what this DDA does or doesn't say and whether or not the ambiguity in this bill leaves that, enforceable. So we're gonna be watching that very closely, but we're concerned that even though we've made progress with the author and the sponsors, we're not all the way there. And that's what happens when we draft a bill, when the amendments have been presented to us, the evening before the hearing.

So we're gonna continue to review it, gonna continue our conversations.

We hope that if we can reach reasonable agreement on additional amendments that may be needed to achieve what everyone says we want to achieve, that we can clarify those in the coming session. But today, we were in imposed, but we do appreciate the continued conversation and the movement forward on some of these critical pieces. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Do any of you want to respond to that? Do you want an opportunity to do that?

Just in short, I know time is of essence, HCD is comfortable, and we are as well, and the negotiating parties that HCD has the tools to enforce that through reviews.

There is some further mechanisms.

Yep.

Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none. Committee members?

First by Pacheco, second by Wilson. Seeing no one else. Would you like to close, Senator?

Simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for, your staff, for your work on this bill and I will be supporting the bill today. The motion is do pass to the Natural Resources Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Pacheco?

It's six—6-0. The bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. We don't have Senator Cervantes to present our bill. Assemblymember Wilson, do you wanna present your bill?

I'm like, wait, where's my, where's my witness?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members, I'm pleased to present AB 912, a bill that proposes amendments to the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Enabling Act to modernize the composition of the district's Board of Trustees and improve governance efficiency, responsiveness, and operational effectiveness.

AB 912 modifies the board's composition to reduce governance conflicts, improve fiduciary independence, and ensures the district can continue to effectively manage long term infrastructure and service responsibilities.

The district's current governance structure presents practical and legal challenges because City Council members constitute a majority of the district board. In situations involving negotiations, litigation, and other conflicts between the district and the city. Recusal from one governing role does not fully resolve governance conflicts and often creates quorum concerns.

The conflicts and quorum issues consistently hold up negotiations on contracts, which further delays projects and necessary agreements for the basic functionality of the district. This bill seeks to address these issues by returning the district to a modified governance structure consisting of two Vallejo City Council members, one Solano County Board of Supervisors, and two, at large trustees appointed by the remaining trustees.

It is worth reminding that AB 912 is supported by all parties including the City, the county, and the Sewer District. Here with me today is my witness, Paul Gonsalves, representing the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members of the committee. Paul Gonzales here today on behalf of the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District for the sponsors of the bill. And in addition, we're also here on behalf of the City of Vallejo in support of the bill. Assembly member Wilson did a fantastic job summarizing the bill. Don't really have much more to add to that.

We'd like to thank her for her leadership on this effort, and I'd like to thank the committee staff for all their help in in drafting this bill. So, appreciate an aye vote.

Thank you. We have first and a second. First by Rubio, second by Miss Johnson. Anybody else that wants to start in support?

Seeing none. Is there any opposition to this measure?

Seeing none, we have a first and a second. Unless there are any comments or questions, we're good. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for presenting your bill. I will be supporting your bill today. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number 1, AB 912. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

That is nine zero. The bill is out, and we'll leave it open for others to add on. And with that, we're waiting for Senator Cervantes. If staff is listening, please ask her to come up to Room 447 so that she can present our last bill, SB 1387.

That is nine zero. The bill is out, and we'll leave it open for others to add on. And with that, we're waiting for Senator Cervantes. If staff is listening, please ask her to come up to Room 447 so that she can present our last bill, SB 1387.

While we wait for Senator Cervantes, we're gonna do add ons.

Add ons for item number 2, AB 1457. The motion is due that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

That measure is out 8-1.

Add ons for item number 3, AB 2728. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

The bill is 9-0.

Add ons for item number 4, SB 328. The motion is do passed and re referred to Committee on Natural Resources.

[roll call]

The voice is 7-0. That bill is out.

Add ons for item number 5, SB 716 by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass.

[roll call]

That is still 3-2, and there's reconsideration on that bill.

The bill fails, but there is reconsideration for the bill.

And that's it for add ons. So it's still waiting for Senator Cervantes.

Just two more add ons to the bills, please.

Add ons for item number 1, AB 912. The motion is Senate that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

So that's 9-0 that bill is out, 10-0, excuse me. 10-0 the bill is out.

Add ons for item number 2, AB 1457. The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

That's a 8-2. Bill's out.

For item number 3, AB 2728, the motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

That's 10-0. The bill is out.

For item number, for item number 4, SB 328, the motion is do you pass and re refer to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[roll call]

That's 9-0. The bill is out.

So correction on item number 4. That is 8-0. The bill's out.

We're back on. We're gonna go to item number 6, SB 1367 by Senator Cervantes.

Thank you, Mister Chair, for allowing me to present Senate bill 1367 today, which prohibits cities and counties from approving new land uses that would allow the construction of detention facilities or permit the conversion of existing buildings into such facilities. Amendments and Assembly local government simply include findings of the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal fair and therefore apply to all cities, including charter cities.

The goal of this bill is to protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities, particularly those not designed for long term human habitation. The bill ensures that its land use policies are not used to facilitate human right abuse and builds on the state's leadership in limiting detention expansion and moves us closer to a future rooted in dignity, safety, and accountability. With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no primary witnesses. Anybody that wants to add on in support? Seeing I think there's someone coming. Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Hi. I'm Zeenit Yaya with ACLU Cal Action in strong support.

Thank you. Is there any primary opposition or opposition at all? Seeing none, committee members move the bill by Assemblymember Rubio or seconded by Pacheco. Anybody else? Comments, questions?

Seeing none. Senator, thank you for working on this, measure. Appreciate your work and, what you've done, for on this bill. I will be supporting your bill today. Thank you for that.

And the motion is do passed. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number 6, SB 1367, the motion is do passed. Carrillo Carrillo, Aye, ta? No. No. Johnson?

Johnson? No. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.

Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye.

Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Ward, Wilson.

Aye.

The vote is six zero. The bill is out. Thank you. We'll wait a couple of minutes for members to add on. Six to two.

Excuse me. Vote is six to two.

Okay.

We're gonna wait just we're gonna wait just a couple of minutes to see if the others wanna add on.

Add ons for item number 6, SB 1367 by Senator Cervantes, and the motion is do pass. Ward?

Aye. Aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

The measure is eight to two. Thank you. And that concludes our hearing today. I thought we were waiting for

No. No. Yeah. I can close our hearing today. Thank you.