Assembly Local Government Committee, Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Local Government Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Hi. My name is Jalen Woodard. I'm with the Alameda County Office of Education and Support.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. Natalia with Greenberg Charc on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, we have two primary witnesses in opposition. Please, you can begin.
Redner 20
Jean Chadbourne, educator with twenty years experience in the classroom here with Women Are Real, a California coalition fighting for women's rights, majority democrat, and nearly half lesbian or bisexual. This bill requires state officials to complete an anti hate speech training. Hate speech is commonly confused with hate crime. These are not the same thing. The bill's author states the primary impetus of hate crimes is hate speech from elected officials.
Redner 5
This contradicts decades of research on hate crime causation. Furthermore, this bill doesn't define hate speech. In fact, hate speech has no definition in California or federal law. The Commission on the State of Hate whose findings form the basis for this bill relies on self reported survey data using an extremely expansive definition of hate. That includes noncriminal acts and, I kid you not, political opposition.
And frankly, Women Are Real knows exactly how hate speech gets defined in practice because we have been on the receiving end of that definition in this very building. On March 17, our witness testified raising concerns about boys and girls locker rooms. Assembly member Quirk Silva responded that we were, quote, spewing hate. Assembly member Zabur followed saying he was tired of us hating other kids. Last year before the same committee, he compared our support for female only sports to Nazi Germany.
These government officials have decided advocating for women's rights is hate. This is a good example of why we cannot let the government dictate what hate is. It's not hateful or dehumanizing to call a man a man. A man is a type of human after all. Accurately naming a man sex is not an attack on his humanity.
It is in fact essential for women's safety and fairness. In the workplace, in a locker room, in a homeless shelter, and, yes, here in a committee hearing. The state of California must not be permitted to suppress or chill women's lawful protected speech. Keep us the land of the free. We urge a no vote.
Redner 15
Hi. Meg Madden of Cause, Californians united for sex based evidence in policy and law. We are a nonpartisan organization focused on the recognition of biological sex in law. We are blessed to live in a country where our expressed religious, social, and political views differ tremendously and always have. When the state steps in to train officials in state approved attitudes about lawful speech, it means to chill speech regardless of the speech's objective offensiveness.
Redner 6
Speech is speech, not behavior. Mandating training that goes beyond preventing actionable conduct and instead restricts speech, including on important issues we need to discuss, it violates the First Amendment rights of everyone subject to it. It also has the effect of siloing viewpoints, a particularly dangerous development when it comes to government personnel. I know this firsthand because I was the one who was testifying before the assembly committee about boys and girls high school locker rooms when assembly woman Quirk Silva told me that I was spewing hate. And assemblyman Zabor has accused cause members of of hate twice during committee hearings for saying boys do not belong in girls sports, even though that is a majority view even among Democrats.
But even if it were not, even if there is only one person left on Earth who knows that sex is real, who remembers we are mammals, we evolved like other mammals, and that understanding evolution depends on understanding sex is real, then we must protect that person's right to say that even if it offends some people. Or do you think we should have another scopes trial? Our founders understood the totalitarian impulse to train people to believe that speech the government does not like is wrong. That if authority calls something hate, it must be bad and false even when it isn't. And every cell in your body is screaming it is true.
We urge a no vote. Thank you, and I'll answer any questions.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in opposition? Seeing nobody, committee members, comments, questions? Seeing none, assembly member, we don't have a quorum yet. Do you wanna go ahead and close?
Redner 1
Thank you, assemblyman Jackson, for presenting your bill today. I appreciate your commitment to the issue and agree that adding anti hate speech training is critically important. I will be supporting your bill, but, again, once we get a form of, motion and a second, we will take that action. Thank you for being here for this bill, and I believe you have another bill today. Yep.
Thank you to the witnesses in opposition. So with that, we move on to item number 13 on the agenda, assembly bill twenty eighty three by assembly member Jackson. Sir?
Redner 2
First, I wanna start off by thanking the committee and committee staff for assisting us with this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments today. A b twenty eighty three, the Moreno Valley Parish Child Care Special District authorizes the creation of a regional child care special district serving Moreno Valley and Paris to coordinate the development and expansion of child care programs and facilities, including options that support families with nontraditional work hours for a term of five years. California has made meaningful strides in rebuilding its child care system after deep cuts during the Great Recession, but the progress has not been reached every has not reached every community equally. This district bill gives one of the state's fastest growing and most underserved regions a locally driven tool to close that gap.
Respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, Assemblyman Jackson. Anybody in the audience that wants to add in support? Seeing none. How about any primary witnesses in opposition? I believe I see someone coming.
Thank you. And you may begin when you can.
Redner 7
Thank you, mister chair members. Jean Hurst here today on the on behalf of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. We certainly don't have any concerns about the goals of assembly member Jackson's bill simply with the mechanism by which, he is seeking to provide this childcare in the community. We've been working closely with his office and expect to continue to do so through the process. But as of now, we are in opposition and grateful for the committee's analysis.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. Anybody else in the audience who wants to add on in opposition? Seeing none, committee members, any questions, comments for the assembly member? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Redner 2
Yes. Thank you very much, mister chair. Again, this is a district bill, and we are expressing our self determination. And we have worked directly with our local LAFCO on this language and actually made some amendments based upon their feedback and so respectfully ask for their I vote your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, sir. We'll do that at the appropriate time when we get a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for presenting today, and thank you for working with the committee on the amendments.
I'm supportive and I apologize. With the amendments, I will be supporting the bill today. And, again, at appropriate time, we'll move the bill. Thank you, sir.
Redner 1
Assembly member DeMaio, I believe you are the only one here. We are ready for you. Yeah. Please. And that is item number Six.
Six on the agenda, a b seventeen eighty three when you are ready, sir.
Redner 9
Good morning, mister chair and members or or good afternoon, members of the, committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present assembly bill a b seventeen eighty three, a bill that would make it crystal clear that California drivers will be kept safe from having to pay a mileage tax. California, motorists, taxpayers already pay the highest gas tax in The United States when you calculate both the excise tax, the sales tax, and the cap and trade, tax, the carbon tax. California taxpayers already pay the highest car tax in the nation. And on top of that, we already pay the high we already pay the highest income taxes, sales taxes, some of the highest property taxes depending upon when you bought your home.
They're overtaxed. And California taxpayers were told for the highest car tax and the highest gas tax that our roads would be fixed, and our roads are absolutely a mess. We see time and time again money diverted from the gas tax and car tax funds for everything but roads. Now comes a proposal to impose a mileage tax. That's what it is.
That's the best way to describe it. Those that would like to charge this fee, this tax, call it a road user charge. A road user charge. Simply defining it in bureaucratic terms doesn't negate the fact that it is a mileage tax because the way the road user charge works is that drivers who've already paid gas tax and car tax and their general fund taxes for the infrastructure are now gonna be told they have to pay an on on top of that per mile that they drive. And it's not just a discussion that's happening at the state level.
Redner 57
This tax is being formulated at the local level. In 2022, the San Diego Association of Governments, which is the, regional transportation agency for our county, saw fit to impose a local mileage tax. There was such outcry by San Diegans that they recalled the maker of the motion driving her from office and flipped a number of other seats on this issue alone. Politicians then reconvened and expunged the mileage tax from the regional transportation plan Over the objection, by the way, of the California Air Resources Board that was basically saying, we may sue you if you don't try a mileage tax because they wanted San Diego County to be a guinea pig, an experiment. As you can see from the groups that are opposing my bill, they literally say that this is the future.
Redner 9
The mileage tax is the future. And that without a mileage tax, by golly, the roads will fall into disrepair. They're already in disrepair. I urge this committee to advance a b 17, 83 to put a halt to any state efforts, including bicarb or Caltrans or any agency on the study formulation or advancement of a mileage tax at the state level. My bill would also prohibit the imposition of a mileage tax at the local level, and we have seen jurisdictions from San Francisco to New York and, of course, San Diego County all looking at, and in some cases, even implementing mileage tax or congestion tax pricing.
This is absolutely a live issue. Those that are trying to advance it are trying to claim that this is never gonna happen when, in fact, you see these powerful interest groups saying, don't pass this bill because this is exactly what we plan. So let's settle the debate here and now. Let's put all the drivers' minds at ease that politicians are not gonna try to get into their wallet through a mileage tax. By the way, the cost per driver in the city of the county of San Diego, they were looking at 6¢ per mile.
The average driver puts 15,000 miles on their car. For working families, it tends to be more mileage because they they are poor. They they live farther away from the job centers. But at 15,000 miles per driver per per year, at six cents, that's $900 beyond income tax and sales tax. $900 post tax that they would have to pay.
If it's 9¢, which is one of the models they were looking at, that's $1,350. For a two car family, it adds up. We're talking about nearly $5,000 for a two car family if this goes into effect when you add car, gas, and the mileage tax together. That's before you actually pay for the cost of the actual gasoline or the cost of the car. This is unacceptable.
We have a cost of living crisis. Please advance assembly bill seventeen eighty three to ban these mileage tax proposals.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member de Mayo. Do you have any primary witnesses with you?
Redner 1
Anybody in the room that wants to add on in support, please come up to the microphone. See nobody. Nobody in support. How about those primary witnesses in opposition? Please step up to the desk.
This is whenever you're
Redner 10
Hey, mister chairman. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. I just need to put a statement that was made to rest. The fact is that SB one, which is the current gas tax, is spent directly to invest in fix your roads. Not only did the citizens of the state
Redner 10
it when it was tried to be recalled. Those dollars directly go to fix your streets and roads. You can see signs up throughout communities that show you the work that's being done. It's being administered by our CTC, some of the most professional individuals in state service who administer programs and make those awards to local agencies and the state department. So Department of Transportation.
So I wanna put that to rest. Secondly, it sounds like your community dealt with a proposed VMT, and it worked just like it should. So in your community, they didn't wanna see that. Your bill talks about prohibiting even discussing future studies. We need to have options on the table.
Redner 25
The fact of the matter is, and I spent a lot of time talking about this, Californians love their vehicles. We need energy. We need to be able to maintain our roads as our fleets become more efficient and we switch to electrical. The state building trade supports renewable energies, but we currently need fuel, refineries. Right now, it's a tax on that fuel that maintains our roads.
Redner 10
But as those fleets become more efficient, we switch to renewables. We need to have options to look at. Does that mean that this bill, should limit those options? I think it's bad policy to tie the hands of even thinking about what options may be out there to exist. So I oppose this bill.
The state building construction trades council opposes this bill. We'd ask for you to reject this bill. Thank you.
Redner 24
Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Kiana Valentine on behalf of Transportation California, also in respectful opposition to the bill this afternoon. As mister Dunn alluded to, California's transportation funding system is fundamentally broken. The gas tax, which is still the backbone of how we pay for transportation infrastructure improvements, was never intended, or designed for a future where cars have varying fuel efficiency, let alone zero emission vehicles. As a result, we are paying for we are anticipating a loss of $31,000,000,000 in transportation funding over the next decade due to that increased fuel efficiency and transition to zero emission vehicles.
Redner 12
And that's even as our infrastructure is going into decline. But just as important, perhaps more important, the system is becoming increasingly inequitable where communities and working families, rural communities are essentially bearing the burden, paying more in gas tax than those driving less fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles. And many of those families are lower income and don't have the resources to be able to transition into a zero emission vehicle. So that means gas powered vehicle drivers are essentially subsidizing, the system. Studying a road user charge is ultimately about finding a more fair and more equitable taxation system so that we can maintain our infrastructure in a good state of repair.
And importantly, it's being studied as a replacement to the gas tax or as a method to collect taxes from zero emission vehicle drivers who are paying on average $220 less than gas tax drivers. So this is not being proposed in addition to paying the gas tax. So a d seventeen eighty three would take studying that off the table, and we think, agreeing with the building trades that that is bad policy. Without sustainable funding into the future, working families will be hurt, rural communities will be hurt, and our roads will fall into further disrepair. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. Anybody in the room that wants to add on in opposition, state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 13
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeannie Wardwaller on behalf of NRDC and climate plan. We are in opposition to this bill. Also been asked to add on opposition from Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you.
Michelle
Redner 1
Thank you. We had quorum for a minute, but we lost it. Any comments, questions?
Redner 1
Okay. In the meantime, any comments or questions on proposal? No. I'll ask assembly member Wilson.
Redner 17
If you don't mind. You know, I I'd like to align my comment. I didn't get to hear your testimony, but I'm I've heard multiple times, and I'm sure it was brilliant. And so I'm sure I aligned my testimony. I mean, I aligned my comments with yours, and I did hear a portion of Keanu's Valentine and line that, and I excuse me, to the author for not being here.
For your presentation, I was in transit, another, author put a different bill in a different committee stopped me to discuss. I think, you know, we're so I'm I'm giving these comments, as a committee as a member of this committee, having served on local gov, for twelve years prior to coming to here and recognizing the various tools we have in our tool belt to be able to ensure we're delivering what the people of our community are asking us to deliver. In particular, as it relates to, transportation, our communities want paved roads. They want additional infrastructure. They want bicycle paths and things of that nature, and they use the tools at their disposal to be able to do that.
Many of our cities and counties have a transportation some type of transportation sales tax. Right? And others have considered, whether they should have a vehicle miles to transition to the fact that where we're going. And I think it's worthwhile for them to have that type of discussion and for the state not to hamper. And then secondly, now looking at the state, the state was the leader in '20, I think it was 2014 or maybe 2012, somewhere around there, in terms of doing pilots on this subject, and talking about the fact that we saw a decline in our, gas tax revenue, and, there was a need to figure out an alternative way to be able to fund road infrastructure and other things of that nature.
And we've been in that discussion for some times, have done a few pilots on that. And other states have now gone in advance of us, and have actually initiated, a vehicle miles tax amongst other things to address this declining gas tax revenue issue and the and the lack of instability or sustainability in, our funds that we use for transportation. I had an opportunity to go to, the National State Legislators Conference last year and, be a part of the Transportation Committee, proud to be vice chair this year. And we talked about how continually about how this is a a multistate problem across the nation and how it's something we have to solve too. And so I don't see the benefit of taking out any consideration of the tools in our tool chest.
As was noted as a part of the testimony, no one wants to overburden any group more than another group, that we should whatever we do should be fair and equitable and sustainable. And right now, we have individuals who are paying into the gas tax because they have a gas powered vehicle. They are paying the most for our transportation system. They are being burdened by it. And it behooves us to figure out a way for the most vulnerable among us, the usually the lowest income, who has the least fuel efficient vehicles, to not have to continue to carry that burden.
And so it is worthwhile to study how not to do that, and to ensure that we have a transportation system that works for everyone, rises up to the fact that we are the fourth largest economy, and at the same time is fair, equitable, and sustainable. And so because of that, I won't be able to support your bill today. I want all the tools in the toolbox, and I wanna be able to have good conversation and good debate on how best effectively to use those tools. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member. Was there anybody else in the committee? Assemblyman Ransom, we had a motion, but we also have go ahead, assemblyman, please. And we have a second part.
Redner 15
Also, thank you, assemblyman DeMio, for, presenting your bill. Looking at the bill, I I really my concern is it crosses boundaries. Right? I can talk all day about how the folks in my district drive the furthest furthest, over a 100,000 people commuting to my through my district. Most of them cannot afford electric vehicles, so they are paying the high gas type mileage tax.
But, ultimately, this is even bigger than that. Right? So while we are looking at the fact that our local council of governments are concerned because they are losing funding, with when it comes to transportation dollars, when we're looking at a study, it really is concerning that we wanna prohibit a city, a county, or any political division from studying, something because the study is data. It's gonna help us to figure out what is the best way to address the problems that we currently have. Planning is prudent and efficient, and so I wanna make sure that we are not really overstepping our boundaries as a state by telling cities and counties that they are not able to do whatever they need to do to fill in their transportation gaps.
And as well as us as a state, we have to move smarter. And that means that we need to move with data as opposed to moving on emotion and moving on, you know, different frustrations based on different districts because all of our districts have a different experience with the gas tax, a different experience with, you know, commuting. And in order to meet that moment, we're gonna need data. And so I appreciate that, fundamentally, you have a different approach and a different, idea about how we should move forward, but we can't move forward one way or the other without the appropriate data. And that is what the studies and planning will allow us to do.
So I just really wanna really wanna caution us from, you know, being over prescriptive, if we will, with how we tell cities and counties and folks who are in charge with running an entire community and state to approach what's best for their communities. And so my concern, again, is that this is an overstep in addition to the fact that we need the data to move the state out of the experience that we are currently having. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody, would you like to close?
Redner 1
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Yes. We did. So since we had a motion and a second, I assume that we had a quorum.
Please call the roll to establish a quorum.
Redner 18
Johnson? Here. Pacheco? Here. Ramos?
Ransom? Present. Stephanie? Ward? Wilson?
Here.
Redner 9
Thank you. And I, listen intently to the opposition to blocking a mileage tax from the same people who enacted the highest gas tax in the country, the highest car tax in the country, who literally supported lying to voters on proposition six in 2018. So let's not say that voters chose to raise the gas tax. They certainly did not. The claim is that this will fix the roads.
Mileage tax will fix the roads. First, you had the gas tax raised and you didn't fix the roads. And if you really wanna fix the roads, let's get rid of the fraud, the waste, and the abuse. We offered a proposal for a road repair lockbox, and it was opposed by the people increasing the gas tax. And so before you go forward to people and say, well, you need a mileage tax to fix the roads, I think it's incumbent upon the legislators to give them proof that the money they're already giving this body and local government actually is going to transportation and road repairs, and you've not done that.
Until you do that, we shouldn't even be looking at finding a new way to collect money. That's where our focus ought to be. Second, we are moving to electric vehicles and losing funding. Well, the state budget publishes every year how much money we get from the car tax and the gas tax. And guess what?
Car tax and gas tax revenues are not down. They're actually up every year. And so the idea that somehow we're losing funding, our funding streams are steady. It's how we're spending the money that's a problem. Third, equitable and protecting the vulnerable population.
The gas tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxes, and mileage tax would be equally regressive. Please do not claim to be defending these vulnerable, low income families after the damage that you've already done to them with your policies. And finally, to say that you wanna give flexibility to local government, this body has never deferred the local control. This mileage tax is even opposed by Democrats, Latinos, independents, Republicans. This is not a partisan issue.
This is a 75% bipartisan consensus. If politicians in this body can't act on a 75% issue, it shows that not only are roads broken, but our political system is fundamentally flawed and broken as well. I urge you, send a message to your constituents that you are not headed for their wallet vis a vis a mileage tax and advance the bill. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member DeMallo. So because we, had a motion and a second before we established quorum, now that we established quorum, we need a motion and a second. Can you do you wanna do a motion and a second again? Because when we did again, we did not have a quorum. So a motion by assembly member Ta, second by assembly member Johnson.
Thank you all. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. No. Before you do that, I gave you an opportunity to close.
So that's my I'm gonna tell you. The need for maintenance, the new construction of our roads and highway is significant and only growing. The fact of the matter is our current system for transportation funding is starting to become dire. California relies on the gas tax in order to keep our roads safe and drivable, and we need to find a solution to this decline in revenue. As the use of electric cars continues to grow, the gap in revenue for California's roads will only grow with it.
While I support the advancement that we have made in vehicle technology, electric cars remain unaffordable to many of our residents. It is our lowest earners and our supercommuters that are now tasked with subsidizing the cost of road maintenance. This bill will require that any unencumbered funding that has been allocated for studying a more equitable solution to be returned to the general fund and would prohibit in a future budget act from allocating funds for the purpose of evaluating a solution. But the study is just out of study. This bill also prohibits a local agency from imposing a vehicle miles travel tax.
However, it is my understanding none have ever imposed it. What is clear is that the constitution requires any local tax to be approved by the voters. It is undeniable that we need to find a solution to ensure our road maintenance funding stable. Taking any potential solutions to create a more equitable system off the table is simply shortsighted. In light of these concerns, I am unable to support your bill today.
The motion is to pass to the revenue and taxation committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number six a b seventeen eighty three, the motion is due to pass and re refer to committee on revenue and taxation. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo, no. Ta? Aye. Ta, I. Johnson?
Aye. Johnson, I. Pacheco? Ramos? Ransom?
Rubio? Stephanie? Ward? Wilson? No.
Wilson, no.
Redner 1
On call for the members to add on. Thank you. It's on call. I see assembly member Subar, and that is item three on the agenda, a b sixteen ninety three. Assembly member Subur.
Oh.
Redner 32
Good afternoon, mister chair, members. First of I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office, and we will be accepting the committee amendments today. Today, I'm proud to present a b sixteen ninety three, which will support the state's diverse brick and mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3,000,000 Californians across 500,000 retail establishments supporting statewide local economies. The sector is one of California's largest small business employers providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities.
Redner 20
Across California, small business and retail establishments face unpredictable local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardship such as increased project costs, delayed business operations, and stagnant economic activity. When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it hurts not only the business, but the workforce and the surrounding community. Current law streamlined the approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects, establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small business to thrive in California. This bill is an essentially an extension of a b six seventy one, a bill that was authored by assembly member Wix last year. It was adopted and signed into law and is currently in effect, and it passed unanimously from all committees that it was considered in, including, I think, this one.
AB sixteen ninety three aims to address the issues that retailers face by requiring local business departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and certify those improvements for applicable building health and safety codes. It's exactly the same process as was as was approved under a b six seventy one. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within twenty business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that time frame. Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within ten business days of receipt. AB sixteen ninety three is critical as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards and really support our small businesses and the people and families who rely on them.
Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your eye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today is Ryan Elaine with the California retailers, one of the, sponsors of the bill.
Redner 26
Thank you, chair Creo and vice chair Todd and members of the committee. My name is Ryan Elaine, vice president of government relations with the California retailers Association, proud to cosponsor this bill. As mentioned, a b sixteen ninety three will support California's very diverse brick and mortar retail industry, streamlining permanent permitting tenant improvements while ensuring compliance with all applicable building and health safety requirements. California's retailers association, only statewide retail association representing all segments of the retail industry, including general merchandise, department stores, merch mass merchandisers, supermarkets, grocery stores, chain drug, and specialty retail, such as auto, vision, jewelry, hardware, and home improvement. These are all stores that you often see in your main streets throughout the cities in California.
Redner 21
Our members have conveyed to us that permit turnaround times or tenant improvements routinely stretch into multiple months across California counties with average processing times around twelve weeks and, some of the highest ones reaching up to thirty one weeks in some jurisdictions. Retailers continue to experience recurring challenges, including extended review periods, multiple rounds of comments, portal outages, and unanticipated intake requirements. These lengthy review periods significantly delay basic interior build outs, store openings, and remodels, forcing retailers to carry rent and financing costs for many additional months before they can generate revenue or hire employees. This legislation is critical. We thank assembly members of Burr for bringing this and reducing these permitting delays and will promote economic activity within California's small business community, while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards.
For these reasons, California Retailers Association is a proud sponsor of a b sixteen ninety three and ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, chair and members. Skylar Wanakoff, behalf of the California Business Properties Association as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association of California and NAEP California in strong support.
Redner 23
Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Regley on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Seeing no one else in support. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? Seeing nobody. Committee members, comments, questions on what's in front of us?
Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, assembly member Subur?
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member, for presenting your bill today and for working with the committee committee on amendments. Due to timing, these bills we adopted in the next committee. I will be supporting your bill today with the amendments. The motion is due pass to the business and professions committee with a motion by Wilson and second by Pacheco. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number three a b sixteen ninety three, the motion is due pass and re referred to committee on business and professions. Curio?
Redner 1
I thought I saw somebody member Gonzalez sitting over there. Oh, there he is. There he is.
Redner 27
I have I have two bills, mister chair. You want me to do, item number three?
Redner 27
Thank you, mister chair and members, the opportunity to speak to you today. I am pleased to present a b sixteen seventy nine, which creates a temporary commercial activation permit framework for local governments to allow pop up businesses to operate for up to a hundred and twenty days. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chair and to the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments, and I wanna thank the stakeholders who have offered thoughtful, thoughtful feedback. I remain committed to continuing those conversations so we can address potential inflammation concerns.
In my district, in areas like Downtown Los Angeles, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and many, many parts of our downtowns, we see storefronts after storefronts boarded up and vacant. COVID nineteen has permit impacts on the retail and restaurant sectors forcing countless small businesses to close, and to this day, we still have not recovered. Furthermore, small business owners are increasingly unable to take on the financial risk of long term leases that require large upfront investments. An innovative and recognized way to revitalize our local economies is to welcome in pop up businesses. Pop up businesses are the retail service businesses like traveling restaurants, product launches, holiday markets, brand collaboratives, or art galleries that temporary move into vacant storefronts.
Pop ups reawaken commercial spaces. They create local events, dry foot traffic, sales taxes, and positive spillover effects to nearby businesses. However, they are struggling to legally operate in our current permit structure. Many temporary permits only last a week, and the only other alternative is to apply for a permitted business license. For small businesses opening up temporary in multiple cities a single year, this is an extreme cost.
For example, in Los Angeles, it can range from $80 to 184 for a temporary food facility permit. The permit restaurant process will cost exponentially more. In Sacramento, a temporary food facility permit that is considered high risk cost $379. On the other hand, a quarantine permit restaurant permit cost $1,738. Pop ups have shut down because they lacked a permit permit a permanent permit even if they consider a low risk business.
After trying to pursue these costly permanent permits, many businesses closed down and abandoned the space, leaving it vacant once again. Current requirements for pop ups are disproportionate to the scale and duration of their use. AB sixteen seventy nine will address these issues by requiring local governments to create a new temporary commercial activation permit, which will be consistent, limited, low risk framework to activate storefronts across our state. These permits will be limited to a hundred and twenty days and ensure that any pop ups using the permits follow all necessary health and safety requirements. The revitalization of downtown to neighborhood commercial corridors in a statewide priority, and a b sixteen seventy nine addresses commercial stagnation by supporting entrepreneurship, reducing barriers to entity, and creating a pathway from temporary testing to permanent Tennessee.
This afternoon to testify in support of the bill are Eddie Navarrete, who represents the sponsor of the bill, the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Shiloh Anewke, the owner of Tea of Shiloh in Downtown Los Angeles. Take it away.
Redner 29
Good afternoon, chair and members or members. My name is Irene Navarrete. I'm the president of the Independent Hospitality Coalition representing a diverse network of small businesses across the LA County landscape. Across California, we are facing a growing challenge that is visible in nearly every community, rising commercial vacancies and empty storefronts that are sitting idle for months, sometimes years. In Los Angeles alone, retail vacancies have climbed to some of its highest levels in over a decade.
These vacancies are not just economic issues. They have real impacts on our neighborhood. Empty storefronts reduce foot traffic, discourage new investment, and create a ripple effect where surrounding businesses struggle to survive. When one space goes dark, it often leads to others falling, weakening an entire commercial corridor and the communities that depend on them. At the same time, we have no shortage of entrepreneurs ready to open for business.
What they lack is access. The cost and complexity of permanent construction has pushed too many operators before they even open. For many small businesses, the requirement to commit to a full build out upfront is simply not achievable in today's economic climate. AB sixteen seventy nine provides a practical solution by creating a pathway for temporary commercial activations of vacant storefronts. This allows small business to enter spaces with lower upfront cost, test concepts, and build towards permanence without taking on overwhelming financial risk.
Redner 22
This includes a wide range of neighborhoods serving businesses like yoga, fitness studios, art galleries, markets, and the businesses that we have yet to discover. At its core, this is about small businesses giving giving us small businesses the opportunity to execute their resiliency. Our small business community has continued to adapt through some of the most challenging economic conditions in recent history, but our policies have not kept up the pace. Need a regulatory framework that reflects the progress of our small business community. Commercial vacancies aren't just an economic issue.
Redner 29
They're a signal that our current system isn't working for small businesses. AB sixteen seventy nine creates a real world solution real world solution by allowing temporary activation of these spaces, helping bring back to life our streets and supporting the kind of walkable transit oriented communities California should be leading on. On behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition and the small business community we represent, we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 31
afternoon, and thank you for having me. My name is Shiloh Nocke, and I'm the owner of Tea at Shiloh, an evening tea concept located in the outskirts of Downtown Los Angeles. When I found my space, it had everything I was looking for, high ceilings, exposed bricks, good natural light, a sink, and a counter. It was the perfect test site for my concept. I didn't have the budget to build out a permanent space, but I had an idea I wanted to test and the willingness to willingness to take a risk.
I transformed the room with comfortable floor seating, good lighting, and created a safe and relaxing living room of sorts, offering tea as an amenity. Guests showed up, and it was beautiful to see people gather in the evening around something other than alcohol. Then I was cited by the health department and called into a hearing because pouring tea is considered food prep and requires a permanent health permit. They directed me to plan check. For someone running a temporary concept in a borrowed space, the gap between where I was and where the code needed me to be was just too wide.
I called every friend I had for help. Even the health inspector wanted to help me and agreed that sometimes the requirements can be too difficult for simple uses like mine. I tried to make it work by enduring the permitting system, but the system doesn't currently distinguish between someone opening a permanent establishment and someone testing a dream. In plan check, my dream costs way more than I could afford. I am one of many many others out there in the state who find vacant spaces and want to bring life and personality into their neighborhood.
Redner 49
People that want to have a storefront, but right now or people want to have a storefront, but right now, there's no realistic path way for them to operate temporarily, legally, and affordably. I believe a b sixteen seventy nine creates that pathway. It keeps the safety standards that matter while recognizing that a pop up doesn't need to meet every requirement designed for permanent occupancy. I'm here today for future small businesses like mine who, with this new proposed bill, can have a more promising start. Thank you for your time.
Redner 8
So much for that. Is there anyone else who would love to support the bill?
Redner 4
Hi there. Amy Chong with Inclusive Action for the city in strong support.
Redner 32
Brittany Weis with the Independent Hospitality Coalition, Council District fourteen, and many Los Angeles restaurants in support.
Redner 4
You, chair and members. Lorenz de Valencia representing the American Planning Association. We don't have a position on the bill, but we really wanna thank the author, the sponsors, and the committee to, allow the flexibility to not create a new plan, but have this be self implementing. So thank you very much.
Redner 8
Thank you so much for that. Are there any are there any primary witnesses who like to oppose the bill? I see none. Anyone else who would allow to oppose the bill? Alright.
I see. Any, any committee member? Any comment? Please.
Redner 17
Thank you, vice chair Todd. Thank you to the, author for this bill. I think it's thoughtful and open up this opportunity to have really cool things in California. We can't have cool things again. With that, I'd like to
Redner 8
Alright. So we have a motion, and a 2nd Floor as senate member. Would you like to close? Oh, miss Rainer.
Redner 15
I had a question just for clarification. So first of all, thank you for, getting creative about spaces, because pop ups do happen. And at the same time, I definitely respect local control and health and safety, especially when we're talking about, like, food venues and things like that. I just wanna, ensure that I'm interpreting what I think I'm interpreting correctly, and that is this bill does not, overs if a city already has a community already has a plan for pop ups, this does not override their plan. Is am I understanding that correctly?
It's correct.
Redner 27
leave it. Second. Yes. Correct. It's a it's a good question.
Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, colleagues. Whether you are in a rural or urban area, it's a common sight or even just outside the capital here to see empty storefronts. Our small businesses and residents are desperate to fill them, and a B 1679 creates a clear, accessible way to bring those spaces back to life.
You, and I respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 8
Alright. Thank you so much. We have a motion by assembly member Wilson and second by assembly member Pachenko. Madam secretary.
Redner 18
For item number two, a b sixteen seventy nine, the motion is due passed and reaffirmed to the committee on health. Curio? Ta? Aye. Ta?
Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I.
Ramos? Ransom? Aye. Ransom, I. Rubio?
Stephanie? Ward? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I.
Redner 8
Alright. So we leave the we we will leave the row open. Yes. You. Member, I think you have another bill.
Redner 27
Thank you, mister chair. I'll go ahead and start as they come on up here. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I am pleased to present a b twenty four eighteen, which will streamline nonresidential and commercial building permit applications by creating timelines for plan reviews and inspections. It also allows if a local agency can't complete a plan check after an excessive delay for an applicant to use a private plan checker.
California local agencies face extreme plan checking delays due to combination of staff shortages and unpredictable workloads. These delays increase costs and make it harder for businesses to complete new construction, simple improvement projects, or critical expansions. All across the state, even a routine tenant improvement can face a plan check or inspection delay of up to eight months leading to immediate and costly impacts. This does not only harm our property owners, but it also to the small business owners trying to lease these spaces. Small businesses, especially in historic ethnic enclaves in my district, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, historic Filipino town, Pikuin and Doyle Heights have been hit the hardest.
Redner 17
Increasing delays means increasing costs. When these businesses are just hanging on, one, just one delayed permit could leave those doors chained and windows completely shuttered another business lost because of California's bureaucracy. This bill will tackle delays by mimicking streamlined housing permitting process and cutting through bureaucratic red tape by first requiring local agencies to provide applicants with an estimated timeline. Second, requiring local agencies to, upon request, contract with or employ a third party plan checker if the estimated timeline they gave results in excessive delay of thirty days, all at the applicant's expense. And third, if a third party plan checker is used, it requires the local agency to issue a permit to an applicant within ten days of receiving the report from the private plan checker or to notify the applicant of any noncompliant aspects of their plan.
Redner 27
By creating predictable timelines and a reliable backup option for when excessive delays happen, AB twenty four eighteen will reduce costs and help our local businesses thrive. My office and I have been engaging with Cal Cities and CSAC on the bill and have been in conversations about how to ensure the bill works for all of us. I believe we are close to landing a solution. Look forward to continuing these discussions should the boom bill move out of committee today. This afternoon, primary witnesses in support are Skyler Wanakot with the California Business Properties Association, CBPA, and TJ Bart of Surf Management Inc representing NIOP Southern California.
Take it away.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, chair members. Skyler Wanacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Los Angeles. We're the proud sponsors of this bill. AB twenty four eighteen builds on the legislature's recent efforts to streamline residential, plan checking and just takes those same common sense reforms from not to nonresidential projects. Across the state, tenant improvement projects for just basic TIs are facing month long delays, which drive across and delays business openings.
This streamlined approach is not new. Local agencies are already utilizing third party plan checkers, and applicants on the residential side already have this option to utilize a third party. AB twenty four eighteen simply brings consistency to the process by establishing clear timelines and transparency by allowing a building applicant at their own expense to use a qualified third party plan checker if there is a delay over thirty days. AB twenty four eighteen is a balanced solution that will help projects move forward without cost delays simply just by extending current statute. It's important to note that this bill maintains full local control and oversight.
And for those reasons, we respectfully, urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 34
Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you so much for having me here today. As the assembly member mentioned, my name is TJ Barton, the senior vice president with SURF Management, which is a family owned and operated commercial real estate firm located in Southern California. I'm also on the board of directors for NAEP SoCal, which is one of the cosponsors for this legislation. I've spent the last fifteen years of my career, managing, owning, and operating small multi tenant retail and office complexes all throughout Southern California.
In my current role and portfolio, we have over 700 tenants, 90% of which are small family owned and operated businesses. I've witnessed dozens and dozens of instances where these family owned and operated businesses have struggled through the permitting process. In preparation for my testimony today, I was thinking of some of those examples that I could share with the committee, one came top of mind. This happened about a year and a half ago. It was a couple who were out of Northern Los Angeles County.
They had worked their entire lives to save up a nest egg. So when retirement came, they were able to invest and open ice cream shop, which would have actualized their dream in retirement. They ultimately got to that phase where they retired. They came to us wanting to lease one of our small retail spaces. They ultimately signed a lease with us, hired architects, engineers, initiated the permitting process.
We gave them ample runway to be able to navigate that and build out their space. Six months came and went. They still had not received their permit. They came back to us asking for an extension for which we gave them. Unfortunately, by month nine, they still had not received their permit.
Redner 1
When we received the heartbreaking phone call from them that that nest egg that they had worked their whole lives to build up had run out, and they ultimately had to pull the plug on their dream of opening the the ice cream shop. And this is one of many examples as I was going through them. I was thinking of a young woman who spent ten years in a hair salon wanting to open up her own business only to be faced with eight months of permitting. A family who owned a local pho restaurant who wanted to open a second location in the Inland Empire only to face ten months in a permitting process. And a local owned and operated dentistry firm spent fourteen months trying to navigate the permitting process.
Redner 34
So if a bill such as a b twenty four eighteen would have existed for these small pop mom and pop owner and operators at that time, their opportunities would have been dramatically different. Their access, their understanding would have been totally different, and this opportunity will afford that for future small businesses. And I'm grateful for the author for presenting this bill, and I ask for your support in it. Thank you.
Redner 8
so much for that. Is there anyone else who would love to support the bill? Please come up.
Redner 7
Audrey Rutajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and NAOP California in support.
Redner 29
Jay O'Dentals on behalf of the International Interior Design Designers Association in support. Wow.
Redner 23
Good afternoon. Adam Regley on behalf of NAF SoCal, one of the cosponsors in line with our comments with the sponsors, and, thank you.
Redner 21
Ryan Alain with the California Retailers Association. Happy to support. Thank you.
Redner 4
Sarah Bridges on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 14
Good afternoon. Moira Top on behalf of the Orange County Business Council in support.
Redner 8
Do we have any, any primary witnesses who like to oppose the bill? I see none. Anyone else would like to oppose the bill? I don't see anyone else. And then oh,
Redner 36
sorry. Good afternoon, chair members. Brady Gairdon on behalf of the League of California Cities. We have no position where working collaboratively with the authors and sponsors and look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.
Redner 26
And Mark Nueberer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we also have no position on this bill. We do wanna thank the author and the sponsors for their work with us on this bill and addressing our concerns.
Redner 8
Thank you. Alright. Any, any comment from committee members? I see none. We have a motion on the motion and the 2nd Floor.
Motion by assembly assembly member Grenson and second by assembly member Adjenko. Assembly member?
Redner 27
Yeah. Thank you, members. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, mister chair, and, obviously, thank you for sharing your story to the sponsors here today and everybody who came to testify. It's extremely important, to keep our small businesses alive.
I don't have to go into how much detail small businesses mean to thrive in a community and provide a lot of jobs locally. And so, with that, thank you. I respectfully ask her I
Redner 8
Thank you so much. The motion is is due passed to the judiciary committee. Madam secretary?
Redner 18
For item number 17, a b twenty four eighteen, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on judiciary. Carrillo? Oh. Carrillo? I.
Ta? I. Johnson? Pacheco? I.
Pacheco? I. Ramos?
Redner 18
Ramos? I. Ransom? I. Ransom?
I. Rubio? Stephanie? Second. Ward?
Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 1
So we're at seven zero. We will leave the Oh, they'll get out. The bill is out. We still need to leave it open.
Redner 1
Assembly member, Chabo. Item number seven on the agenda, you have two bills. Yes. Do you wanna start with a b eighteen twenty?
Redner 13
Okay. Thank you so much, mister chair and members for the opportunity to present a b eighteen twenty today. I wanted to start first, with the story actually of the mom of my kid's friend. Her car blew out the engine. She was in the market for a new car, and I was talking to her as the chair of electric vehicles and infrastructure committee about possibly getting an electric car.
And she lives in an apartment and was is a single mom and was just really concerned about not having charging at home and, you know, the reliability of being able to charge her car when she needed it. And so this is really the that you know, and and what why I was thinking about that actually recently is because we know gas prices have gone up over 20%, just in the last month because of the war in Iran. And I drive an electric vehicle and can drive by those gas stations, and I'm so grateful for that right now. And was thinking that, you know, that's relief that she could use as well and doesn't have because she couldn't make this choice because of the really charging availability. And so that's really the problem that we're working to solve and and help address with a b eighteen twenty to help advance construction of EV charging networks by establishing an electric vehicle charging permit fee schedule.
This measure strikes a balance between preventing excessive fee permit or permitting fees and also allowing governments local governments flexibility in the case of more complex permits. Statewide permit fee schedules are not new. One example is a v eleven thirty two enacted in 2023, which capped permit fees for residential and commercial solar permits. Measures like these are an effort to provide statewide uniformity, especially when it comes to statewide policy goals around increased solar adoption or accelerated EV infrastructure growth. The vast majority of jurisdictions are good actors in this space.
However, in some instances, we have seen the cost of EV charging permits that are o over two over 10 times what other localities are charging, suggesting that some areas are really using this as a revenue generating measure. Higher permit costs hurt Californians because either the charging is just not built at all or it's unavailable where they need it or the higher cost is passed on to the EV users in the form of higher usage rates. Crafting this bill, we were careful to set a fee schedule that ensures good actors were not affected. There's there was a survey of what is being charged now, and most everyone was under it except for some bad actors. And we're not so the good actors are not affected, and it also includes a sunset date of 2036.
My witnesses will go into more details on the effects of rapidly rising permit fees. With me today is Reid Addis representing the Electric Vehicle Charging Association and Victoria Rome representing Natural Resources Defense.
Redner 38
Thank you, chair and members. Reid Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, a cosponsor of the measure today. I wanna start out by saying this is not about most cities. Data from across the state shows that the majority are already charging reasonable fees often under $50 per charger. But for those who don't, it's the Wild West.
Radically different fees from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We don't know what that's related to, whether it's capacity, awareness, or sophistication around our technology. All we know is that price difference from jurisdiction to jurisdiction creates a huge problem in deploying the technology. We think it's important for the state to create a strong guidance principle, a benchmark, if you will, which is what this bill does, to help guide those local governments to understand what that fee structure should look like. It strikes the right balance.
It protects against excessive fees. It preserves local flexibility, and it creates consistency across jurisdictions, which is critically important to our industry. California cannot meet its clean transportation goals if the cost to install chargers varies dramatically from one city to the next for the same project. More important, some of your communities may not be served because of these barriers. I know many of you have talked about food deserts, but we don't wanna create EV charging deserts either.
Eight eighteen twenty is a practical proven solution that ensures fairness without undermining local authority. We respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 39
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Victoria Rome with NRDC, our natural resources defense council, here in support of a b eighteen twenty. Many local governments have an efficient permitting process in place for electric vehicle chargers, and we're grateful for those efforts. Best practices can include checklists or online submissions where permit applicants pay a reasonable fee, provide details of the installation, and receive permits quickly so they can complete the installation, which is verified for safety and code compliance by inspectors. These best practice jurisdictions make the process efficient, which leads to lower workloads on city staff and lower permit fees.
Across the state, we're trying to get more level two chargers installed in multifamily developments like apartments, parking garages, and these level two chargers are the energy use equivalent of a dryer outlet. Yet some local governments have permitting processes that last months and have extensive engineering review costs. These added steps cost time and money leading to higher permit fees. Oftentimes, cities that are right next to each other can have vastly different processes and costs for the same EV charger that's already met product safety requirements and is being installed by certified electricians. AB eighteen twenty ensures that permit fees for EV chargers are reasonable throughout the state.
This is already the law for solar installation permit fees. And at a time when the EV industry is being attacked by the federal government and incentive funding is being pulled, NRDC believes it's critically important to make sure our permitting processes and fees are streamlined so we can meet the state's clean air and clean transportation goals. We urge your support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 9
Afternoon, chair and members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.
Redner 29
Good afternoon. Chris Nielsen on behalf of the EV Jobs Alliance in support.
Redner 40
Chair members, Nate Solov on behalf of a few organizations who couldn't be here in person, including the Coalition for Clean Air, ABBE Mobility, AUTEL, Chargee, Epic Charging, EV Go, EV Match. Appreciate your support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? You step forward to the desk.
Redner 19
Damon Compton with the League of California Cities. Good afternoon, chair and members. Cities are not barriers to EV development. We're we're constitutionally required to charge no more than the reasonable cost of providing service, the standard is clear, enforceable, and working. So if the current system already prevents overcharging, why replace it?
In practice, permit fees are modest, usually 1% of the project, and these are not arbitrary fees. I heard some comments earlier from the sponsors kind of wondering the the source of these fees. These reflect actual staff time, engineering reviews, inspections, coordinating across multiple departments, electrical upgrades, fire reviews, sites, specific safety and utility coordination. AB eighteen twenty replaces the that system with a rigid one size fits all that are often now below cost and locks those cap those costs with these caps in place through 2036 with no adjustment for inflation. This disproportionately impacts smaller cities with fewer staff with rigid constraints.
This is not streamlining. This is cost shifting, and the state's own data is very clear. California is not lagging. We are leading the nation. According to the CDC, 94% of Californians live within ten minutes of an EV charger.
Redner 12
Collectively, between public and shared EV charging, we're over a million charging stations across the state with tens of thousands being added every six months, accounting for roughly a quarter of all charter chargers in The United States. The barriers that are identified by the CDC and the governor's own press office, grid reliability, infrastructural planning, and financing the expansion of EV charging infrastructure. When fees are capped below cost, the responsibility does not disappear. It is transferred directly to cities. That means fewer resources, reduced staffing capacity, and ultimately slower, not faster permitting, which are already constrained by a b nine seventy and twelve thirty six.
Redner 19
A b eighteen twenty undermines a system that is already working. For these reasons, we vote ask you to vote no.
Redner 26
Thank you. Mark Newberg, California State Association of Counties. The Cal City's witness definitely covered a lot of the same concerns that CSAC has too. Just wanna outline our opposition. And then, again, very similar, I think a lot of the barriers here, you know, are essentially more along the lines of related to the grid capacity issues.
Redner 13
In many cases, counties, in the case of on the public work side, when they have to comply with state regulations to, green their fleets, they're seeing kind of more of the delays on the utility side than they are seeing on their own kind of permitting side. And just kind of a finally echo piece here, although a lot of the examples provided by the sponsors of the bill kind of focused on individual chargers, The scope of this bill extends to kinda large public chargers, which which, of course, consume a lot of electricity, but also have a lot of kind of, you know, risk to the public if not done correctly. Information related by, folks that in counties that deal with this say that a lot of these the scale and kind of the pace that's happening out in those in these areas, you're having contractors that are kinda new to this process. And, you know, essentially, when you're new, you make a lot of mistakes. They have to spend more times on the larger scale you EV recharging stations.
Redner 26
And I I think that's the kind of public safety piece lost if you arbitrarily cap a a permit fee that you had you're essentially saying, here's how much time you should spend on this, and this, you know, public safety can only be put at that particular price. That's kinda where, for sure, a lot of the accounting concerns are right here in addition to what was prided. I do wanna thank the authors and sponsors for meeting with us with us as well as the committee analysis for highlighting kind of the issues at play here and the kind of long history of the bills. And then kind of closing, I will say the, a lot of the parallels here for this bill seek to kind of graft on what had the state has done for rooftop solar onto EV chargers. I really wanna point out those are two very different systems with two very different kind of setups and also much different risks for the public safe for the public involved in accessing the systems.
That's all.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add in opposition? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 23
Good afternoon to the committee and chair. My name is Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of San Mateo in respectful opposition. We're echoing the concerns of the League of California Cities and RCRC, citing especially the concerns regarding cost recovery in a climate rapid legislation.
Redner 48
Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County representatives of California in opposition.
Redner 43
Karen Lang, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, oppose unless amended as described in our letter. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else, committee members, assembly member Wilson.
Redner 17
Thank you to the author to try and address this issue. I think we share, we definitely share the fact that we need more EV chargers, And not just public and sharing, we need more individual EV chargers where people can conveniently charge at home, and we also need more in our multifamily. So I think we definitely agree there. I have some concerns that I think I shared when I met with, the sponsors of the bill before. But I wanna note this.
Redner 10
You made, two statements that I I thought was interesting, that I want to get better clarification on. You called cities or counties or jurisdictions bad actors, and you said that what they were doing was revenue generating. And then I also heard in the, sponsor testimony that they weren't sure why the cities weren't doing, but you characterized them as they were doing something that they were bad act there was good actors and bad actors, so that bad actors implies to me that something was malicious and that revenue generating, meaning that you found, when you were looking at your cost analysis, that you found cities that were doing contrary what they're allowed to do, which or counties, whoever jurisdictions, contrary to what they're allowed to do, which is to set the fee based on an analysis that determines their fees. And so was that more hyperbolic, or was there something specific you found in doing this research where someone was literally a bad actor, so acting in some malicious way, or someone you found evidence that someone was doing it for revenue generation purposes versus just covering their cost.
Redner 13
Yeah. And just to clarify, I said suggest that it's revenue generating. I mean, one of the examples and I'll bring the technical expert up to answer some of this because they've looked into these numbers more than I have. But, for example, you know, there's one, two, three, four cities that had gave permits for four chargers and charging 311, 6 hun $6, $167, $471. So the maximum, $4.71.
And then others another city, four chargers, charged $8,511. So it's I mean, $8,000 more. And it's just hard to understand how you could be charging that, like, why there's such a huge discrepancy. Right? And we've seen just in a, you know, a handful of examples, I think most cities are not gonna have a hard time complying with this from from what we've seen.
But I think that we wanna just make sure that it's across the board. And if you're you know, if if there's that kind of discrepancy, especially when you're talking about single family homes as an individual being charged, you know, thousands of times or hundreds of times what others are being charged, it may make it unaffordable for you to do it in the first place. And so that's really what we wanna prevent about or prevent against. I understand the concerns. And, you know, in the health space, I'm fighting for more money for counties.
I know that, you know, people are struggling, but this this really is passed on to consumers in so many ways that I think we have to make sure. And, again, this is not for this is not for fast chargers. This is level two plug in your dryer kinda outlet. Right? This is not super complicated.
You need a ton of energy to run something like
Redner 17
does does do it does change it. It doesn't just talk about those chargers. It takes about all. Right? Is it is I thought it was broad that it wasn't just for one particular charger.
Maybe clarify. Don't remember that from
Redner 17
Analysis. I thought in analysis, it was all types of chargers. But, that's not where the line of questioning wants. Wanted to go anyway. Wanted to stick more on the I just noted those comments.
They relate somewhat to where my, point of questioning will be, is around So, basically, I You know, I had an opportunity to serve as a leader, in a small a local leader for twelve years prior to coming to the assembly. And so, regularly, we did fee assessments, updated our fees, updated our charges. We had to do a study for that. We couldn't just say, I think. You know, we had to actually look at the study.
We had to have people analyze our what we pay our employees, full benefit package, and that determined how we set our fees. That guided every single thing. And that way, that, and because of that analysis that is detailed and available and opted at a public meeting, it is considered valid and and com and complicit with state law. It also means that a cost for something is going to be very different, from one city in my county to another, even if we were next door to one another, because different things go into that cost. And so I'm concerned that, it's not about caps, so to speak, that this is a way to address the issue, because it is an issue.
-Mm -That it really is about streamlining. Part of why we were able to do what we did on solar is because it was streamlined, and the way it connects to the house is a certain way, so there's only so much review. A lot of it's packages and things like it's really very specific. But when you get into different communities, different houses, different things, it it it there is a range. And so, would time be would a way to tackle this be better spent on streamlining and making sure you have, kind of plug and play kind of deal so it is easier for cities or counties or whatever jurisdiction it says than it is in capping fees.
Because if you cap fees and that's what it costs to do it, those it doesn't go away. That burden goes somewhere else. So we would essentially subsidizing another part of that department to pay for this part of that department. And we're not I don't think that's the intention, is to subsidize this. It's to accurately capture the fees.
Right. And so I just wonder what your thoughts are on that. Had you thought about that as you were contemplating the cap? So I think just to clarify,
Redner 13
this is I would call it a soft cap because there is a way for them to charge more. Right? They can just do a letter of findings, a written finding on it, and explain why they need to charge more. So they
Redner 17
already do that. That's what I'm saying. That that's already you're making them do another they already have to explain their fees. Every time they do a fees estimate, they can't charge more.
Redner 13
For the fees estimate. I'm talking about, like, for the individual permitting.
Redner 17
Well, they set you know, so when you do it by when you do all of that, you're doing even, like you take into consideration what employee makes, the burden, the full burden, and that's how you set that department's hourly rate. That is public, a full process for it. Right.
Redner 13
But what I am talking about is I go to you and I say I need a permit. And you say, oh, this is really complicated and we need to bring in energy and this is gonna cost a lot of money. We can't just charge $500 for this permit plus kilowatt hours, whatever. But it's gonna cost a lot more than that for us to figure out how this works. You can do a written finding explaining why this is gonna cost more, and then you can charge more for that permit.
So it's it's on a case by case basis, but, certainly, counties or cities have the ability to charge much more if the the work justifies it, if they can just justify it. And so
Redner 17
guess they do justify There's flexibility there. Because they're gonna charge you two If it only took two hours to do that, you're gonna get charged the two hour rate plus whatever additional fees. If it took you ten hours because of whatever reason, I'm gonna give you the ten hours and the other fee. So that confuses me, but I will learn more from others. Like I said, I think the intent that you have, I'm 100% down with.
-Yeah. -It's just wondering the mechanics, and I recognize that you need time to figure that out. This is the legislative process. I ask for that time on my bills, too. Like, let's figure this out.
So I think where you're trying to head in terms of addressing this issue, makes sense to me.
Redner 17
-It's just the how, I think, a little bit more work needs to be done. But thank you for the conversation.
Redner 13
Thank you. And I just If I can clarify, it does apply correct myself. It does apply to all, but it's really targeted towards the level twos. That's what we're trying to especially get at.
Redner 17
see how that could be an Yeah. An issue with Sure. Every I single type of there's a lot.
Redner 17
matter the scale of being set at that and then having to do that process for everybody.
Redner 15
Thank you, assembly member Shiboh. And I wanna say I wanna thank assembly member Ronson for pretty much uplifting a lot of the concerns I have. And so I I've on the surface, I really think this is a wholesome bill. I I I think we we know wholeheartedly that we have to have more access to EV chargers, and it's something that we we're endeavoring to see happen throughout our state. With that said, I have concerns.
I feel I I guess it feels very arbitrary, this $100 cap, the $15 kilowatt. And I'm wondering where you came up with that formula because local governments are are typically not in the business of, you know, being profit centers. They typically have a fee schedule that is based on the cost to deliver fees. And so I I'm as I'm looking at the approach, you know, I'm I'm wondering why we didn't say, you know, it's capped at whatever the it cost to deliver the service. Asking a local government to have to justify each and every single time that because the fee doesn't fit something that we as a legislature came up with that's not even tied to CPI, not tied to inflate you know, inflation rates, just really seems like an inefficient way to run cities and county governments.
Redner 58
And I don't wanna create any additional burdens for local governments, although we are trying to do something good for the people who need access, to the chargers. But with that said, as we're thinking about every different every permit, is different because every land use, every every property may be different. Some may have electrical, where you're gonna need to bring in an electrical engineer. It's a different permit than just bringing in a you know, someone who's coming to make sure that things in the right place, you know, on the right wall, etcetera. And so I think as I'm reading this, I'm really concerned about how we came up with this cap and, how we may be actually passing the burden of someone else's electrical charger onto other people in in, you know, in the community by forcing them to subsidize someone else's electrical charger because we are not allowing government to charge what it costs to actually provide the service.
Redner 15
So I'm I'm happy to listen. I'm gonna continue to listen. If you can speak to any of that as far as, like, where you got $100 as the number and $15, you know, as the additional Yeah. Because I for me, I I'm a person who, like, if you can make it make sense, then Sure. I'm happy to support it.
But for for now, I'm really struggling with, you know, saying that public government is a profit center because, typically, the permits fees are based on staff time and, you know, what type of engineer, if they're using contractors, etcetera. So I'd love to hear more. Thank you.
Redner 13
Yeah. Absolutely. And I I I definitely wouldn't characterize for every permit. Now you're gonna have to write, you know, have written findings because as I said, most were well within what is being proposed here, but I'll turn it over to my witnesses to talk more about how this was arrived on.
Redner 38
Yeah. Chair and members, Reid Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, answering both your question and assembly member Wilson's question, I think it's easiest to go back and say that this is modeled off what the legislature did a number of years ago related to solar. And what was happening is you had these radically different prices from one jurisdiction to the next. What we were able to do is we were able to look at all the local governments, identify those price structures that seemed the most appropriate that the majority were charging, and the legislature chose to put that into statute. It provided a a schedule, if you will, of fees that became a determiner for local governments, especially those who were struggling with really high cost to realize how they needed to adjust their system and what the mark should be.
Now it's also important, which is also modeled off the way the legislature dealt with this under the solar, which this bill does, is it says you if you wanna change that amount, both the cap and the fee structure, you can do that. You don't have to do it for each permit. You have to do it for that class of permits. You just have to do that in a transparent way around that one particular fee so that we, the public, can also come to that hearing, talk about it, and maybe provide information on best management practices. Because there is we would argue, respectfully, there is fundamentally something wrong if one jurisdiction's charging $50 and another jurisdiction's charging 5,000.
So, therefore, we we've used data to look at these numbers, and we've modeled this off how you guys approached this under Solar about ten years ago.
Redner 13
And if I could sorry. Nate Solove is a technical expert from also from EBCA
Redner 15
who's working on solar. Can I can I ask this witness a question before you go? So when you say, you know, there's a difference, were you able to determine, like, was there a contractor for one? Maybe you don't have that person on staff. Like, were you able to determine?
Did you, like, dig into why one city was charging more? Did you ask them to itemize that versus another?
Redner 38
It is hard for me to speak to how each member of the association has to grapple with this. I know they they they definitely have relationships with local governments. It's it's concerning that we're even having to have a a a challenge here at a table like this because we we have to work with them to get these permits in the first place. We cannot come to you right now and say, here's an extensive review of how we've handled it in each and every one of these, local jurisdictions. There's different answers.
There's different ways they handle it. A lot of times, it's it was passed many, many years ago within a bundle of fees, and there wasn't a lot of information that explained why they picked that fee for this particular activity.
Redner 40
Yeah. And just to provide insight, Nate Sullivan with the electric vehicle charging association as well. Appreciate your questioning as well as member Wilson. So but we're we looked at the data from 2025 and and to the assembly member's point, you know, a lot of it does have to do with streamlining. Right?
Some jurisdictions have a checklist or an online portal where you can submit your application and pay your permit fee, and then you're able to go do the install, and then the city checks it after the fact to make sure everything's safe. Those are typically cheap and don't take a lot of time. Other jurisdictions for the same types of chargers are having to do, you know, plan check and a lot of engineering paperwork. And so there might be a lot of be more staff time involved, and it might take a lot longer and be more extensive because of the more staff time involved. And so that that's where you get this city by city dynamic where some might have a more bureaucratic process, which costs more money.
Redner 41
But, again, the bill does allow, you know, for those jurisdictions to still be able to recoup those costs just with a with a written finding. And and just to provide clarity, a lot of these installations are commercial installations. That's a $500 base, and then there's an escalator that allows that to increase depending on the size of the installation. So if you have more chargers, that could go up to a thousand or over $2,000. That that's still okay with the bill because there's that flexibility as part of the price cap.
Redner 28
Thank you. Kinda honing in on and building on some of the ransom's questions as well too. When we say that there's data out there, are you able to cite any cities right now that are able to keep their permit fees below a $100 for residential, 500 for commercial?
Redner 40
Yeah. So based on the 2025 data, we and, again, we wanna be respectful because as mentioned earlier, a lot of jurisdictions are doing a great job. Right. Some are charging more, so we don't wanna throw individual cities under the bus or anything, but we just there there are a lot of examples throughout the state of those who are charging under those thresholds in the bill and those who are charging over.
Redner 28
I mean, I guess I could ask, like, kinda both sides. It's, like, kinda question where it's, you know, okay. Well, like, you know, yeah. We've got enough real world examples right now that can kind of, like, show, like, you know, what a reasonable baseline should be. And where in practice, if you are thinking about, like, how to be able to provide, like, you know, that streamlined form, that, like, you know, online review process, whatever it is, that makes the cost cheaper.
And let's be honest, a lot of these systems are pretty well standardized. Maybe that's a different direction, like, you know, like future conversations go about better standardizing EV systems as well for purposes of local review. But, I mean, to those that are nervous for our local governments, I you could also beg the question, well, why would it be that much more expensive when a residential system, like, might just be, like, you know, what is it today, about $800 or so? Give or take 800, a thousand bucks, maybe cheaper if you got a second gen system. And so why would the fee be more than 10% of what it takes to actually purchase the unit in in the first place?
I think that's where, like, you know, things start to kind of it did it's reasonable to, like, you know, raise a question mark, especially in light of, that we are seeing, you know, maybe growing evidence here that other jurisdictions are able to get something to a reasonable cost fee cost recovery level. This is analogous to what we're might be having in larger conversations around just broad permit fees. Right? And how one jurisdiction might be charging, you know, $2,000 for a home to be able to offset parks fees, for example, but the next jurisdiction over is charging $20,000 a home. And they could both probably point to some kind of study and everything that they might have had some, you know, massaging of the math in those inputs to be able to arrive at a legal outcome that is able to produce that level of fees or something like that.
But it does cause you to step back and go, woah. Wait. Should there be, like, you know, an appropriate limit? So I I'm I'm sympathetic to that, and I, you know, would encourage, you know, as this bill continues to be able to use that data, because it can, I think, start to, like we've seen for solar, compel others to maybe look to their neighbor next door and say, well, how are you doing it in a more cost effective way and really, like, challenge them to be adopt and to be able to adopt themselves? I believe that there's not evidence out there that this is in the realm of the possible.
And so I'd like to be able to see this move forward as well to try to sort of push that. And I and I would encourage you to continue to work on questions to assembly member Wilson's point about, you know, standardization conversations.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member Ward. Assembly member Ruby, did you have a question?
Redner 32
Yes. Thank you. I'm listening to the conversation, and I just wanna referencing assembly member Wilson's comments about the different cities. I have two cities, the city of Azusa and the city of Glendora who are next to each other. I represent eight cities, and both of them charge differently.
So the city of Azusa charges a 140, and the city of Glendora charges a $178. Well, the first question is, who do they have to write the letter to? Who what what is the penalty for going above the $100 and who approves the because I think you in order to charge more, you could get you have to call and or I don't know, send a letter and you get a waiver. So what's the penalty for not doing it? Who do they have to do the letter for and who approves it?
That's number one. But, also, the city of Glendora does all of it in house. Azusa doesn't. And so is perhaps the difference is because some cities contract out and others don't because I you we belong to Contract Cities Association in in my area because a lot of my cities can't afford services. I'll give you an example.
The trash the sweepers, sweep some can afford it, so they do it in house and it's cheaper. And the other cities have to contract out. So that that's where I see the difference. Now mine are not 8,000 or whatever it is. You know, or and I would like to know which cities are charging the $8,000.
Could it be the more affluent communities? Do they have way more or less charging stations? I don't know how that would pan out, but both cities sent a letter of opposition because they charge more. So who do they have to write the letter to? Who approves it?
And what is the penalty if they don't?
Redner 38
Yeah. Thank you. The from our perspective and where the assembly member has how she's drafted the measure, we are not at all touching the authority for local governments. So they're the ones who would make the decision to change that fee. They would just have to go through a transparent public process to make that decision.
That's all we're saying is we're saying, here's a benchmark. Here's what we think that number should be. If in fact you're gonna charge more than that, we're just asking you to to discuss that at a within a public process to adjust that fee and adopt that locally.
Redner 27
Okay. So so then what happens if they just the $8,000 person does the public know, they go through the public process, then what? And then the public's like, you know, a lot of cities don't have much participation in city I know water districts don't, but for the you know, let's assume that they don't have participation and they say it's $8,000. So that's all they have to do, and then what hap I you see what I'm saying? What I'm saying is, you know, I I understand why you're doing it, but if it's unenforceable, and and if it is, who does the enforcement?
Redner 38
Yeah. I completely understand the question, assembly member. And I I think this bill isn't a mandate, and it's not forcing action at the local government level. If they wanna have a public meeting, it does allow organizations that are members of our association, maybe others in the state, to actually go show up and talk about best management practices, maybe challenge to them at least in a public setting as to why they have such a high rate. But ultimately, if they do decide to go in with that higher rate, they've at least gone through this process and, had a transparent process and adopted that.
It would be unfortunate, but this bill doesn't mandate that change.
Redner 32
Right. I mean, right. They were as exact it's a $178.20. I mean, that's how much they manage, you know, their their permitting process that you know, to the penny. So, again, it just feels like we're doing it, but if it's not enforceable, it's not a mandate, then what do we get out of it?
Right? That's my kind of the the overlapping question.
Redner 32
I'm always against PRAs. Always. But the point is, right, like, so so, you know, my city's cared enough to send, you know, the the the letter, and I and as somebody member Wilson, I have eight cities, and these two happen to be right next to each other as well. So that's the that's the question. Right?
So, I mean, I I understand the intent, but if it's not gonna go anywhere, then, you know
Redner 13
Well, hopefully, it does. I mean, as, you know, as we said, most of the most of the ones that they looked at from 2025 were under this. And so I think to the to point what
Redner 13
for the reason. Publicly saying that, but if you wanna Well, I mean privately talk to sponsors about it.
Redner 13
I there's Southern California. Almost all of them are Southern California except for one Northern California city. Two. Two Northern California cities. So a lot lot
Redner 13
mean the difference is under this rate were in Southern California, and then all but two And I think this was given to offices. So hopefully, you guys should have it, but we can pass it around if you need more of them too to look at examples.
Redner 1
Anybody else? So I've been waiting to put my 2¢ into this. Before you close Mhmm. I fully support this bill, and I think that we need to do even more. Let me tell you why.
I work for four different cities in the city planning by profession. I did these processes in the planning department for different cities, for different fees. You know how much longer it took me from city to city to review a plan like this? Same amount of time. So cities, in my humble opinion, they set their fee structure based on what they believe is gonna cost for them to review a plan, but it also has to do with cities believing that they're better than other cities.
Mhmm. The political will is what really sets the the mood for how this fee structure works. Mhmm. They do fee studies. They look at what other cities are doing.
Redner 4
And in some to some extent, the the way that they do this fee studies is to see how much more revenue they can collect from fees, from any from all kinds of fees. As a consumer, as a person that went through the permitting process to install an electric vehicle charging station at a residence at my mom's house, We need to do even more because the conversation here has been about what the charges are for these cities to review the plans. What is really even more concerning is that cities require that anybody that wants to add a charging station for a for a separate electric meter, like Edison allows you to have a separate electric meter dedicated to a charging station for a lower rate than they used to do that. I don't know if they used to do it. But in order for you to get your permit to install a separate electric meter, you have to get an address.
Redner 1
Utilities send you a bill based on the address that is provided to a utility meter, in this case being Edison and electric separate electric meter. Mhmm. LA County, do you have any idea how much they charge to issue you an address so that Edison can give you a bill? $800 just to get a an address issued to you to be able to have a separate electric meter so that you can have a discounted kilowatt for electric vehicle charging. On top of that, they want you to hire an electrical engineer to design the plan for you to get a building permit.
So I did that. I did it because I wanted to show them that this is what is happening. $800 to get an address. I had to hire an electrical engineer to design the plan. That's another $2,000 to be able to save on the gas pump.
Yeah. So, again, my my point to this is that being urban employee processing these type of permits, for different cities, in my experience, for different fees. Getting the permit through Edison, through LA County is just an enormous account amount of money that those that wanna have an electric vehicle have to go through. Now mind you, this is single family. For multifamily, commercial, those you know, for electric vehicle charging stations and parking lots, that's even much, much higher.
My point in sharing this with you is because the discussion that I was listening to, very interesting. But at the end of the day, those that want to have an electric vehicle and be able to save money by charging it at home, again, I'm gonna be clear, through a separate electric meter, not through the same electric meter that you have, it's $34,000.
Redner 1
Not to count the time that it takes to go through that permitting process. Anyway, seeing no other comments, would you like to close? Thank
Redner 13
you, mister chair, and members for the robust discussion. You know, I think the the chair handled my closing really well. Four different cities, same amount of work, completely different charges. And that's really what we're trying to get to at. And I understand, you know, the the conversation around streamlining, and I think there's more work to be done in that space.
And, hopefully, through this bill passing, it will also force conversations around streamlining. There are easier ways to do things. You can do things with a checklist. I mean, I when I got my, I just had to swap out an an an outlet. It was $2,500 to put charging into my garage.
And I already had a dryer outlet. It was just the wrong plug. You know? So so it really is it's a huge financial barrier, and we're talking so much about affordability right now and ways to bring down the cost and, you know, moving to EVs and and zero emissions. And this is, I think, a really important part of making sure that we can do that affordably.
And, you know, as as I said, it's really kind of a soft cap because there are ways to charge more for more kilowatt hours, ways to do a finding to allow for charging more. So so it's it's not a hard cap. It's not, you know, limiting local governments when their costs truly justify higher higher charges. And and I think that we try to strike that balance with this bill and would respectfully request an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. We need a motion and a second, I believe. Motion by assembly member Ward. A second by assembly member Stephanie. Thank you for your work to help ensure the permit fees do not pose a barrier to the deployment of EV charging stations.
I will be voting aye. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number seven a b eighteen twenty, the motion is due passed and re referred to Committee on Appropriations. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Not group Rubio not voting. Stephanie? I. Stephanie, I. Ward?
I. Ward? I. Wilson? I.
Wilson, I.
Redner 13
Okay. Onto an issue everyone loves, childcare. Thank you so much, mister chair and members. I am proud to be authoring a b nineteen fourteen this year, which will require local governments to include childcare in their planning efforts. I wanna thank the chair, and committee consultant for working with me on this bill.
I accept the committee amendments, and, you know, affordable access to childcare supports a child's healthy development, ensures parents can go to work or school, and helps businesses and our economy thrive. But millions of American families are struggling to find the affordable, reliable, quality child, child care that they depend on. And although California has made significant investments in child care in recent years, largely thank you to the women's caucus, woot woot, the supply demand gap persists. One in seven children are eligible for services who actually receive those services. This means over 1,800,000 children are eligible but not receiving services.
Without access to child care support, a single mother of an infant of a school aged child in California will spend on average 61% of her income on child care. As the cost of living continues to rise and threats to cut funding from federal government continue, we are only faced with additional barriers in child care. That's why it's increasingly important to examine child care accessibility as communities plan for growth and infrastructure needs. To address the state's child care crisis, all levels of government must be involved in prioritizing planning for their community's child care needs. Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address child care accessibility, a b nineteen fourteen is a promising strategy to promote greater consistency and consideration of child care in the earlier stages of local planning while preserving local discretion.
Requiring local governments to develop a child care plan is crucial. It supports economic development by enabling workforce participation. It attracts families and talents, promotes healthier family friendly communities, and aligns land use with community needs, ensuring equitable access, reducing traffic by integrating childcare facilities near homes, jobs, and transportation. We saw from the fires in Los Angeles that it's also critical to include child care and disaster planning and resilience strategies to ensure children are cared for before, during, and after disasters so that they can have access to safe, healthy learning environments. With me today is Shelly Mazer, vice president of ECE Advisory and State Policy at the Low Income Investment Fund, and also the honorable Lisa Gaucher, who is Santa Mateo County supervisor.
Thank you.
Redner 59
Good afternoon, chair Carrillo, committee members, and staff. I'm doctor Shelly Mazur. As assembly member said, I'm the vice president of advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIP is a national community development financial institution with the vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being. We seek to achieve that vision by investing in affordable housing and childcare facilities as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure and make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and provide stability for families.
Redner 45
We are very pleased to sponsor a v nineteen fourteen to ensure cities and counties recognize the role childcare facilities play in communities and to that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan. We are grateful to assembly member Schiavo for authoring this bill, to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls for cosponsoring, and to the staff for working with us. As a former city council member myself, I'm committed helping build communities by building supply of child care. We believe that like housing, child care supply building requires planning and that cities and counties can support that through including child care in their general plans or by creating a separate child care plan. Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis that is exacerbated by lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding.
We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB nineteen fourteen offers one by engaging cities and counties in further planning for the needs of their community by planning for child care. My own city, Redwood City, has included child care in their general plan since 2010 as the city continued to plan for growth in both housing and in its economic base. This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build child care, rather to work with the community to plan for and support child care facilities and programs. Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of child care through work with cities.
Planning for child care is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support.
Redner 46
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Lisa Gaucher. I served on East Palo Alto City Council for twelve years serving as mayor and vice mayor three times each.
Currently, I'm serving as a county supervisor in San Mateo County, and more importantly, I'm a proud grandmother of a five year old grandson. And it is from this perspective that I speak in support of a b nineteen fourteen. Every day in San Mateo County, I see how deeply childcare access affects the stability and well-being of our families. Parents are navigating long wait list, high cost, and limited availability. Providers are doing everything they can to meet demand, but the need far outpaces the supply.
And the children, our youngest learners, are the ones who feel the impact most directly. AB nineteen fourteen addresses this challenge in a practical and forward, looking way. The bill requires cities and counties to plan for child care needs as part of their general plan updates. This ensures that child care is not treated as an afterthought, but as a core component of community planning just like housing, transportation, and public safety. In San Mateo County, we have already seen the benefits of integrating childcare into our broader planning efforts.
We have worked to expand early learning centers near transit, supported family childcare homes, and partnered with employers who understand that childcare access is essential to a strong workforce. AB nineteen fourteen aligns with this work and extends the principles statewide. For me, this issue is also personal. When
Redner 2
look at my grandson, I think about the world he's growing up in and the responsibility we have to building communities where every child has the opportunity to thrive. Quality childcare is foundational to that vision. It supports healthy development, strengthens families, and contributes to economic stability. AB nineteen fourteen helps ensure that every city and county in in California is planning intentionally for the child care infrastructure families rely on. It is a thoughtful, necessary step forward creating up creating communities where children and parents can succeed.
Redner 46
And for this reason, I respectfully ask your support in a b nineteen fourteen.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else wants to add in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 47
Hello. Sarah Papps here on behalf of the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and we are a proud cosponsor of this bill. Thank you.
Redner 48
Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment representing over 90 California based CDFIs in support.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support. Thank you.
Redner 44
Hello. Megan Barvey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Association of Microenterprise Opportunity in support.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Lauren Day Valencia representing the American Planning Association. Our organization did take an oppose unless amended on the bill as it was introduced, not to the notion that we shouldn't be planning for childcare in our communities, but it is the metric by which we do that. Planners right now are being asked to plan for a lot with very little resources. And so for us, it's really how can we implement this and meet the spirit of the the laws it's intended.
So we really appreciate working with the sponsors, with your committee, with the author's office to provide flexibility for how planners can meet those goals. That fits within the construct of how they're working through their general plans or other planning documents. So appreciate all the work. And with the amendments, we'll be removing opposition. Thank you very much.
Redner 42
Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, rural county representative of California. I would like to align our comments with APA and removing our opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Anybody else in plain opposition? Seeing nobody coming up. Committee members, comments, questions? Assembly member Ransom and then assembly member Stephanie.
Redner 15
again. Alright. So first of all, you brought great witnesses. I appreciate hearing, you know, their passion and and their desire for this. A lot of you know I'm fiercely protective of how we make decisions that impact local government.
Most of my time in local government was spent in planning. And some of my concerns or questions, I should first, I'm gonna ask questions for witnesses. Supervisor Gaucher, when you talk about how your community has, made worked to enhance child care, is that through a general plan, is that just generally being receptive of ensuring that, you know, we make space and we provide support or is that, like, through a general plan effort? Can you can you talk a little bit more about that?
Redner 46
I think that is really just through not the general plan update, but the fact that childcare is important to and and lack thereof is a barrier to many families participating in the innovation economy. So Oh, yeah. There are cities that are already on the forefront that are doing the work because they realize the importance of having childcare for parents to be able to to work.
Redner 15
Thank you. And for I'm sorry. Can you talk a little bit? You said that your city has been including child care in the general plan since 2010. Mhmm.
Can you talk a little bit about how that looks? Is it where is it, you know, kind of, like, deciding that these are where child cares can go? Or is it putting, you know, so many child cares in certain places? How exactly have you adopted that as part of the general plan?
Redner 45
Yeah. Thanks for the question. So for Redwood City, it has a separate it's essentially a separate element Okay. That is about children and youth, and it includes planning for childcare within there. Oh.
So in the same way, it's recognizing the needs for childcare as
Redner 15
Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. So that that makes a lot of sense when you're talking about, like, the pudding as an element. And so as I'm looking at this and really thinking through how you're planning a community, I feel very strongly that the way general plans already work with, like, zoning for, you know, where you could have such things is in existence.
And so I wanna make sure that we're not doing something that, you know, is requiring general plans are very intensive processes already, and I I just wanna make sure that we're not doing something that is unnecessary. Also, the the way child care what we're looking at with child care now, you know, schools are involved in child care, and we're seeing a lot of schools because, these last couple of generations are not having children as much as previous generations. We're literally seeing schools give back properties that, school districts have properties that were intended to build schools giving back schools. We're seeing that childcare childcare are having problems filling, you know, seats. But at the same time, just the way child cares are businesses, we have home day cares where, you know, the communities it's community licensing that decides how that works.
And then people put commercial child cares or the larger scale child cares in the areas of need, and that's typically based on zoning. So I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's if it's more onerous or more I guess I'm trying to figure out if there's gonna be more work on the general plan when we already have the ability to do you know, to plan for child care in the communities. And and so that's not saying that we don't, you know, love our children. I'm I'm just the general plan is the the community's, like, business document, and child care is very much based on family planning. We have you know, parks are planned in communities, and lots of things that deal with children are already in the general plan.
And so I'm, I guess, I'm thinking out loud here about, like, the need to add more elements and, requirements for the general plan. And so I'm just gonna continue to listen like I did last time. I'm gonna continue to listen, but I just wanted to share, you know, my my thoughts about the the need for this bill.
Redner 13
Yeah. If I if I could respond. I mean, I think the 1,800,000 people kids who are on a wait list demonstrates quite a bit of need. And so I understand the trajectory that you're talking about we're going in, but that's decades, you know, to to get to the point where we don't we have the the child care that we need. I'll give you one example.
Redner 16
My community, there's a ten year build out plan to build 20,000 homes in the city of Santa Clarita, and no childcare in that community, that part of community. Many families, those their family homes, mostly single family homes being built with children. And so, you know, as in as with a number of things that we do, if we if we wanna see results around issues facing women or communities of color, disability community, or whatever it may be, there has to be intentionality around it for that to happen a lot of times and to bring those folks into conversation that need to be a part of the conversation. So while there is a robust process that already happens, I I would I would bet that in most most of those processes, they're not bringing in child care providers and talking to them about what could help you, you know, the child care providers create more child care in these communities where we are building and bringing people into our community, or or what is even what are even the basics of how many kids are in our community and, you know, what's a reasonable amount of child care we need in our community to address that need, and identifying what the gaps are and how and people bringing people together.
Redner 13
And I think sometimes part of the solutions it doesn't require building childcare as was stated, but part of the solution that happens is also just bringing these people together and having those conversations that haven't been had as well in this in this space and on this issue specifically. And we hope that that would lead to more childcare in communities where they need it.
Redner 15
So I appreciate that. And so that's what, like, family resources and referrals is for, is to, like, educate and build, and we just really did a lot of work to refund that. I'm I'm trying to understand how the general plan would fill the 1,800,000 in child care. So in building when you're talking about homes and build building homes, we just built there's, like, 20,000 homes for being built in my district. We build them thinking that families are going to have children, and so we built schools Mhmm.
That are underpopulated. So then what does the state do now? We have TK. Right? And so now TK is affecting childcare.
And so I'm just really trying to figure out how this solves the problem with the the Mhmm. The childcare because this is not as I'm reading this, this is not low income childcare. This is not city or state funded childcare. And so I'm just trying to I'm just trying
Redner 13
to It's not it does not include that. Right. Right? And and it sounds like your community did take this into consideration. But I I'll defer to my witness who's gone gone through this process herself.
Redner 46
Thank you. Again, so for San Mateo County, we did some listening sessions. And in each part of the county that I went in, there were families who could not some peep some parents were walking away from work because of the the cost of childcare or not having childcare. I heard one mother describe childcare as Tetris. Like, she how how she were gonna she had two children.
So it is an an issue, and it's not something that is formally in cities taken care of. If you work shift work, where is the child care for those who are working shift work as well? So I think in this is just trying to figure out how do we take care of our most vulnerable residents, those are our children, and ensuring that there's child care so that parents can continue to work and then live a stable life.
Redner 15
But what you're what you but what you just talked about had nothing to do with a general plan. Right? It did not. Okay. That's all.
I'm just wanna be clear. I love children, y'all. I am supporting all the I'm just trying to understand what this has to how this belongs in the general plan. Thank you.
Redner 25
Thank you, Jared. I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward, and I really wanna welcome, supervisor Gaucher. It is so great to see you there. As you know, I represent, the West Side Of San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County, so it's just, really nice to see you advocating for something I believe in. And, you know, I sat on the board of supervisors in San Francisco for seven and a half years.
And, you know, I a general plan is a city's blueprint for how it is going to make decisions on how it develops and the needs of the city. And it lays out policy goals that really guide decisions about land use. And I think it's really important that child care be part of that conversation. And when I was on the board of supervisors, I worked with developers on special use districts to develop certain plots of land. And the developer put forward a proposal for about 540 units of housing and office space.
Redner 52
And I knew office space wasn't really where we were headed in San Francisco as something that was necessary. Instead, I worked with that developer based on my own personal thoughts about what San Francisco needed to add to the project, would result in 744 units of housing, and it would include affordable housing for seniors and a child care center in that same center for the seniors. And that was based on what Catherine Stephanie thought, You know, based on probably that I'm part of the sandwich generation. I'm taking care of elderly parents, and I have children of my own. But a general plan would help guide people that aren't necessarily thinking like Catherine Stephanie in my position to work with developers to know that if we're going to develop certain areas of land within our districts, there's 11 districts in in San Francisco.
Redner 25
I was the supervisor of District 2. What are we what are we supposed to be looking at? What's guiding us? What policies are guiding us as we work with developers, as we as we develop develop in agreements around special use districts? So for me, to basically come down and say, as part of the general plan, you better include childcare.
You better think about schools. You better think about the things that we need as a city to take care of our citizens, and childcare should be at the very forefront of that. So I, love this bill. I would love to be added as a coauthor if I'm not already, if you're still taking them. Yeah.
And, I will be voting eye on this today.
Redner 4
Thank you, chair. I want to agree with the author. I think whether you love or hate childcare because of the cost, you we all have a an affiliation with childcare. For me oh, and thank you to the council member and supervisor. It's really nice to see you up here advocating for something and working together.
I myself sat thirteen years at local government as mayor of my city. So general plans are hard, they're expensive, and they're long, and there's a lot of work that goes into it. So I'm struggling in full transparency to understand why we if they already have the authority, and I my colleague across the way here mentioned I believe there's seven elements in a general panel if I'm recalling correctly. I wasn't a planner, but I believe there are seven elements we are is that correct? Yes.
Okay. There are seven elements we already call for. And so I worry that adding this in is unfunded it becomes an unfunded mandate for cities. Right? And then the other part to that so you take the funding requirement and the flexibility away from local control.
And I heard you say we're bringing the conversation, but we're forcing a mandate. We're not really bringing them to the conversation. So we are eroding local control. But all that to say, one of the other big issues I wanted to flag, maybe you can help me with this if you've experienced it, we're adding a a new zoning, basically, and we're calling
Redner 4
No longer a in the general plan, but it's still required in the amendments.
Redner 13
Yeah. And the one requirement that we did maintain is just around emergency planning, and I think that's you know, we've really seen how this has devastated the the child care community through the wildfires in Southern California, And so, I wanted to make sure that that's a part of the conversation, but that's the one thing that's pulled out.
Redner 45
the requirement of planning for child care in one of two ways, by incorporating
Redner 45
That's it it's a much pared down version. The original version that you talked about had a
Redner 4
lot to your point, had a long list of areas, different elements that it had to
Redner 4
the planning association and California's association of counties. We, we, came to this broader way that cities could have
Redner 4
did wanna just note is, if a city has already included child care in their general plan or they have a child care plan, they can certify that they've met this requirement.
Redner 45
So they wouldn't be required to redo something that has already been done.
Redner 4
But we're still requiring them with enforcement to have a plan is what ultimately what we're getting Ultimately, the goal is that every city would have a plan for child care. Yes. Okay. Do we have any examples of maybe where or evidence that this approach is, like, increased or decreased affordability? Have we seen this anywhere else that we could point to or look to for data and metrics of success?
Redner 45
And the complexity of child care affordability, you you can't. It couldn't be measured just by inclusion in a general plan, but what I can say is that in cities where they have included planning for childcare, they have been able to be intentional about the growth of childcare to meet the needs of a community as the community is changing. Okay.
Redner 42
I come I know, you know, we're thinking holistically for the entire state of California. My area, Riverside County, is one of the largest commuting regions in the state. 60 to 90 is the minimum people are traveling. So whether it's my county or someone else's county, childcare is an issue. I so I understand that this this is a conversation everyone's talking about, but distance, timing, and cost of living to the new homes that we talked about, the 20,000 new homes or however many single family residents are approved in your community, that really isn't the determining factor because that doesn't mean childcare is gonna happen in your area.
Redner 4
Especially in an area like mine where we've got all these approved homes and people are not, children are not having child care provided if it's not at the school site. Right? So I'm really struggling. I'm trying to understand. I appreciate your questions, I think, or your answers to my questions.
I think that what's most important, especially here, is that we always are removing barriers for local government, not adding more barriers for them. I think you all know because you're working that firsthand. But I don't wanna make the problem any worse. If you've been through a general plan amendment, it's years. Mhmm.
And I I find this to be really hard to just say, well, we're gonna hope that they plan. No. We're mandating and we're unfunding we're we're doing an unfunded mandate. So I appreciate the time for the conversation. Yeah.
Redner 17
I'll be brief. I don't have any comments. I think childcare is extremely important. I've been working with the developers on figuring out how to make sure we can incentivize it when we do a master plan development. I just you had made a comment, and I just wanted clarity on that, and I think it helps this actual conversation helps because I think it has to do with the amends versus not amends.
You talked about the separate elements. And so the, so this is I'm looking at you, but I'm also looking at the chair. So the, the original bill had a a thought to to add or adjust five of the seven. That no longer exists now. And so it is just a an inclusion or a separate element within the the general plan.
And if, a city or jurisdiction already has incorporated childcare, they do nothing except certify, and then anybody else has this window between 2028 and 2032 or 2033 to actually do that at a time when you would normally update your plan so anybody would have to then include this element. Okay. I think that was all I needed. Thank you.
Redner 1
And the idea to put 2028 was because cities are required to do their housing or or the arena cycle again. Mhmm. Anybody else? We have a motion on a second. The only question I have is what is gonna be the fee to open up a daycare?
Redner 13
Know, thank you for the the conversation. I think it you know, certainly, we have to do difficult things sometimes when it's important. And I think this is one of the things that is really important for, you know, know seeing what child care costs, especially in the Bay Area. I mean, it can be it's more than your mortgage. And so the the affordability crisis around child care is serious, and people absolutely I when I lived in the Bay Area, we made a choice for my spouse not to work because it did not make any sense for for him to work and not be able to basically make more than the child care was gonna cost.
So this is hugely impactful in people's lives, hugely impactful on our economy. And we need to make sure that there is real intentionality and thoughtfulness that goes into making sure that we have the child care that's needed. And I think part of that is looking at where is it needed. Right? Is it needed closer to work?
Is it needed closer to home? I mean, those are all parts of this conversation that needs to happen, and it has but that conversation has to happen, and that planning has to happen, and it's it's just it's not mostly, except for some really wonderful people who have led the charge. So so I I we I I hope we hope that this really can make a difference on solving this huge one of the most important issues facing families right now is how to access childcare, how to be able to afford childcare. And we really hope that this helps communities get to that answer. So, appreciate, again, the committee and the chair's support in the amendments, and really appreciate an I vote today.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Well, thank you, assembly member and your staff, for working with the committee to address concerns that we had. I appreciate your commitment to the issue and with the committee amendments that will be supporting your bill. We do have a motion by assembly member Wilson, a second by Pacheco. The motion is due pass as amended to the Human Services Committee. Please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number eight a b nineteen fourteen, the motion is due pass and re refer to committee on do pass as amended and re refer to committee on human services. Curio?
Redner 18
Curio? Aye. Ta? Johnson? No.
Johnson? No. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Ramos? Ramos, I. Ransom? Rubio?
Aye. Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I.
Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Wilson?
Redner 1
Sorry. Assembly member Hartwig, thank you for your patience. Thank you. How
Redner 49
you so much, mister chair. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this issue, making energy more affordable for hardworking Californians. I appreciate your collaboration, and I accept the committee's amendments. Most utility company customers are billed monthly for energy use. While this billing system works well for many households, it can create burdens for residents who may struggle with unexpected bills or sudden charges and fees.
Redner 47
This financial hardship can lead to delinquency and, in worst cases, power being shut off. Even for a short suspension period, the fees and start the fees to start and stop service can be financially crippling for low income residents and seniors living on fixed incomes or irregular incomes. Assembly bill nineteen forty five provides a simple solution. This bill allows customers served by Lassen Municipal Utilities District to prepare for electricity, applying a credit to their account, which is billed on on a pay as you go basis. Most importantly, a customer using the prepayment option under this bill could would not be subject to expensive start and stop service fees.
Redner 49
If a customer runs out of their credit, they can simply add more to their balance without paying costly fees. The option also allows seasonal residents to make to more carefully manage energy energy usage. Customers in Lassen County have specifically asked for this alternative billing option. Under this bill, traditional billing options are still available, and participation in the program is voluntary. The bill also protects ratepayers from establishing key consumer protections relating to billing, information sharing, and balance and suspension alerts.
AB nineteen forty five expands consumer choice, protects ratepayers, and cut cuts costly fees for low income residents and seniors in Lassen County. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by Lassen municipal utility district general manager, Nicholas Dominguez.
Redner 18
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and committee members for allowing me to speak to you this afternoon in support of a b nineteen forty five. I'm Nick Dominguez, general manager of Lassen Municipal Utility District and proud sponsor of the bill. We are a small municipal utility district that serves electricity to about 11,000 customers in Lassen County, and we're governed by a locally elected board of directors. The district was formed in 1986 when Lassen County voters, Lassen County citizens voted to take control of electricity service out of the hands of the investor owned utility that served them at that time and instead provide service themselves.
Redner 50
AB nineteen forty five is an amendment to what we call the municipal utility district act, the enabling legislation that allowed for the formation of our district and governs how we operate. This amendment aims to modernize the statute allowing for customers to opt in to electronic notifications related to electric service suspension and disconnection. Current statute does not allow for customers to opt in to exclusively receiving these notifications, which creates unnecessary costs for us related to printing and mailing of these notifications. Additionally, the proposed amendments add a section to the add a section to the code allowing the district to create the the prepaid program to provide more flexible billing and payment options for our customers. Prepaid programs for electric service are common in the utility industry, including at other, California public utilities formed under different sections of the public utilities code.
This new prepaid program, which will first be adopted by the Lassen MED board of directors at a public hearing, will eliminate late fees, disconnect fees, and eliminate the need for customer deposits and contribute to better and more affordable access to energy for our customers. Importantly, these amendments do not remove any customer protections, but instead allow us to provide our customers with more options to manage their energy usage. Thank you for your time. We respectfully ask for your
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room who wants to add on in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 51
Good afternoon, chair and members. Derek Dolphy on behalf of California Municipal Utilities Association here in support. Thank you.
Redner 51
Good afternoon. Shane Levine, Northern California Power Agency in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? Seeing none, taking it back to committee members. Any comments, questions, committee members?
Seeing no other comments or questions, would you like to close?
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you, assembly member, for presenting today, and thank you for working with the committee on the amendments. With the amendments, that will be taken in the Utilities and Energy Committee due to timing, I will be supporting your bill. We do have a motion, by Johnson, second by Pacheco. The motion is due passed to the Utilities and Energy Committee.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 10 a b nineteen forty five, the motion is due passed and re refer to committee on utilities and energy. Curio? Aye. Curio, aye. Ta?
Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Redner 18
Ramos, aye. Ransom? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I.
Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, Ward? Aye. Ward, I.
Wilson?
Redner 1
Seven zero, the bill is set. We'll build the leave the call open for others to add on. Congratulations. Thank you.
Redner 1
Next item on the agenda is item number 12, a b twenty seventy four by assembly member Haney. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 33
Alright. Thank you, mister chair and members. Pleased to present AB twenty seventy four, the Downtown Revitalization Act, address two overlapping challenges, California's housing shortage and our struggling downtowns, many of which have yet to recover from the COVID nineteen pandemic. It'll create a streamlined ministerial pathway for high rise, mixed income housing, and transit rich centers. The bill focuses on a small number of the state's largest cities with the populations over 400,000 and major, transit stops.
Redner 63
Other cities may opt into the bill, allowing them to designate a regional transit hub. District and access the bill's financing tool to attract downtown developments. Within these districts, it will establish land use controls to allow how high rise housing, including minimum standards for high density floor area ratio appropriate for downtowns. Notably, most of the cities affected by this bill already have high density downtown zones, so this bill will not be a huge deviation from a land use perspective, but will provide some important tools around streamlining and financing. The bill applies the same affordability requirements, anti displacement protections, and labor standards as s b four twenty three.
Redner 33
This will also establish a state backed revolving loan fund administered by CalHFA, which is pursued through a broader budget request to provide low cost financing. These are loans, not grants, that are repaid and recycled to support additional developments over time. We have been working with opposition and and stakeholders, we will continue to. And here to testify with me today are Mohammad Al Meldin Meldin? Yeah.
Close my close my my from California Yimbi, one of the bill sponsors, and Leslie Ridings from the Downtown LA, Residence Association and our other, sponsors also, the state building trades.
Redner 29
Hello. Oh, the chair and members of the committee. My name is Mohammed El Naldin. I'm the senior policy adviser for California Yimbi, proudly here to speak in support of AB twenty seventy four. This bill would help revitalize California's major downtowns by catalyzing high rise building housing, good union jobs, and more street level businesses.
Redner 52
We know that changing work patterns have hit downtowns particularly hard and that housing is the most powerful tool we have to bring them back to life. Transit rich downtowns of major cities are a place where we could really go big on addressing California's housing shortage. AB twenty seventy four combines land use streamlining standards to ensure high rise building is possible, streamlines permitting to protect it from delays, labor standards to support workforce development, and low cost financing to get these projects off the ground. It applies to seven large transit rich cities, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, and Sacramento. It gives those cities flexibility to designate exactly where this bill is going to apply, and other cities could opt in if they wanna join.
Why would they opt in? Because the low cost revolving loan fund in this bill is such a powerful tool to catalyze sustained investment in downtown regrowth. Because of the way these the loans are structured, a b twenty seventy four will leverage private capital, magnify its impact. And because those loans revolve back into the fund, it is a onetime commitment from the legislature, and the money is appropriated in this bill returns to the taxpayers and revolves for however long the legislature sees fit. AB twenty seventy four adds a powerful new tool to California's efforts to address the housing shortage, employs thousands of residents, and brings people and businesses back to our cities.
California's downtowns built this state. A b twenty seventy four helps build them back. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 3
Alright. Chair and members, thank you. My name is Leslie Ridings, founder and board member of Downtown Los Angeles Residence Association. Downtown LA is home to 90,000 residents. It's the largest downtown residential community in California.
We represent about 3,500 of them, and I'm here on behalf of them to speak in strong support of AB twenty seventy four. I come to Sacramento because I love my community, and I believe our urban core is the most promising and equitable places to build housing. DTLA
Redner 3
where transit, jobs, services, culture, and civic life all come together. And when people can build a life in a downtown, they aren't just getting a home, they're getting access to real opportunities. In Los Angeles, a region that's often defined by vast expanses, exclusion, and the crushing cost of car dependence, downtown is different. You don't need a car. I don't have one.
Redner 44
You can walk to cafes, stores, and get to know your neighbors in a real community. Downtown is already zoned and planned for high density growth. We just with the infrastructure to add young families, retirees, and everybody in between. Residents want more density, and we want more neighbors. But without a financing environment that allows housing to get built, downtown will remain caught between great potential and visible disinvestment with empty lots instead of homes, installed projects instead of neighbors.
Redner 3
AB twenty seventy four helps close that gap. By supporting high rise housing near transit, the bill helps create more homes where it does the most good and where it makes more most sense, not by pushing people further out, but by bringing people back to the heart of our city. It helps downtown welcome more people, supports more businesses, and build stronger communities without displacement risks. Downtown development also complements affordable housing. More homes help ease price pressure.
Increasing supply of multifamily housing can offer lower cost class rentals and homeownership opportunities. The real threat to affordability is failing to build in neighborhoods like mine, places that are hungry and ready for growth. AB twenty seventy four is a practical investment and brighter future. It's pro housing, it's pro transit, it's pro labor, and it's pro opportunity. On behalf of Downtown Los Angeles residents, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Help us welcome new neighbors and help Downtown Los Angeles recover and thrive. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else wants to add on? Please, state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 10
Thank you, mister chair members. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council. Proud to be cosponsors of this legislation, and we would ask for your support. Thank you.
Redner 53
Mister chair members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of Abundant Housing LA and Circulate San Diego also in support. Thank you.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition. Strong support.
Redner 31
Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of housing that's affordable to low income people, and we strongly support the goal of this bill and respect the off author's efforts to revitalize downtown areas. However, we must regrettably oppose a b twenty seventy four in its current form. We believe that the bill will likely largely result in the state subsidizing market rate housing since high rise buildings are the most expensive projects because of their complexity.
Redner 54
We question whether limited government resources should be dedicated to building housing that will be out of reach for the average California family. While we support a comprehensive state policy that allows housing to be built at all income levels, We do not believe that market rate housing should require state subsidy. At a time when the state is facing a structural deficit, CHC believes that state investment should be used to support California's lowest income residents. Additionally, while we support downtown revitalization, to us, that also means investing in jurisdictions of all sizes. The fund this bill targets the funds in this bill, target our largest urban cores, further aggravating regional economic disparities.
We look forward to continuing conversations with the author and sponsors, but at this time, we must respectfully, oppose.
Redner 1
Thank you. We're having a crisis here. My phone needs to be charged. Anybody else in the room that wants to add in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. Not in opposition, but do you have concerns related to the revolving loan portion of the bill? We also believe that limited public funds should be used to subsidize homes for low income Californians, not mostly market rate housing, but have appreciated conversations with the author's office today and look forward to continuing them. Thank you.
Redner 6
Good afternoon, mister chairman members. Scott Iwonakoff with California Bit Property Association. We have concerns with how this might lead to additional residential and traditionally industrial zone areas that could trigger a b 98 buffer requirements. So something just to look into and consider the unintended consequences. We'll be looking deeper at the legislation to take position.
Redner 1
Thank you. With that, back to committee members. Comments? Questions? Yeah.
We have a motion and a second. Nobody else. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member, for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting your bill. We have a first by Pacheco, second by Stephanie. The motion is due passed to the National Resources Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 12 a b twenty seventy four, the motion is due passed and re referred to Committee on Natural Resources. Curio?
Redner 18
Ta not voting. Johnson? Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye.
Pacheco, I. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, I. Ransom?
Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie, Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Wilson?
Redner 1
The bill is South 61, and we'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. Congress. And you do have another bill?
Redner 33
Yes. Speak quick. Yeah. This is AB twenty three zero eight, San Francisco's Transit Neighborhood Act. We'll help ensure the completion of a critical transit oriented development project in Downtown San Francisco by extending an existing financing tool tied to the Trans Bay program to allow the use of an already approved tax increment financing from former state owned parcels to continue for an additional twenty five years from 2050 to 2075.
This is not a new tax, and it has not changed the structure of the program. It simply gives us the time to finish the job. Transbay program is one of the most important transit and redevelopment efforts in the state centered around the Salesforce Transit Center, a major regional hub designed to connect bus and future rail service. If we do not extend this timeline, we risk losing a critical funding source and delaying or even jeopardizing the completion of this vital rail connection. Maybe this with me today in support is Adam
Redner 55
Good afternoon, chair Carrillo, members. My name is Adam Van Van de Water. I'm the executive director of the Trans Bay Joint Powers Authority. I wanna thank the assembly member for his great introduction, but also his leadership in authorizing this legislation. AB twenty three zero eight allows the successor agency to redevelopment to extend an existing net tax increment, or NTI pledge, toward completing the final phase of the Transbay program, the downtown rail station, what we now call the portal.
The Transbay program is a state mandated and transformative transit investment. Phase one, the Salesforce Transit Center is already complete and serving the public. We welcome you to come join us. Phase two, the portal will bring Caltrain and future high speed rail service directly into Downtown San Francisco and fulfills a long standing state and regional commitment dating back to the 2005 Trans Bay redevelopment plan. To support this effort, state owned land in the product area was transferred with the understanding that it would help fund this transit investment.
Proceeds from land sales and tax increment, revenues were pledged to the project, and these agreements remain legally enforceable obligations even after the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. However, we are facing significant challenges. COVID nineteen and shifts in the downtown development market have delayed downtown redevelopment activity, reducing projected tax increment revenues and lowering our bonding capacity to complete the program by approximately $275,000,000. This shortfall jeopardizes our ability to secure $3,380,000,000 in federal transit funding, which depend on a reliable source of local matching dollars including these funds. AB twenty three zero eight provides a forward solution.
Redner 61
It simply extends the NTI net tax increment collection period from 2050 to 2075, restoring approximately a $188,000,000 in bonding capacity. This extension is critical to maintaining the project's financial viability and ensuring we remain competitive for federal funding. Importantly, this bill does not create any new taxes or obligations, and it does not redirect funds from other entities nor does it change the structure of the existing financing plan. It simply extends an already approved funding mechanism so it can function as originally intended to deliver a once in a generation transit connection supporting downtown recovery and economic growth and maximizing federal investment in California's infrastructure. AB twenty three zero eight is a targeted and fiscally responsible solution to a real funding and gap, and we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 55
Thank you for your time consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Redner 1
Thank you. Those in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bid.
Redner 50
Mister chair, Brendan Nerpichy on behalf of Caltrain. We don't yet have a position, but we're bringing to our board for support. As the sponsor noted, very important for our future work.
Redner 48
Mister chairman, Mark Watts representing the San Francisco County Transportation Authority in strong support of the assembly member's bill. Thank you.
Redner 53
Mister chair members, Michael Gunning, lighthouse public affairs here in support on behalf of SPUR and urge your aye vote.
Redner 45
Chair and members, good afternoon. Karlyn Shelby on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Transform, the South Beach South Beach Rincon Mission Bay Neighborhood Association, and Friends of DTX in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? Seeing none, committee members, comments, questions on the bill? See no questions.
We have a third motion to, assembly member, would you like to proceed?
Redner 1
Thank you for presenting today. I would be voting yes on your bill. The motion is due passed to the Housing and Community Development Committee. The motion was by, Ward and second by Pacheco. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 16, a b twenty three zero eight, the motion is due passed and re referred to the committee on housing and community development. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta?
Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Pacheco? I.
Pacheco, I. Ramos? Ramos, I. Ransom?
Redner 18
Ransom, I. Rubio? I. Rubio, I. Stephanie?
I. Stephanie, I. Ward? Ward, I. Wilson?
Redner 1
Hey, Sarah. The bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for us to add on. Thank you.
Redner 1
Moving on on the agenda item 15, a b twenty one thirty nine by assembly member Garcia.
Redner 30
Mister chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to present this legislation. A b twenty one thirty nine is a district bill that proposes a targeted amendment to the surplus land act creating a practical pathway to bring a professional soccer team to the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire is one of the fastest growing regions in California and notably the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a major professional sports team. This proposal represents a significant opportunity for economic development, regional identity, and community investment not just for the Inland Empire, but the entire state of California. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit district with others from the Latino caucus delegation and was inspired by the work being done there by the AV Alta football club and the sense of community pride and ownership that the team has brought to the Antelope Valley.
There is no reason why we shouldn't bring that same excitement, ownership, and economic activity to the Inland Empire. The surplus land act plays a critical role in addressing California's housing shortage by prioritizing surplus land for housing development. While it is an important and well intentioned law, there are instances where it can be unintentionally where it can't unintentionally limit transformative economic opportunities, this being one of them as seen with the city Of Ontario and the Ontario Sports Empire project. We recognize and appreciate the committee's concerns and thoughtful engagement on this issue and thank the chair for his willingness to continue to explore paths forward. I am accepting the committee amendments and remain committed to working collaboratively to ensure this bill both achieves its intended purpose and upholds the core integrity of the Surplus Land Act.
With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member Garcia. Anybody that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one. How about any, primary opposition? Please step forward to the desk.
Redner 23
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Dante Golden, senior director of policy at San Diego Housing Federation. Our organization is the voice for affordable housing developers and lenders and advocates in San Diego, and our developers have projects in the pipeline across Southern California. On behalf of a coalition that includes Public Interest Law Project, East Bay Housing Organizations, nonprofit housing association of Northern California, and public advocates, we are in a respectful opposition today. AB two one three nine would exempt a 199 acres of publicly owned land in Ontario from the Surplus Lands Act entirely with no affordable housing requirement whatsoever.
Since 2021, the SLA has helped create over 37,000 homes statewide, including 23,000 deed restricted affordable units. That record matters, especially when over a 180,000 Californians are experiencing homelessness on any given night, and the city of Ontario has not yet met its renal obligations for low income housing production. Our primary concern is what this bill signals statewide. This is one of three SLA exemption bills before this committee today. Each may seem narrow in isolation, but together they establish a blueprint that any jurisdiction in California can follow.
Redner 33
When Ontario wins a zero affordability carve out for commercial development, cities across the state will identify their own hopeful projects and arrive at this committee next session asking for the same carve out. Every exemption granted makes the next one easier to justify and the previous one harder to deny. That patchwork erosion is how our landmark law gets hollowed out not in one vote, but one site at a time. We also wanna note the SLA exemptions this legislature has granted for large scale development projects like this one have consistently required housing and a 25% affordability set aside. This bill breaks from that principle entirely in our region in San Diego.
Redner 23
The city of San Diego ran the full SLA process for a redevelopment of its own sports arena in 2021, and the result was 4,250 housing units, 2,000 of them affordable. Sports and entertainment destination, and affordable housing are not incompatible. San Diego already approved it. We respectfully ask the committee to vote no on this bill.
Redner 14
Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta on the behalf of the public interest law project, part of the coalition that my colleague just described that, for many years now has been part of conversations in the legislature around both strengthening the surplus lands act to make it accomplish its primary mission, which is to help expand the supply of affordable housing, but also to address instances in which an exemption is needed. And the conversation around exemptions has always centered on maintaining the primary purpose of the SLA, which is to ensure that we get housing and that we get affordable housing, and that we don't create exemptions that begin to make the SLA sort of a mirage in which every proposal, which may be meritorious, which, of course, this project is, constitutes a basis for an exemption to the entire SLA. And and what has emerged is that, as my colleague mentioned, some basic principles which ensure that we get housing and that we get a portion of it to be affordable. In this instance, we have a city, that, you know, much like the rest of the state, is really struggling to produce additional affordable housing.
Redner 48
One of the biggest barriers to doing that is access to land. SLA only requires that Ontario put this land out and suggest whether some affordable developer may want to negotiate with them to build affordable units. And when that happens, as my colleague described, we get more affordable housing. If we skip over that process, we potentially miss that opportunity. We can do sports fields and and sports complexes and affordable housing.
And right now, this bill cuts a hole in SLA to do just one, and we, for that reason, remain opposed. I will acknowledge that we haven't seen the amendments, just the description in the analysis. I don't think they fully address our issues, but we look forward to looking at that as the bill assuming the bill continues to move forward. But we remain opposed to the bill in print, and I think for the reasons stated, we'll have continued concerns with it. But we look forward to continuing the conversation with the author.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Those in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 57
JT Herichmak, nonprofit housing association, Northern California, echoing the concerns of my colleagues here in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. Committee members, comments, questions, concerns? K. We have first and a second. Would you like to close?
Redner 53
Yeah. I just wanna say that I appreciate the opposition bringing up concerns. And so I wanna reiterate that I am accepting the committee amendments, I remain committed to to making sure that both objectives are met, the core integrity of the surplus land act, but also bringing economic activity, and and some of that is direly needed in the Inland Empire. So I I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I just wanna mention with the comments made by the opposition, this will require the city of Ontario to provide an additional public benefit as this part of the LSA through an ex for an exemption or through an exemption. After the 10% of housing found from plan bill, which is 4,000 units, 50% which has to be affordable, and number 30% into a housing fund. Just wanted to clarify that that's part of the language in the bill. Thank you for presenting the bill, assembly member Garcia, and for accepting the committee amendments.
I commit to continue working with you on the bill as it moves forward. You and I had a conversation after we work with you on that. With the amendments that will be taken in the housing and community development committee due to timing, I will be supporting your bill. We do have a motion by Johnson, seconded by Pacheco. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 15, a b twenty one thirty nine, the motion is due to pass and re refer to committee on housing and community development. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Ransom? Aye. Ransom, I Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I Stephanie?
Stephanie, I Ward? Ward, I Wilson?
Redner 1
That is 90. The bill is set. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you.
Redner 1
And we are gonna go to item number 21 on the agenda, assembly member Arambula. That's a b twenty six zero five.
Redner 40
Thank you, mister chair and members. I'd like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. California's long standing issues regarding public defense to individuals accused of crimes has a real cost to some of the state's poorest and most under resourced counties. Though the sixth amendment enshrines the rights to counsel for defendants in criminal prosecution, the state does not currently collect data on how this public defense is provided at the county level. This has created a system where many defendants report never at even having met their attorney and repeated failures to investigate the accusations which were made against them.
Redner 58
A v twenty six zero five addresses this issue by establishing reporting requirements on the nature of public defense services provided across the state. Most other states appropriate significant funding for public defense services, and California is an outlier in shifting this responsibility to the local level. We understand the difficulties counties face and will work to address cost concerns as this bill moves forward. This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue. Here with me to testify in support of a b twenty six zero five is Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Wren Collective and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
Redner 51
Great. Thank you, mister chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys in private practice, and also working in public defender offices and also authorized to present on behalf of the RAN Collective, a nonprofit, organization comprised of former public defenders that work on indigent defense policy issues throughout the country. Let me just start on behalf of, CACJ. I wanna thank the author for this bill.
Redner 19
The need for data has been demonstrated and called for for more than two decades here in California to deal with what is a significant problem throughout the state. The provision of indigent services are almost in a crisis state here in California. Let me just add a couple of examples. One is for those cases in which there's more than one defendant and public defender offices are conflicted out, there must be other attorneys that are brought in to represent those individuals, typically through a panel. There are counties right now that are struggling to bring in attorneys to represent these individuals.
Redner 51
We had a county a few months ago who reached out to CACJ and asked them to help find them attorneys from other counties to drive in and represent these individuals in these conflict cases. This is a major problem. As far as public defender offices, some of the work that the Rand Collective has done and CACJ is we have some counties. They're doing this differently in a lot of counties. That's why we need this data.
In Kern County, for example, over an eight year period, there were 50,000 individuals who entered pleas of guilty to low level misdemeanors without ever speaking or getting assigned a public defender. Let me repeat that. 50,000 individuals who entered pleas without ever being assigned an attorney. That's just one county. So what we need to do is really figure out what's going on.
There are six or seven counties right now who are declining cases, indigent defense, public defender cases, because they don't have enough resources and enough attorneys. So we know we have a problem, but because the problem is somewhat, unique in different counties, we have to get all of this data to figure out what the policy, responses should be and as quickly as we can get them so that we can help individuals. We know there's a cost to the spill, but we also know that there's a cost when individuals do not receive indigent defense in a timely fashion or in a substantive, thorough way. And for those reasons, we ask for support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody that wants to add on in support, please step forward. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Please have a seat here on the desk if you like.
Redner 55
Thank you, chair committee members and staff. Ryan Warren Muni with the California State Association of Counties. Also, on behalf of the rural county representatives of California as well as the urban counties California. I'll be brief, but first, would like to express our gratitude to the author, for his work in this space and, in particular, his previous legislation, aimed at assessing the appropriate workload standards for county indigent defense. Unfortunately, today, we're here with an oppose unless amended position on a b twenty six zero five in respect to request that the bill includes language that establishes the county requirements only upon appropriation of funds from the legislature.
Redner 59
While data is critical for the evaluation of services and programs, our our opposition is rooted in the fiscal concerns, especially in light of today's climate where there's significant county budgetary constraints. I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight the impacts of h r one, which are slated to create new costs in the tune of 9 point up to $9,500,000,000 annually. And so this impacts all county departments, including our indigent defense providers. And so that said, we appreciate the author's recognition of our concerns, and we look forward to continued conversations.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else who wants to vote on an opposition? Seeing none. Assembly member work.
Redner 28
Great. I just wanna, thank the author for, conceiving this bill. Definitely a gap in knowledge is there that I think would be critical for us to be able to understand and drive policy and support, to be able to help those, receive adequate and equitable access to, their rights and to be able to get their, through their public defenders, the abilities that they need to be able to, resolve their issues. It's not, I'm not, disrespecting, of course, I think the position of our counties as well too that it may it may be good and wise to have continued conversation around there about incorporating in here something about, you know, contingent upon appropriation. We're gonna need the appropriation one way or another to be able to actually make this work.
So I think that'd be a good issue to sort of put to to side policy wise at a time, but I'm very happy to support this bill, and we'll move the item.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Comments, questions? No? Would you like to close, as in the member?
Redner 58
Thank you for the opportunity to present on a b twenty six zero five. As this is a policy committee, I'm focused on the policy, but we'll just elevate that we do have a budget appropriation ask for this current year. This is also double referred to public safety before it goes to appropriations committee, and we will be working on amendments to help to clarify with the counties how we ensure that this is appropriately funded. I I would be remiss not to elevate that the LAO did an analysis a few years ago where they found that our public defenders were funded 82% below where our district attorneys are. And it's oftentimes leading them to being overburdened and overworked and thus not able to provide adequate defense as the sixth amendment requires.
With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I would like to commend you, assembly member, for your many years of work to improve our state's public defense system. Thank you for doing that. Let's hope that more data will further these efforts in the future. We'll be voting aye.
We do have a motion by assembly member Ward, second by assembly member Ransom. The motion is due passed to the public safety committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 21, a b twenty six zero five, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on public safety. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo? Aye. Taw? Aye. Johnson?
Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye.
Rubio? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Stephanie?
Ward? Aye. Ward? Aye. Wilson?
Redner 1
The bill is out a zero, and we'll leave the roll open for us to add on. Thank you. And we're gonna go by a file order, and we have, assembly member Pelerin here. Assemblymember, are you ready?
Redner 43
Tried three times a day. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you. Okay.
Mister chair and members, in 2022 and '23, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Metro worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services dubbed Reimagine Metro that would be faster, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagine Metro phase one launched in December 2023, implemented new higher frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz. Reimagine Metro phase two, which began implementation in March 2024, expanded Metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%. Reimagine Metro phases one and two were funded by a onetime infusion of 28,300,000 in 2023, and this funding will run out in 2026. To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, Metro must secure additional state or local funding.
Redner 7
Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant Metro employee layoffs. AB nineteen nineteen would add election procedures to address a gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like metro may be placed on the ballot. By providing statutorily defined election procedure procedures, it will allow voters to propose a special tax through a qualified voter initiative and raise funds that need to be sustainable. I wanted to emphasize that this bill does not increase taxes, but rather gives the district the mechanism to raise funds if the voters choose to do so. This bill also has strong district and labor support.
Redner 43
With me to testify in support is Corey CEO of Santa Cruz Metro and vice president of the bus department for Smart TD, James Sandoval.
Redner 50
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm Corey Aldridge. I'm the CEO of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. As assembly member Pellerin has said, we received this one time state funding that allowed us to enhance our service and put more service out on the streets, and it's been overwhelmingly successful as we've seen ridership growth by 43%. And we serve a population that has a high transit dependency rate of over 50% serving low income commute or areas throughout our county.
Redner 60
As this funding runs out, without additional funding, we're gonna see layoffs, and we'll see opportunities lost for for those, riders that we that we currently serve. So in response to this need, a group of local advocates has come together to form a coalition Friends of Santa Cruz met Friends of Santa Cruz Metro, committed to gathering signatures and sponsoring a citizens initiative to place a half cent sales tax on the ballot to benefit Metro. Unfortunately, we don't have the election procedures outlined in our authoring statute, so it's uncertain how local residents can actually place a citizens initiative on the ballot. So this bill resolves that ambiguity, by enshrining election procedures and are authorizing statutes and makes it clear how local voters may pursue and place a citizens initiative on the ballot. Thank you.
Redner 9
Good afternoon, chairs. My name is James Senegal. I'm a former metro operator for over ten years and now serving at the international level to represent bus drivers across California and the nation for smart transportation division. Just to be clear, we are looking at a 40% reduction and laying off a 100 union careers if we don't get a new reliable source of revenue. And we have done things where we've actually made it free for 18 and under, the youth, and we've seen such tremendous increase in riderships.
Redner 61
I mean, I'm thinking 40% in the last two years by doing stuff like that and the reimagined Metro, together. With me being a bus driver, I could speak to the experience of what it used to be like at Metro. You only took the bus because you needed to, not because you wanted to. We would get stranded. You know, routes would get dropped.
We were looking at hourly service to now where we get fifteen minutes service, and we're not dropping routes. People are now taking it because they want to, and we're trying to keep it that way. And with this reimagined metro, it's a product of everybody at Santa Cruz Metro working together from labor to management, and our community loves it. And we're looking to try to keep it at every way possible. And we would also, from my understanding, expand free service to seniors, people with disabilities, and low income residents so the people that need it the most will be getting the services that they need.
And traffic's horrible in our county. If you have ever been in Santa Cruz County, I'm sure, like, a lot of places in California, this is only gonna help with that problem. You know, every person on our bus is one less car on the road. And we are collecting signatures as we brought up, and right now, we're seeing a lot of support from this community, and we're hoping to get it on the ballot so people can make their decision on whether they would want to continue what we're doing, which is a great thing right now for our community. So we respectfully request your aye vote.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. Dosing support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 53
Good afternoon. Scott Brent, SMART Transportation Division, local twelve o one in support.
Redner 6
Monica Sandoval. I'm a friend of Santa Cruz Metro and part of SMART Auxiliary in support.
Redner 16
Trevor Haddix, local four nine two with Smart Transportation Division of Sacramento Roseville, also a Santa Cruz native in support.
Redner 10
afternoon, chair members. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division, state legislative board director, proud cosponsors in support.
Redner 37
Good afternoon. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to this measure.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else, committee members, comments, questions? A motion Second. And a second. Who made the motion?
Okay. Would you like to close? Did you have a
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member, for presenting today. I will be supporting your bill. We do have a motion by assembly member Wurz, seconded by Pacheco. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number nine, a b nineteen nineteen, the motion is due passed and reaffirmed to committee on appropriations. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo? Aye. Ta? No. Johnson?
No. Johnson? No. Pacheco? Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Redner 18
Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio?
Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Ward? Ward, aye.
Wilson?
Redner 1
The measure is six two. It's out, and, we leave the roll open for us to add on. Thank you. Congratulations.
Redner 1
With that, we move on to item number 11 on the agenda, assembly bill nineteen ninety seven, by assembly member Lee.
Redner 56
Alright. Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I'm presenting AB nineteen ninety seven, and, it's good to see your committee secretary being trained by my committee secretary of union services today.
Redner 56
So, that's all. That's good good sign. First, I'm accepting the amendments. I believe the committee analysis are written to the as proposed to amended version. I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this bill as well.
Redner 3
This bill will reduce from sixty days down to thirty days that period of time a lead agency has to approve or deny an affordable housing projects environmental impact report, EIR, from when the lead agency certifies EIR. This faster timeline only applies to projects that are 90% affordable to very low or extremely low income households and requires a project applicant to have provided written notice to the agency specifics about the project's financing. This bill also requires Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with the governor's land use and climate innovation to establish a working group to make recommendations about expediting housing development. The work group must include representatives from local government, housing developers, and housing advocates. Together, these provisions provide real acceleration in affordable housing projects while also looking to the future for new ideas about encouraging housing production in the state.
Redner 56
With me in support is Rand Martin representing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Redner 62
Thank you. Mister chair and members, Rand Martin here on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. For those who don't know, AHF is the largest provider of care and treatment to people with HIV in the entire world. We're currently in 50 countries around the globe. We're all over the state of California as well as all all over The United States.
One of the things they have learned over the years is for people with HIV who need a very strict treatment regimen, they also need some place safe to live in order to maintain that treatment regimen. When you are couch surfing or if you are homeless or living in a tent, you're not gonna be able to follow that kind of treatment regimen. It's not just people with HIV. People with other conditions that require that kind of treatment as well need housing. So what AHF did about eight years ago is begin its healthy housing foundation, and they have now opened many projects in the city of Los Angeles at this point, other states, but in Los Angeles and the state of California, from miss Pacheco's district all the way to the San Fernando Valley, where we serve people who are extremely low income.
What we've also learned in those eight years since we began doing this is how difficult it is to get permits approved in the city of Los Angeles. And it's not unique to the city of Los Angeles. These are problems that occur elsewhere as well in the state of California. The RAND Corporation did a report that was released last February in which they talked about time being the biggest problem in terms of getting housing built in California. And and because of that time commitment, you end up spending a lot more money doing it, and you just don't have the facilities available as quickly as you need them to be.
Redner 56
Even your own select committee on permit reform that miss Wicks chaired last year said exactly the same thing. We need to do more in terms of speeding things along. As mister Lee has said, we really appreciate you, mister chair, and your staff in working with us on the bill. It was a much broader bill when it was introduced. We do think that what remains in the bill that mister Lee has described is still impactful because at that freight that phase, after you have finished the entitlement process, it doesn't take a whole lot for the city at that point to just get that permit in the hands so that you can start turning a shovel and start the construction project so you can get people into those homes.
Redner 62
For those reasons, we really encourage you to to support us today, and we appreciate that. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I I do wanna thank the author for working with us, committee and myself on what the bill is now. Thank you for doing that. Anybody else in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 4
Alicia Priego on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, any primary witnesses in opposition? You can come up to the desk if you like.
Redner 42
I'm gonna be quick. Tracy Ryan, rural county representative of California. Also, on behalf of California State Association of Counties, American Planning Association, Urban Counties of California, we are currently in opposition to the bill in print. However, we appreciate the significant efforts of the sponsors, the author's office, and the committee staff to address our concerns. We look forward to removing our opposition once
Redner 36
Good afternoon, chair members. Brady Gernan on behalf of the League of California Cities, also reflecting the comments from RCRC. Thank you.
Redner 24
Good afternoon, chair members. Anthony Townehill with California Special Districts Association. Looking forward to seeing the measure in print and reevaluating. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Redner 47
Good afternoon. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies. Also looking forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Redner 63
Hello. Spencer Sachs. On behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, we also look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I see no one else coming forward. Any comments? Assemblymember Ward?
Redner 28
Thank you. I think they're seeing some consistency here on on one hand, for, really trying to get permits out within thirty days, and that was a bills a couple of bills, I think, last year as well that were signed into law. One question in this kind of scenario, I'm curious, because this would involve a EIR which has been reviewed, What would happen in this scenario if there was an appeal to that EIR?
Redner 62
My understanding and I'm not the expert here, so forgive me if I'm I've I found like I don't want know what I'm talking about. Once this phase does not this these time frames don't even kick in until the EIR has been resolved. Once that entitlement has been granted by the local government, only then would those time frames kick in.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the committee? Second. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, assembly member?
Redner 56
I again, I really appreciate the committee's hard work on this and really getting us to a place where I think, stakeholders are okay with this. At the end of day, it's about fast tracking affordable housing, and it's in line with many of the other legislation that we've been working on. So respectfully, ask your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Assembly member and your staff for working with committee amendments, and you and I had a conversation to thank you for for, being amenable. With the the amendments that will be taken in the house and the community development committee due to timing, I will be supporting your bill. We do have a motion by assembly member member Ward, second by Pacheco. The motion is due passed to the housing and community development committee.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 11 a b nineteen ninety seven, the motion is due passed and rerefer to committee on housing and community development. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo, aye. Ta? Ta, not voting. Johnson? Not voting.
Johnson not voting. Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ramos, aye.
Ransom? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie?
Ward? Aye. Board, aye. Wilson? Aye.
Wilson, aye.
Redner 1
The measure is south six zero. We leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. Assembly member David Alvarez. So that is item number 18 on the agenda, a b twenty four thirty three, whenever you're ready.
Redner 35
Thank you, mister chair and committee members. Great to be back in local government committee again. It wouldn't be a it wouldn't be a a good year if I wasn't back with an affordable housing bill before this committee. I'm excited to be here. Especially if you're interested in first time homeownership opportunities, this bill is for you.
So a b twenty four thirty three is an opportunity to grow on the most successful housing, policy that the state has enacted in recent memory, and I'll tell you how. First, very brief review. We need a 180,000 new homes per year to meet the demand that exists in California. We are building a 100,000 to a 120,000. We are short 80 to 60,000 every single year.
The bill before you strengthens the affordable program known as the density bonus law. Again, the single most successful housing production tool in California. And I know all of your offices were invited to a briefing on this matter just yesterday when Circulate Planning and Policy released the report on the bonus law where we identified that the bonus law produced 10 times more units than all other California streamlining laws combined in year 2024. 10 times more units than all of the other things we've done combined. And since 2021, bonus law has entitled more than a 140,000 homes across all of California at not a single cost to taxpayers.
No subsidy required to build affordable housing. It works, this works by giving incentives to builders who commit to building affordable housing. They get the certainty and the flexibility that I know you've all heard that they desire in order to make projects happen, pencil out, and actually get built. However, this bill is responding to data from HCD, which shows that over a quarter of eligible projects are not using this program even though they can use it. And the law has been used mostly for rentals, keeping homeownership out of reach for too many families.
That's where this bill comes in. So, specifically, this bill will require local governments to proactively notify applicants if they are eligible for the bonus law. Let them know that they are eligible. Local governments are already required to notify applicants about their density options. This is a narrow expansion of the obligation so that they can be more proactive about that so that, hopefully, more builders take advantage of this and utilize it and build more affordable housing.
We also would allow builders to deed restrict units at income levels more affordable than what the law currently requires. This means, we have had some questions about whether if we make more units more affordable, do we qualify for this program? This clarifies that if you make units even more affordable, yes, you still qualify for this program. You don't have to make them more or or less affordable, but you can get the incentive if you make them even more affordable. That is a good thing.
It also clarifies that granting the bonus law benefits is not discretionary. This is the current law. Some jurisdictions are treating these approvals as discretionary, which then delays the approvals and process. That is not the intent of the law, and a b twenty four thirty three reaffirms what the law already says. And it allows ministerial by right approval of projects that qualify both for density bonus and what this legislature and governor approved last year, a b one thirty, which is a new law, wanna align it to that.
Additionally, this is if you're interested in providing homeownership opportunities for your constituents, which I hear a lot. We are doing some good work on affordable housing. Most of it tends to be rental. And so we are adding two additional incentives for projects that include deed restricted affordable for sale units as part of their project, creating more pathways to homeownership for low and moderate income families exclusively. So we know what the housing crisis is.
We have been attacking it. I know that all of you have supported many pieces of legislation to do so. We are looking to expand that, the most successful program, expand it to homeownership opportunities. And in order to help make the case for that, I would like to introduce first council member Jed Liano from the city of Claremont and then Madi Manji with the Inner City Law Center. Thank you, mister chair.
Redner 54
Thank you very much, mister chair and members of the committee. Jed Liano, council member and former mayor from the city of Claremont. I would like to begin my remarks by sharing in the experience that many of us share and the reason why you're on this committee, the experience of being in a city hall or at a council chamber and hearing the public comment microphone where residents come up and say that, housing costs are too expensive, and we don't know what to do about that problem. And I would like to center this conversation back to those comments because just last night, I had a city council meeting that went till midnight, and I heard the same comments. I
Redner 64
to talk about the eight years that I've been on council in Claremont and talk about the housing production that we have attained. So many times when I come here to talk about housing production, we talk about hurdles and we talk about obstacles. But what's unique about talking about this bill is I get to talk about our successes. I get to talk about what's working. And let me talk about the housing production numbers in Claremont.
They tell a very interesting picture. In the last seven and a half years, we have approved 900 units of housing. And of those 900 units of housing, 88% of them were entitled through a density bonus entitled project. That means only 13% of the units that have come online since I've been elected in Claremont, they have not utilized state density bonus law. This should tell us something very informative about how we ought to shape housing production policy here in Sacramento.
It should tell us, number one, the state density bonus schematic is actually the most successful tool at local government in actually getting units built. Of the units that I described that are utilizing state density bonus law, all of those projects without the benefits of state density bonus, the projects simply don't pencil. They are simply infeasible. We should do here, hopefully, what local government does really well, and that is identify things that are successful. Ask ourselves, why are they successful?
And then let's do the right thing, which is improve them with ambitious focus to try to actually reach our housing production goals. I'm telling you the 87% success story because it's real. That 87%, it's a high number, but it's replicated throughout in jurisdictions throughout California. And, unfortunately, despite that 87% number, we still will not reach our state mandated re our state mandated RHNA goals for this cycle. If we can think of the things that are working in my community and in all of your communities, let's make them better.
Let's expand them. Let's focus on why they work. And that's why I'm so excited to sit with assembly member Alvarez and ask you to support expanding this program that has led to 87% of the units in my community, and let's expand and make it better. Thank you very much. Ask for your high vote.
Redner 11
Good afternoon, chairing members. Matthew Mengji with Intercity Law Center. Intercity Law Center is the only nonprofit legal services provider based in Skid Row in Downtown LA. We serve folks who are homeless and at risk of homelessness throughout LA County. Since its inception in 1979, state density bonus law has been among the most successful state programs to promote affordable housing throughout California.
Statewide, more than 40% of multifamily projects use state density bonus law. In addition, nearly every 100% affordable project in the state benefits from statement from bonus law. And, overall, nearly half of the homes, that that are built, under the law are affordable. In Los Angeles, the city has been able to build upon the foundation provided by density bonus law to enact local programs like e d one for 100% affordable housing and CHIP and TOC that provide additional density for deeper affordability. Together with its local additions, nearly every multifamily project in Los Angeles is supported by state bonus law.
Redner 30
AB two four three three adds more tools to counties and cities' toolboxes by incentivizing for sale homes, allowing developers to provide deeper affordability, and streamlining locally compliant projects without increasing density. It's making a density once all work better for builders and for cities. I wanna thank Selmy Alvarez for offering this bill, and we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you, everybody.
Redner 1
Thank you. Those in support of Juan Aron, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 31
Mister chair, members, Amy Brown, on behalf the San Diego regional chamber, also cosponsors of the bill, ask for your I vote.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, chair members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition and strong support. Thank you.
Redner 45
Good afternoon, almost evening, chair and members. Steven Senzer with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition in support.
Redner 23
Good afternoon, chair members. On behalf of San Diego Housing Federation, we weren't able to submit a letter of support but in full support, and we'll do
Redner 24
Mister chairman members, Bob Naylor for Fuel Students and Company in strong support.
Redner 28
Good afternoon, mister chairman members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur, a proud cosponsor, Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, San Diego Housing Commission, and Circulate Planning and Policy as another cosponsor. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Any opposition at all? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 11
Yeah. Good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities. We didn't submit a proposal unless amended letter officially. We've been working with the assembly member and look forward to those continued conversations and think we're getting close to our concerns.
Redner 28
I just wanna commend the author as well for being also a leader in the space. We know well how Density Bonus, you know, I not gonna say started in San Diego, but really took off in San Diego and made a difference. And we've been able to emulate a lot of that here through state policy as well. And your careful attention to a lot of the details here are improvements that we know are necessary. We're gonna have to continue to work on these past policies to make them even more effective.
You know, one note that's in here as well is that, again, I'd be very supportive of the ability to have even more incentives where we're providing for sale opportunities, but we know that there's a lot of other barriers that we have to be able to produce multifamily housing that would be ultimately for sale. Great idea to be at least laying down this, like, standard, I guess, or this this opportunity if we can find other fixes that are able to produce multifamily product that is gonna to for sale, we're ready to go. Yep. So I wanna commend you for that. Happy to move the bill and support it today.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else with comments? I'll let I'll let Johnson take this. We have a second Me too.
A second for assembly member Johnson. Seeing nobody else with comments or questions, assembly member Alvarez, would you like to close?
Redner 35
Thank you. Thank you to this committee for all of the work done on this. And as my our colleague said, San Diego is proud to lead on this. We've seen that it works, and we are trying to find the ways to make it work better. And in this case, when all the things come together and if and housing opportunities for ownership, really open up, hopefully, this bill opens the opportunities to a lot of families to become first time homebuyers, something that is out of reach for too many already.
Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for your high vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member and your staff for working with the committee on amendments, which, by the way, you accept it. Right? Committee amendments? There's No. We don't.
No amendments on this one?
Redner 1
you for presenting your bill. I will be supporting your bill today with that amendment. The motion is due passed to natural resources with a motion for assembly member Wors seconded by Johnson. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 18, a b twenty four thirty three, the motion is do you pass and re refer to committee on natural resources? Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson?
Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, I. Ransom? Ransom, I.
Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie, I. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Wilson?
Aye. Wilson, I.
Redner 1
the first measure with 10. What's up? Congratulations. If staff from assembly member Avelino Valencia is listening, please ask him to come over to local government so that he can present his bill. In the meantime, we're gonna go with, assembly member Johnson, item number 14, a b twenty one ten.
Redner 44
Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. I am here to present a b two one one zero, a bill that provides government with a low with authority to establish tax increment finance districts for the purpose of financing workforce housing for education, manufacturing, health care, and public safety personnel. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, which make minor changes to the narrow scope of the bill and bring the provisions in line with existing law related to enhanced infrastructure financing districts. Thank you to the chair and the committee for their work with me on this bill. As every member of this committee is very aware, California is facing a high housing crisis that is pricing our constituents out of homes across the state.
We are seeing a market failure where professionals rely mostly and cannot afford to live in the urban and coastal areas where they work. These workers often fall into stability gap earning 80 to a 120% of the area median income, which leaves them with few subsidies to help bridge the gap to high housing costs. AB two one one zero provides local governments with a specialized market flexible tool to address this by authorizing tax increments financing districts dedicated to specifically working the workforce housing. To ensure the benefits reach the intended workforce, the bill establishes an eighty twenty rule. 80% of the funded units must be reserved for targeted industries like public safety, health care, and manufacturing.
Redner 42
This bill also mandates an affordability standard where 70% of units serve lower income professionals and 30% serve moderate income tiers. This measure is designed with significant fiscal safeguards to protect existing revenue streams. This explicitly prohibits the capture of any funds designated for school districts or educational revenue augmentation fund, ensuring education funding remains untouched. We have also prioritized local control and accountability while district formation is subject to protest proceeding, any issuance of debt requires a two thirds voter approval. Additionally, the state controller is mandated to perform regular audits to verify that the tax divisions adhere strictly to the approved financing plan.
Redner 44
This bill represents a strategic evolution in a local in local finance empowering cities and counties to invest in their own human infrastructure without the need for state grants or new tax burdens on residents. By allowing workers to live closer to their jobs, we can reduce long commutes, especially in my district and across our entire state, and help ensure the people who make our communities possible can actually afford to live in them. A b two one one zero has no opposition, and
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one, what about any primary opposition? Seeing no opposition? Committee members, comments, questions?
Assembly member Ward?
Redner 28
Thank you. I appreciate for, you know, trying to think about creative tools that are gonna be able to help us to provide for workforce housing. I'm curious how this would be distinct from other tools that are already in on the books right now, enhanced infrastructure financing districts or other pathways that could that actually could achieve the same end. Are we reinventing the wheel here, and how would this be distinct from existing tools?
Redner 4
a tool like this. 80%, 20% rule. I don't know of any tool that exists for local government like that. I also know that, segmenting for low to moderate income housing, making sure that those are the the folks we're helping. So unless unless you have something that you know off the top of your head, I in local government this came from the city I came from.
I worked with my city very closely. We needed a tool like this. So I'm an I'm unfamiliar with any tool that exists like it.
Redner 28
So are we or welcome to the legislature. Are you so I guess getting into the space of of redevelopment two point o or the the next narrowed version of what we what we could do. It's valiant. You know, I I and and one that I think that, you know, you know, certainly, we wanna be able to try to support coming out of committee today. But, you know, rough waters ahead as well as we're kinda thinking about the tax increment that is gonna come into question as we're thinking about our local schools or local public facilities or other needs that local governments are also starved of.
And that that's something to balance. But, of course, I know we need the housing too. It's just gonna come into question, you know, at the expense of other things that we need as well.
Redner 4
Yeah. Thank you for your comments. That that is a portion of the bill that I explained is really important that it explicitly prohibits the capture of any funds designated for schools, school districts, and any educational revenue augmented funding. So that part, we do I I think we agree on that.
Redner 4
Thank you. It's a it's good evening. It's a long night. I I respectfully ask for your eye vote, and thank you for
Redner 1
Well, thank you for presenting today, and thank you for working with the committee on amendments. With the amendments that will be taken in the housing and community development committee, due to timing, we'll be supporting your bill. We do have a motion by assembly member Ramsons, seconded by Pacheco. The motion is to pass to the housing and community development committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 14 a b twenty one ten, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on housing housing and community development. Curio? Aye. Curio, aye. Ta?
Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye.
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Redner 1
Thank you. And we are going to item number 19 by assembly member Abelino Valencia, that's AB twenty five twelve.
Redner 53
Thank you, mister chair, and committee members. AB twenty five twelve will require any materials including, but not limited to, the lease, deed of sale, and promotional or marketing materials to refer to my district's home Major League Baseball team as the Anaheim Angels if the city of Anaheim is granted an exemption to the Surplus Lands Act. I wanna be very clear. This bill does not grant a Surplus Lands Act exemption but takes steps ensure that these requirements are in place if and when an exemption is pursued. These requirements will not only apply if the city and the team are able to reach an agreement on their own about their affiliation.
Redner 60
So in the event that there is some sort of compromise and consensus, this bill would be nullified. The city of Anaheim has also been home to this franchise for sixty proud years, yet the team's name, for whatever reason, does not reflect that history or our community. When the current owner of the team changed the name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which is a mouthful in and of itself, it was met with fierce opposition not only from its Orange County and Anaheim fan base, but from our counterparts in LA. However, at the beginning of the 2016 season, the Anaheim component was dropped altogether from the name itself. The city has also is also tied to unfair conditions due to the lease that they are under.
Redner 53
They actually only get revenue from the team if more than 2,600,000 tickets are sold. And, unfortunately, we haven't made the playoffs in over ten years, so that threshold has not been met. In addition to that, the lease itself, the city makes $1 off of leasing the entire baseball stadium and a 152 acres of parking surface. As someone who grew up in the city of Anaheim, who wore an Anaheim jersey, I can tell you that names really do matter. Pride and place and purpose really does mean something, and erasing Anaheim from the name diminishes not only my community, but what this fan base stands for.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Redner 53
You know, I'm not one to believe in superstitions, but ever since the name change, there's been a decline in their performance. The last time we had a successful season, 2002, former assembly member and then at the time mayor Tom Daley was at the helm of the city, and we won the World Series under the name Anaheim Angel. So not to say there's any correlation
Redner 53
but there may be some promise to change in the name in terms of wins as well.
Redner 46
Thank you. And I wanna, thank the author for bringing this bill forward. This is an important bill. I always thought it was strange to have, the angels being called the Los Angeles angels, especially when it's not even located in Los Angeles County. And, with all due respect, there's only one true Los Angeles baseball
team. Go
Redner 67
Dodgers. But on a serious note, this is important for you, and I do represent a portion of Orange County, and I would be honored to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 1
Anybody in support of the measure who is not a Dodgers fan? Yep. So I'm seeing nobody else in support. Did you have a comment?
Redner 53
would encourage you, just to Google Anaheim angels, and all the media that's been surrounding this topic since I introduced the bill. There's been, multiple social media posts that have gone viral, thousands and thousands of shares when it comes to this. So there's an LA Times article. There's a Orange County registered article as well that's covering this, and this has been a long going effort.
Redner 1
We can get a we have somebody that wants to come in and support. James Ramos.
Redner 1
Seeing no one else in support. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one, no opposition at all, committee members are are we done making comments on those? Bill. Assembly member just moved the bill.
Second. We have a second. The member from Anaheim, would you like to close?
Redner 53
Thank you, mister chair. In all seriousness, this really does provide an incredible economic opportunity for the city of Anaheim. The branding, the marketing, the broadcasting of the name Anaheim in the team name, could be potentially worth millions of dollars, that could be brought back into the city coffers to continue to expand on the city services that Anaheim residents so desperately need and deserve. We have incredible projects that are coming to fruition in the city of Anaheim, including the OC Vibe project, the Anaheim Ducks, location, who, I might add, just clinched the playoffs. So excited about that.
And, again, there's a model with the name Anaheim in the professional sports space right across the freeway that not only is profitable but a pride of Anaheim. So I think this opportunity here could follow suit very well in those footsteps, and I respectfully ask for a yes vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister Valencia. Thank you for presenting your bill. I will be supporting your bill today. And if it's not clear, I'm also a not an Angels fan. I supported Dodgers, and I think some members say that here too.
But we'll be supporting your bill today. Appreciate it. With that, the motion is due passed to the housing and community development committee. We do have a motion by assembly member Ramos who supported the bill. Also, a second by Johnson.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 19, a b twenty five twelve, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on housing and community development. Carreo?
Redner 18
Carreo? Aye. Carreo? Aye. Johnson?
Aye. Johnson? Johnson? Aye. Pacheco?
Pacheco, I. Ramos?
Redner 18
Ramos, I. Ransom? Ransom, I. Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I. Ward?
Aye. Ward, I. Wilson?
Redner 1
That bill is out nine, and we leave the roll open for others to add on. Congratulations. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Congratulations.
Assembly member work. So we're going back to item number 20 on the agenda, a b twenty five twenty five.
Redner 28
Thank you, and, good evening, mister chair and members, colleagues. First of I wanna thank the, committee staff for their, hard and deep thought and work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee minutes today with the commitment that the committee will continue to work with my office to make the bill workable. So it's planned to be amended, and I know we're on a deadline here today. We do have deep concern about some of the I agree with a lot of the structure within the bill, but the specific numbers that we're working on, we are deeply concerned would actually make the intendeds of what we're the intended effects of what we're trying to do on this parkland and long term finances and feasible. However, I know that we've also had productive conversations with the city of San Diego to be able to work on some of those numbers utilizing the structure that's been envisioned here to make that workable.
So we'll be accepting those amendments with that commitment that we can continue to work on making those changes, with committee staff, and it'll make the process outlined in the bill practical while meeting the goals of the committee in our own. With that said, I'm pleased to be able to support, and present here, a v twenty five twenty five, which would expedite the rehabilitation and modernization of facilities within Mission Bay Park in the city of San Diego by providing a narrow exemption from the surplus lands act for lands that are legally dedicated as parkland and restricted to recreational maritime and visitors serving commercial uses. Now Mission Bay Park is a crown owned jewel of the city of San Diego's world renowned waterfront and one of the largest aquatic parks in The United States. This was originally a huge vast tidal marshland known as False Bay. And in 1944, the area was transformed after the state, these were state tidelands, conveyed significant portions of this tidelands to the city Of San Diego through the San Diego Tidelands Trust.
The grant required the land to be used for public trust purposes such as navigation, fisheries, recreation, and visitor serving facilities. It also included a limit on commercial development leaseholds of no more than 25% of the land area and a ban on permanent residential development. Again, this is an area that has for more than a hundred years not been permitted to have residential development. In 1962, the area was officially designated as dedicated parkland under our city charter requiring that these lands be preserved for park recreation and visitors serving purposes in perpetuity. While Mission Bay Park has long supported visitors serving commercial uses, the SLA requires local governments, as you know, to offer properties to affordable housing developers through our first right of refusal process whenever a property is deemed surplus, including a new or renewed long term lease being issued.
Redner 34
And while the SLA serves as an important statewide housing purpose, its procedural requirements aren't feasible where housing is legally prohibited like in Mission Bay Park. And in this case, the SLA cannot override San Diego's charter protections. Converting lands in Mission Bay Park to private residential use would require amending the city charter, an action that must be approved by two thirds of the vote of San Diego Electorate and is neither feasible nor supported by city leadership or the community. AB twenty five twenty five provides a narrow and appropriate exemption for Mission Bay Park, allowing the city to continue managing these lands in accordance with the charter and long standing public trust obligations and the strict conditions outlined in the bill. And I would add as well too, it would be able to make, provide some certainty, for our city to be able to continue to be able to and work with many of these potential long term leaseholds so that we have wonderful serving visitor serving facilities as well, aquatic front facilities, marinas, restaurants, and the things that you like to be able to enjoy when you come to visit the city of San Diego.
Redner 28
For witnesses in support, I have Mora Top with top strategies on behalf of the city of San Diego. When the time is appropriate, I respectfully request your I vote.
Redner 14
Thank you, chair and members. Good evening. I'm Moira Top here on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria and the city council. We are sponsors of the measure. Given the hour, I won't, reiterate all of the important points that that the author outlined.
But I do wanna say that, you know, we are very proud of this water park. If you've been to San Diego, you've probably been to Mission Bay. It is a beautiful, as the assemblyman said, crown jewel of the city. But we also don't come to you lightly asking for a state land or a surplus land act exemption. I think you've heard today and probably in multiple hearings that the city of San Diego is dedicated to affordable housing and housing at all levels.
They have been aggressive in the last decade to really build housing, and they have also been very supportive of the surplus land act. In fact, I think you heard in a prior bill that we're very proud of the fact that we are moving towards entitlement of one of the largest affordable housing projects on the West Coast.
Redner 14
building a the exactly. We're I wanna I want we need to get confirmation, but we we believe it is the largest
Redner 14
For over 4,000 units in a 50 acre state land owned space, 2,000 of which will be affordable. We're very, very proud of this. But the land in Mission Bay is protected. It's parkland. It is available and provides recreational opportunities for those who want to utilize free or low cost recreation.
Redner 36
That's important, not just for San Diegans but for all Californians. Again, I do it is important to note that in order to actually even build housing on this, it would require a two thirds vote of all San Diegans, to approve that. I think that's a very high bar. And, again, we, support the state the surplus land act, but, again, this is a very important asset for the city and for the state that we would like to see this exemption move forward. So on behalf of the mayor of San Diego, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one. How about any, primary witnesses in opposition?
Redner 57
Good evening, chair and members. My name is JT Herichmak, the nonprofit housing association of Northern California. I wanted to start off by thanking the author for his long term and robust commitment to housing in so many other venues. And I want to appreciate the conversations that we have had with the sponsor's office about this, and we look forward to continuing them as well. I regret that I join a a coalition here, including the San Diego Housing Federation, Public Interest Law Project, East Bay Housing Organizations, and public advocates to oppose unless amended here.
Since 2021, the SLA has helped create over 37,000 homes, including 23,000 heat restricted affordable homes. Publicly owned land is irreplaceable. And once disposed of without housing protections, that opportunity is gone. Approving a blanket exemption with no commensurate public benefit invites every local agency in the state to seek the same treatment, whether it's to protect a parking lot or to allow luxury development with zero affordability. The city of San Diego, we believe, has multiple options that don't require amending this the SLA like this.
Redner 62
Many local advocates have said they wish to see Mission Park remain a park. This is a goal that the surplus land act can facilitate. And under existing law, the city can declare the land surplus but make it available exclusively for park uses. If the city would like to renovate the current facilities or extend any existing leases, they can, provided there's no change in existing use, thanks to updates in a b four eighty and s b seven four seven. And the city can both include affordable housing and open space on available sites by issuing a notice of availability with local priorities identified upfront.
Redner 57
We believe the city can meet its development goals and follow the SLA, and we urge the committee to hold this bill until it's amended to include meaningful affordability provisions. And we look forward to working with the author on a solution. Thank you.
Redner 48
Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta with the Public Interest Law Project. You previously heard my my rap on SLA and its importance, and a lot of that extends here. But given the conversation between the chair and author and the commitments that have been made, we look forward to hearing more about those amendments and working through it with the author and the sponsors who we have developed a good relationship with, and we hope we can find a solution that works for everyone and preserves the SLA. So with that, though, we remain opposed to the bill in print.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on his opposition? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 23
Good afternoon, chair. I wanted to echo the comments made. We appreciate the author and sponsor as well for engaging with us in the conversation. We respectfully oppose today. Don't have a reaction to the amendments, but look forward to the conversation and meaningful dialogue if the bill gets out
Redner 1
Seeing no one else. Committee members, comments, comments, the motion. We have a first and a second. Would you like to close or respond to any comments made?
Redner 28
I'd I'd also appreciate, the points opposition. Again, some we know the tool of the SLA has been able to afford for the provision of affordable housing across the state. That said, there are gonna be areas of land which are legally not able to be able to accommodate housing, and that puts our city into a potential legal risk. If and I think that's what we're trying to avoid right now because the consequence is an absolute stalling of any improvements that we would wanna be able to see, many of which are gonna be for the public benefit. We are heading in the right direction, I think, by trying to make sure those are enshrined through these amendments and our future conversations.
I look forward working forward to put the opposition to make sure that public benefit is achieved and respectfully request your high vote.
Redner 1
Thank you for accepting the committee amendments. I appreciate a lot of the discussion we have so far. I commit to continuing working with you on the bill as it moves forward. With the amendments that will be taken in the housing and community development committee due to timing, I will be supporting the bill. We do have a motion by assembly member Pacheco, seconded by Johnson.
The motion is due passed to the housing and community development committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number 20, a b twenty five twenty five, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on housing and community community development. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo? Aye. Taw? Aye. Johnson?
Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye.
Redner 1
That measure is sound nine zero. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. We are almost done. I am going to pass the gavel to our vice chair because I have two bills to present.
Redner 8
Alright, chair. You have you have you have only you have only two bill to Nothing present. Present, please. The first bill will be
Redner 1
Yeah. Thank you, mister vice chair and many members. I am here to present two bills, and I I'll start with assembly bill seventeen ten. AB seventeen ten is a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent, and unable to achieve homeownership. This bill builds on the proven success of SB three thirty in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins the entitlement process, it is not subject to sudden regulate regulatory changes except for essential updates related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant CEQUA environmental impacts among others.
As a former city planner, I've seen, for example, have bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent regulations solve projects for years, driving up costs and making housing unattainable. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state to build multifamily housing largely because of long approval timelines. Projects in California take over twenty two months longer to finish, for example, in Texas with great increases to cost. If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing investments to other states that offer a more predictable and efficient approval process. A strong reliable housing supply is critical to keeping workers in California, supporting local businesses, and fueling economic growth.
Without enough housing, employers face hiring challenges, commutes become longer and more costly. AB seventeen ten addresses these challenges head on by increasing transparency, providing certainty, and ensuring fair timely project approvals. We meet to testify in support today, Sadri Rajsiak, with the California Building Industry Association.
Redner 7
Thank you. Good afternoon, vice chair, members of the committee. Audrey Rittajczak here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association to express our strong support for a b seventeen ten. A b seventeen ten builds on one of the most important housing reforms California has enacted in recent years, s b three thirty, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB three thirty brought much needed clarity to housing projects and how they are evaluated by local governments by establishing clear rules of the road.
Redner 21
It gave developers predictability by locking in local rules and standards that apply to a project at the time a preliminary application is submitted. And just as importantly, it clarified how those rules would be interpreted by applying a reasonable person standard to prevent arbitrary denials based on overly subjective plan consistency arguments. SB three thirty has worked and delivered predictability, accountability, and results in moving forward much needed housing in California. It also included strong common sense safeguards, including exceptions for legitimate health and safety concerns and significant environmental impacts under CEQA. However, SB three thirty only addressed local governments.
Redner 7
And as the Select Committee on Permitting Reform emphasized in its 2025 report, this leaves a massive gap. In California, housing projects often require approval from a dozen or more state or regional agencies, each with their own permitting authority, rules, and interpretations. So the same problems s b three thirty solved at the local level are now manifesting at the state and regional level and are undermining the effectiveness of s b three thirty itself. So that's where a a b seventeen ten comes in. A b seventeen ten expands on the key pillars of s b three thirty by applying them to state and regional entities.
It's a practical evidence based extension of a policy that we know works. So on behalf of CBIA, we urge your support today. Thank you.
Redner 8
Thank you so much for that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of you?
Redner 22
Good evening, mister chairman, members. Skyler Wanaka on behalf of California Business Properties Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, as well as NAOP California and the California Business Roundtable in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 54
Marina Espinoza on behalf of the California Housing Consortium and Housing California in support.
Redner 66
Good afternoon, mister chairman and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, circulate planning policy, Habitat for Humanity California Spur and Fieldstone strong support. Thank you.
Redner 24
Thank you, chair and members. Anthony Tannehill here with California Special Districts Association. First, I wanna thank the author and the proponents for their willingness to engage with us, not not just in today, but in prior iterations of this measure from last year. AB seventeen ten expands the list of objective ordinances, policies, and standards that can be, vested at the time of the application. Specifically, we know it adds post entitlement permit standards, which is materials requirements of the rules, regulations, and such.
Redner 5
Our concerns centered around the vesting provision are that it will put state and local agencies in conflict with any new rules, requirements from any other local, regional, state, or federal entities. These rules could include efforts to improve or preserve public health, safety environment, or water conservation or other things that come up. I also want to acknowledge that the author did make some amendments in this year's version regarding the expansion of the reasonable person standard for which we are grateful. Though, regrettably, we find that it still lacks some specificity to which function it's solving for. And with that, I respectfully oppose the measure.
Redner 47
Good afternoon. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, respectfully oppose unless amended in alignment with CSDA's comments. Thank you.
Redner 63
Hello. Spencer Sachs on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, respectfully opposed unless amended, we align our comments with CSDA. Thank you.
Redner 15
I just have a question for the chair, in regards to the concerns that were lifted up about, the water and, just the con the concerns that they have. Are you do you have has that already been addressed, in your opinion, or what are your thoughts about the concerns?
Redner 1
I don't I don't believe that that has been addressed. Other issues were addressed as the opposition mentioned. We in this version of the bill, we worked some other concerns that they had. Happy to continue those conversations. But, again, in in my experience, when reserve letter is provided for a development, unless things change, obviously, water is essential for any development.
Mhmm. Those are things that we take into account too, and happy to have those conversations to see how we can remedy that.
Redner 15
Okay. So you don't feel that that do you feel that this bill already addresses the concerns without any significant amendments? Or
Redner 1
I don't think that it addresses that again because of water availability. Yeah. It's something that we've you know, we we always have those dry seasons in California.
Redner 1
But, again, when a a water intention of providing water for development is there from a water agency Yeah. That hasn't really been in put into account at the time of entitlement, again, with, serious drugs that we face in California from time to time. And that's a of of course.
Redner 8
Thank you. Alright. So anyone else? We see, we see none. So can I have a motion?
Or
Redner 8
have a motion from my senate member Ramas and second by senate member Johnson. Would you like to roast?
Redner 1
With that, mister vice chair and and committee members, I respectfully ask for an aye.
Redner 8
Alright. Thank you so much. The motion is due passed to the appropriation committee. Secretary?
Redner 18
For item number four, a b seventeen ten, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on appropriations. Curio?
Redner 18
Curio? Aye. Ta? Aye. Aye.
Johnson? Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Ramos?
Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Rubio?
Rubio? Aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.
Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson?
Redner 1
you, mister vice chair. Thank you. And I believe it's the last item of tonight, with exception of add ons, when we go back.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister vice chair and committee members. A b seventeen thirty eight helps address an issue that I, like many of you, have experienced firsthand, waiting weeks to get an appointment for a building inspection for a simple renovation. For many homeowners, even routine projects can be delayed for weeks while waiting for a required building inspection due to limited staff. During this time, projects often remain unfinished, preventing full use of the space and delaying final payments to contractors. These delays can also lead to additional costs such as extended equipment rentals or scheduling fees rescheduling fees, excuse me, while creating uncertainty around project timelines.
What should be a straightforward step in the process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable wait, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place other financial and logistical strain on California families. I am also a recovering urban planner. I've said that many times, so you know my my story. And I would conduct final inspection during my past professional life. I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues faced.
This backlog further exacerbates the housing crisis as building departments juggle the multiple inspections required for new housing projects with having to travel to perform on-site inspections. AB seventeen thirty eight looks to address this issue and help alleviate a housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations. Again, for simple home renovations. Recurring remote virtual inspections for these simple home renovations will speed up the process for homeowners and the building department, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster. AB seventeen thirty eight takes a measured approach.
It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already been implemented successfully across California. Now, colleagues, let me just tell you that remote inspections will produce delays, cut cost, and save time for homeowners and inspectors. I respectfully ask for an eye board at the appropriate time. Here with me, I have Colleen Corrigan from SPUR to sets testify in support.
Redner 37
Thank you, chair. Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at SPUR, which is a proud cosponsor of a b seventeen thirty eight. As the chair mentioned, California's housing insurability crisis is being exacerbated by outdated inspection processes that quietly add time and cost to housing production, renovation, disaster recovery, home hardening, and electrification. We've talked extensively with homeowners and contractors who often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take five to ten minutes, and this adds hundreds or thousands of dollars of cost to individual projects and administrative and standby costs.
Many choose to forego the permitting process altogether due to complexity and delays. Remote inspections are a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD and the National Fire Protection Association. RVIs are already working successfully of across 20 California jurisdictions, small and large, including LA County, which told us it can complete as many as 50% or more inspections per day using RVIs. In the last committee where this bill was heard, Placer County's chief building official testified that remote inspections free up limited resources and reduced work backlogs, which allows building inspectors to focus on complex projects like multifamily housing. Best of all, it was free for Placer County to set up, and it continues to save their building department money on gas and travel time.
Jurisdictions report no difference whatsoever in compliance or failure rates between remote and in person inspections. And if anything, it reduces their exposure their liability exposure because they have more thorough documentation of what was inspected. AB seventeen thirty eight takes a balanced common sense approach by limiting the scope to simple low risk projects that are already being inspected remotely by local jurisdictions right now while preserving full discretion for the inspectors to require in person when necessary. It's rare to have a free tool that benefits both local governments and homeowners, but a b seventeen thirty eight represents just that. I respectfully urge your I vote on this bill.
Thank you.
Redner 8
Thank you so much. Anyone, who'd love to support the bill, please come up.
Redner 65
Good evening, mister vice chair and member Steven Stenzler with the Brownstein here on behalf of, cosponsor Permit Power in strong support. Also been asked to give me twos in support from the Palisades Recovery Coalition, Megafire Action, the US Green Building Council, the CASITA coalition, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you.
Redner 66
Good evening, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spurs, Circulate, Planning, and Policy. Thank you.
Redner 8
Thank you so much. Any witness in opposition? I see none. Any comment from committee members? Alright.
We have the motion from the same member, Pacheco, and second by same member, Johnson. Who would you like to close?
Redner 1
Thank you, mister vice chair, and thank you members. I respectfully ask for an I vote on a b seventeen thirty. Thank
Redner 8
you so much. The motion is due passed to the Appropriation Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 18
For item number five a b seventeen thirty eight, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on appropriations. Carrillo?
Redner 18
Carrillo? Taw? Johnson? Johnson? Johnson?
Johnson? Pacheco? I. Ramos? Aye.
Ramos? Ransom? Ransom, I. Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I. Ward?
Aye. Ward, I. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister vice chair. So with that, I believe that all we needed some add ons on some of the measures. We need motions for fifteen seventy eight, Jackson. What? Fifteen seventy eight.
First and a second?
Redner 1
Oh. Rubio and, Wilson. Please call the roll for a b fifteen seventy eight, Jackson.
Redner 18
For item number one, a b fifteen seventy eight, the motion is due passed and re referred to committee on governmental organization. Curio?
Redner 18
Curio? Aye. Ta? No. Ta?
No. Johnson? Johnson? No. Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Ramos? Aye.
Ramos, I. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, I. Rubio?
Aye. Rubio, I. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I.
Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye.
Wilson, aye.
Redner 1
That measure is out eight to two. We need a motion for a b twenty eighty three, also Jackson.
Redner 18
For item number 13, a b twenty eighty three, the motion is due passed as amended and re referred to committee on human services. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta?
No. Ta? No. Johnson? Johnson?
No. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Redner 18
Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward?
Ward, I. Wilson? I. Wilson, I.
Redner 1
That measure is out 82. And we have add ons now for those that were absent.
Redner 18
For item number two, a b sixteen seventy nine, the current vote is four to zero. Curio? Aye. Curio? Aye.
Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, aye. Stephanie? I. Stephanie, Ward? I.
Ward, I. And Ramos?
Redner 18
Ransom, I. Rubio? I. Rubio, I. Stephanie?
I. Stephanie, Ward? I. Ward, I.
Redner 18
For item number 6, AB seventeen eighty three, the current vote is two two. Pacheco? Pacheco, not voting. Ramos? No.
Ramos, no. Ransom? No. Ransom, no. Rubio?
Redner 18
For item number eight, a b nineteen fourteen, the current vote is six to one. Ta?
Redner 18
item number nine nine a b nineteen nineteen, the current vote is six to two. Stephanie?
Redner 18
For item number 10, a b nineteen forty five, the current vote is seven to zero. Ta?
Redner 18
For item number 11, a b nineteen ninety seven, the current vote is six zero. Ransom? Ransom, I. Stephanie? Stephanie, I.
Redner 18
For item number 12, a b twenty seventy four, the measure is six one. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Wilson?
Redner 18
For item number 15, a b twenty one thirty nine, the current vote is eight zero. Ramos?
Redner 51
For item number 16, a B twenty three zero eight, the current vote is eight to zero. Johnson? Johnson, I. Wilson? I.
Redner 18
For item number 17, a b twenty four eighteen, the current vote is seven to zero. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Rubio?
Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Rub Stephanie, aye.
Redner 18
For item number 19, a b twenty five twelve, the current vote is nine zero. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I.
Redner 18
For item number 20, a b twenty five twenty five, the current vote is nine to zero. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 18
For item number 21, a b twenty six zero five, the current vote is eight to zero. Stephanie? Stephanie, I. Wilson? I.
Wilson, I.
Redner 1
That measures 10 to zero, and I believe that that concludes our hearing. We are adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.