WELL GOOD
MORNING EVERYBODY. HAPPY
WEDNESDAY. WE WANT TO WELCOME
YOU TO THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN AS
A SUBCOMMITTEE UNTIL WE
ESTABLISH QUORUM AND HAVE 18
ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, FOR
EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT, PLEASE KNOW
THAT. ITEM NINE EB 2361 DAVIES.
AND ITEM TEN EB 2430 ALVAREZ ARE
PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE
AUTHORS. WE HAVE THREE BILLS ON
CONSENT TODAY. THE ITEMS ARE
NUMBER TWO AB 1801 BY JACKSON Ã
. ITEM 15 AB 2597 BY YOURS TRULY
AND ITEM 19 AB 2897 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CONNOLLY. WHEN WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM, WE'LL BE
ABLE TO ENTERTAIN THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, IN ADDITION, FOR THOSE
MEMBERS HERE EARLY, THANK YOU.
AND YOU'LL KNOW THAT TODAY IS
GOING TO BE THE LAST DAY THAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO SIGN IN
ORDERS. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE
AMENDING OUR RULES TO CHANGE THE
BILL HEARING ORDER DATES GOING
FORWARD TO FILE ORDER. THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE IN
EVERYBODY'S PACKET. AND ON PAGE
THREE OF THE COMMITTEE RULES IS
ADOPTED ON MARCH 29TH, 2023. AND
IF APPROVED, THE AMENDMENTS WILL
BE IN EFFECT FOR OUR NEXT
HEARING. APRIL 17TH, 2024. EACH
BILL CAN HAVE TWO MAIN WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, AND
EACH MAIN WITNESS GETS UP TO TWO
MINUTES EACH. PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO SUBMIT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION PORTAL ON
THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. THIS
WILL BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORD OF THE BILL, AND THE
HEARING WILL BE OPEN FOR
ATTENDANCE OF THIS HEARING. ALL
ARE ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE
HEARING FROM ITS LIVE STREAM ON
THE ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE. I WANT
TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING. WITH
THAT, WE HAVE OUR FIRST AUTHOR
HERE, TO PRESENT HIS BILL. I'D
LIKE TO WELCOME UP ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TREE TO, FOR ITEM NUMBER
11. THIS IS AB 2460. WHEN YOU'RE
READY AND SUPPORTERS ARE READY
AS WELL, WE CAN BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION. GOOD MORNING AND
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AND I
REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT AB 2460
IS SIMPLY A CLEAN UP BILL TO MY
AB 1458 FROM LAST SESSION, WHICH
WAS SIGNED TO LAW. THAT BILL
PROVIDED A PROCESS WHERE AN
ASSOCIATION COULD UTILIZE A
REDUCED QUORUM OF 20% OF THE
MEMBERSHIP FOR BOARD ELECTION IF
THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE
THE STATED QUORUM REQUIREMENT IN
THEIR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. JUDGE
PRIOR TO THE END OF LAST
SESSION, MY OFFICE WAS CONTACTED
BY THE GOVERNOR ADMINISTRATION
REQUESTING RATIFICATION. IN ONE
PIECE OF THE BILL, WE AGREED
THAT I THAT I WOULD RUN A CLEAN
UP THIS SECTION AND KEEP MY
PROMISE AB 2460 INCLUDE AGREED
UPON RATIFICATION REQUEST BY THE
GOVERNOR. AB 2460 ALSO CLARIFIED
TO OTHER ISSUES. FIRST, AN
ASSOCIATION WITH A LOWER QUORUM
REQUIREMENT THAT CREATED IN AB
1450 8TH MAY FOLLOW ITS
GOVERNING DOCUMENT. SECOND, THIS
BILL CLARIFIED THAT IT IS
ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP, NOT
SOLELY THE BOARD, THAT
RECONVENES THE ELECTION MEETING.
THIS IS REALLY COOL THAT I HAVE
LEARNED THAT SEVERAL HOA BOARDS
HAVE HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE
THE NEW LOWER QUORUM THRESHOLD
OUT OF FEAR OF BEING A SEATED
WHEN THE VOTES ARE TALLIED.
TODAY, I HAVE LU T BROUGH FROM
THE COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION
INSTITUTE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
AND ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
LOUIS BROWN, HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE,
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION
COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ASKING FOR AN AYE VOTE AS MR.
TOR SAID, WE DID RECEIVE THE
COMMUNICATION LATE LAST SESSION
FROM THE GOVERNOR, AND INCLUDED
THAT IN 2460. WE THEN ALSO
WANTED JUST TO PROVIDE SOME
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IN
CHANGING THE REFERENCES TO THE
BOARD, TO THE ASSOCIATION. AND
THEN WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME
CONSISTENCY IN THE BILL, AND WE
SAW THAT THE DEFINITION OR THE
DESCRIPTION OF, OF HOW YOU WOULD
CALCULATE THE REDUCED QUORUM WAS
ACTUALLY STATED DIFFERENTLY IN A
NUMBER OF SECTIONS IN LAST
YEAR'S BILL. SO WE PROVIDE THAT
CLARIFICATION AND MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT
SECTION OF LAW. WITH THAT, WE
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
FOR THE PRESENTATION. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT? ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? NONE.
OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE CAN TURN
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS? OH, I'M
SORRY. WE MOVE QUICKLY SO WE DO
HAVE ONE. OUR PRIMARY WITNESS.
YES. IF YOU WANT TO, COME UP TO
THE DAIS OR UP TO THE
PRESENTATION TABLE. THANK YOU.
TAKE YOUR TIME. AND WHEN YOU'RE
READY, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES FOR TESTIMONY. GOOD
MORNING, GOOD MORNING, GOOD
MORNING, GOOD MORNING. DO YOU
WANT TO SIT OVER HERE. SO WE
HAVE A MIC. YES OKAY. WELL.
WELCOME, CHAIRMAN WARD. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MARJORIE MURRAY,
CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION LAW. YOU'RE GOING TO
BE CONSIDERING ANOTHER HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION VOTING BILL THIS
MORNING. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE TWO
BILLS TOGETHER, BECAUSE IT'S NOT
CLEAR TO US HOW THEY ARE GOING
TO COEXIST, THAT SAID, IF WE
LOOK AT 2460 IN ISOLATION, IT
DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF QUORUM
AND ASSOCIATION BOARD ELECTIONS
ONLY. IT'S A REQUIREMENT IN THE
CORPORATIONS CODE TO ENSURE THAT
THERE IS SUFFICIENT
PARTICIPATION, SUFFICIENT
CONSENSUS IN THESE COMMUNITIES
AS TO THE SELECTION OF THEIR
LEADERS. SO WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE REDUCTION IN QUORUM,
BUT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BILL
WAS SIGNED LAST YEAR BY THE
GOVERNOR. WE DID SUBMIT A LETTER
OF OPPOSITION. HOWEVER, WE HAVE
PROPOSED, SOME AMENDMENTS. WE
HAVE TALKED TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND ALSO TO THE SPONSOR
OF THE BILL ABOUT AMENDMENTS
THAT WE THINK WOULD HELP THEM
REACH THEIR GOAL OF ACHIEVING
BETTER QUORUM IF, IN FACT, THE
ISSUE IS LOW VOTER TURNOUT,
WHICH WE KNOW IS AN ISSUE IN
PUBLIC ELECTION, WE THINK OUR
AMENDMENTS CAN HELP INCREASE
QUORUM. AND I'M TURNING TO MY
COLLEAGUE TOM, SIR, TO PRESENT
OUR OUR TWO PRIMARY AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. SETTING MY TIMER, I
GOT YOU. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THIS BILL DOES
ADDRESS SOME, IMPROVEMENTS THAT
WERE NEEDED FROM LAST YEAR'S
BILL. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY
IS, PRESENTING SOME PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL
IMPROVE THE BILL EVEN FURTHER,
MAKE IT MORE WORKABLE, SAFER FOR
EVERYONE, THE FIRST ONE, OF OUR
AMENDMENTS EXPANDS THE NOTICE
PROVISIONS TO HOMEOWNERS SO
THAT, INSTEAD OF JUST POSTING A
NOTICE OR PUTTING IT SOMEWHERE
THAT NOBODY SEES, THAT THERE IS
THIS EXTENDED VOTING PERIOD THAT
MEMBERS BE GIVEN INDIVIDUAL
NOTICE, THAT IS, EVERYONE IS
SENT A NOTICE DIRECTLY SO THAT
EVERYONE CAN SEE ARE THE VOTING
IS CONTINUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
MEET QUORUM AND THEREFORE I
BETTER GET MY REAR END IN GEAR
AND GO VOTE. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO. INCREASE THE
TURNOUT. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE THAT EXPANDED NOTICE NOT
ONLY BECAUSE IT HELPS THE
HOMEOWNERS AND HELPS ACHIEVE THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL, BUT IT ALSO
KIND OF INSULATES THE WHOLE
PROCEDURE FROM CHALLENGE BECAUSE
THERE HAS BEEN PROPER NOTICE AND
WE JUST HAVE AN OVERRIDING
CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR
GOAL AT THE CENTER IS TO
REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS. THE
SECOND OF THESE IS, PROVISIONS
TO SAFEGUARD THE BALLOTS. THE
CURRENT BILL, CURRENT LAW, IS
TOTALLY SILENT ON WHAT HAPPENS
WITH THE BALLOTS THAT HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED. AND THEN YOU COUNT,
YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT SHOULD BE
DONE. WE SAY, IS YOU COUNT THE
NUMBER OF ENVELOPES UNOPENED
THAT YOU HAVE. AND IF YOU DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH FOR QUORUM, YOU
LEAVE THEM UNOPENED, HAVE THE
INSPECTOR OF ELECTIONS SAFEGUARD
THEM AND NOT OPEN THEM UNTIL
QUORUM IS REACHED. SO YOU DON'T
HAVE A PARTIAL TALLY, AND THEN
MAYBE RESULTS LEAK OUT IN, THEN
YOU CONTINUE IT. SO THOSE ARE
OUR TWO AMENDMENTS. AND WE'RE
VERY HOPEFUL THAT THE AUTHOR
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH US ON
THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN OPPOSITION? OKAY. SEEING NONE
NOW, WE WILL TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. COMMENT SEEING NONE.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. GRAYSON.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I DO WANT
TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
FOR CARRYING THIS BILL FORWARD,
AND THE CLEAN UP AND MAKING IT
ALL. I TRUST THAT YOU ARE GOING
TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION. I HAVE
NO, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. I JUST
WANTED TO SAY I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT TO TRY TO
HELP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS GET
TO A QUORUM, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY
YOUR GOAL IS TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE
VOTING AND HAVING A SAY SO. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD. THANK YOU, MR. GRAYSON.
I WOULD ECHO HIS COMMENTS AS
WELL, AND I APPRECIATE, YOU
KNOW, SOME THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE
HERE. WE WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT.
WE WANT TO HAVE THAT BALANCE OF
MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S, ACCESS
AND DIFFERENT OPTIONS. YOU'VE
BEEN A LEADER IN THIS SPACE, AND
I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOUR
RESPONSIVE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
REAL ESTATE FOR THEIR LATE
CONCERNS LAST YEAR. AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE THE BILL BEFORE US
TODAY, BUT I'M I'M TRUSTWORTHY,
TRUSTING THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE TO
BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO SOME OF
THESE POINTS AND CONTINUE TO
IMPROVE AND BE A LEADER IN THIS
SPACE. WITH THAT. MR. TODD,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT.
AND WHEN THINGS COMMITTEE STAFF
HAD BEEN WORKING WITH MY OFFICE
LAST YEAR AND UNTIL THIS YEAR
FOR THE NEW BILL. SO I HUMBLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AT A TIME WHEN WE
ESTABLISH QUORUM, WE'LL TAKE
THIS MEASURE UP. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHABO WHO HAS
TWO BILLS, ITEM THREE, AB 1820
AND ITEM 17 AB 2674. AND WHICH
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH?
1820? WE WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM
THREE WHEN YOU ARE READY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS HAPPY TO BE HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT AB 1820. AB AND
WE, ARE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. APPRECIATE THE STAFF
WORKING WITH US ON THESE, AB
1820 IS A SIMPLE TRANSPARENCY
MEASURE THAT ALLOWS HOUSING
DEVELOPERS TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND
TRANSPARENCY OF DEVELOPMENT FEES
PRIOR TO COMMITTING SHOVELS INTO
THE GROUND. IN A 2021 STUDY
CONDUCTED BY THE TERNER CENTER
FOR HOUSING INNOVATION, UC
BERKELEY FOUND INCONSISTENT
COMPLIANCE WITH AB 1483 FROM
2019, WHICH REQUIRED CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO POST THESE FEE
SCHEDULES ON THEIR WEBSITES.
MANY JURISDICTIONS HAD
INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE, OR HARD
TO FIND INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE OF
THESE FEES ARE CRITICAL BECAUSE
MANY OF THESE FEES ADD UP TO 20%
OF THE COST OF A HOME, WHICH CAN
BE A TIPPING POINT FOR MANY
PEOPLE HAVING TO ACCESS AN
AFFORDABLE HOME AND LATE FEES OR
UNEXPECTED FEES CAN ACTUALLY
JUST COMPLETELY, RUIN A PROJECT
AND STOP IT EVEN, AB 1820
PROVIDES GUARDRAILS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOME DEVELOPERS TO
HAVE PREDICTABILITY. MY MEASURE
TAKES THE SURPRISE OUT OF ANY
UNKNOWN EXORBITANT FEES THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY THREATEN AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND OPPOSITION, AND
HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS SOME
CONCERNS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE DIALOG WITH THEM ON THIS
MATTER, AND HOPE TO FIND SPACE
WHERE WE CAN ALL BE COMFORTABLE.
I WANT TO THANK SPR AND CBIA FOR
SPONSORING THE BILL, AND HAPPY
TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY AS WELL, AND HERE
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS MIKE
AND WALLY. HE'S A LOCAL LAND USE
ATTORNEY WITH COBLENTZ, PATCH,
DUFFY AND BASS AND WEST SAGE
WALKER, WHO'S A LOCAL SACRAMENTO
DEVELOPER. THANK YOU. WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, CHAIR
WARD, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY. MY NAME IS MILES MORLEY,
AND I'M A LAND USE PARTNER AT
THE LAW FIRM COBLENTZ, PATCH,
DUFFY AND BASS IN SAN FRANCISCO.
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, I HAVE
ASSISTED DEVELOPERS IN OBTAINING
ENTITLEMENTS IN A VARIETY OF
PROJECT TYPES WITH A FOCUS ON
RESIDENTIAL. ONE ASPECT OF MY
WORK IS TO HELP DEVELOPERS
UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPACT FEES
THEIR PROJECTS WILL HAVE TO PAY,
AND WHERE THERE'S AMBIGUITY TO
NEGOTIATE THOSE FEES. MY
PRACTICE FOCUSES ON THE BAY AREA
, WHERE IMPACT FEES VARY WIDELY
BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS AND WHERE
FEES AT TIMES CAN BE QUITE HIGH.
A RECENT STUDY FOUND THAT FEES
LEVIED ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RANGED FROM A
HIGH OF $146,000 PER UNIT TO A
LOW OF JUST UNDER $10,000 PER
UNIT FROM A DEVELOPER'S
PERSPECTIVE, THIS MEANS THAT
FEES CAN HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT
ON A PROJECT'S PRO FORMA. IN THE
WIDE VARIATION MEANS IT IS
CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND EACH
JURISDICTION'S FEES. DESPITE
THIS IMPORTANCE, FEES ARE OFTEN
DIFFICULT TO PIN DOWN. OFTEN, IT
CAN BE DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY ALL
FEES AND DETERMINE HOW THEY ARE
CALCULATED. RECENT LEGISLATION
AB 1483 HAS IMPROVED
TRANSPARENCY, BUT DIFFICULTIES
REMAIN. MANY FEE PROGRAMS ARE
AMBIGUOUS IN HOW THEY ARE
IMPLEMENTED, OR THERE ARE
UNWRITTEN LOCAL PRACTICES THAT
AREN'T SEEN ON THE FACE OF A FEE
PROGRAM. THESE THESE ISSUES
INCLUDE THINGS LIKE HOW TO
MEASURE SQUARE FOOTAGE, HOW TO
CATEGORIZE A PARTICULAR USE
WITHIN A FEE PROGRAM, WHETHER
CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN FOR
EXISTING USES WHEN REDEVELOPING
A SITE AMONG OTHERS. THIS
UNCERTAINTY MEANS THAT SURPRISES
CAN ARISE LATE IN THE PROCESS,
WHICH CAN HAMPER HOUSING
PRODUCTION. THE REQUIREMENT IN
AB 14 1820 THAT LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS PROVIDE EARLY
ESTIMATES IN A FINAL AMOUNT AT
THE TIME OF ENTITLEMENT WOULD
REALLY HELP ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU. HELLO, CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS
ISSUE. MY NAME IS WESLEY SAGE
WALKER. I'M SPEAKING HERE AS A
DEVELOPER OF PRIVATELY FINANCED,
ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE IN THE
SACRAMENTO REGION. IT'S BEEN MY
EXPERIENCE THAT ALTHOUGH RECENT
CHANGES IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY
OF UPDATED FEE SCHEDULES,
CURRENTLY SEVERAL LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES DO NOT HAVE A
COMPREHENSIVE CONSOLIDATED FEE
SCHEDULE LISTING ALL THE
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE FEES
RELATED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT.
MOREOVER, THE FEE SCHEDULES THAT
ARE PUBLISHED CONTAIN NUMEROUS
ITEMS THAT INVOLVE STAFF
DISCRETION IN DETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO
THEIR APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED
PROJECT. THIS REFLECTS THE
INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY
PROJECT AND AFFECTS WHICH FEES
AND FEE CATEGORIES WILL BE
IMPLEMENTED. WITH THE BENEFIT OF
EXPERIENCE, A DEVELOPER CAN
CONDUCT A FEE ESTIMATE BY
GATHERING AND SIFTING THROUGH
THE RELEVANT SCHEDULES BASED ON
PREVIOUS SIMILAR PROJECTS. NEW
DEVELOPERS DO NOT NECESSARILY
HAVE THIS PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND
CAN ENCOUNTER DIFFICULTIES IN
PREPARING AN ESTIMATE WITH
ACCURACY. FURTHERMORE, THE
IMPOSITION OF OFF SITE
IMPROVEMENTS TO PAY FOR VARIOUS
INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES CAN
REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL IMPOSITION ON A
PROJECT, AND IMPORTANTLY, THESE
OFF SITE REQUIREMENTS ARE
EXCLUDED FROM FEE SCHEDULES
GIVEN THEIR INDIVIDUALIZED
NATURE. HOWEVER, AS SOMEONE
WHO'S HAD TO ABANDON PROJECTS AS
A RESULT FROM LARGE AND
UNEXPECTED OFF SITE REQUIREMENT
COSTS, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO GIVE DEVELOPERS
SUFFICIENT TIME AND NOTICE TO
ANALYZE AND MODEL THEIR IMPACTS.
AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED,
EXPERIENCE CAN HELP MITIGATE
THIS ISSUE FOR A DEVELOPER WHO
HAS ANALYZED THE COST IMPACTS OF
SIMILAR OFF SITE REQUIREMENTS
FOR OTHER PROJECTS FOR NEW
DEVELOPERS, THIS CAN AGAIN BE
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE TO
APPROPRIATELY MODEL UNTIL IT IS
TOO LATE. IN MANY WAYS, THE
PRINCIPAL TASK OF A DEVELOPER IS
TO MANAGE AND MITIGATE RISK.
FEES ARE A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
UNCERTAINTY, WHICH I BELIEVE
THIS BILL CAN HELP AMELIORATE.
IF A PROJECT IS PRESENTED WITH A
REASONABLY ACCURATE AND
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF APPLICABLE
FEES AND REQUIREMENTS IN A
TIMELY MANNER, IT CAN HELP
DEVELOPERS IMPROVE THEIR
PERFORMANCE TO BETTER REFLECT
THE REAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS
LIKELY TO INCUR. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF 1820? ON BEHALF OF
ONE SECOND, PLEASE. OKAY. BROOKE
PRITCHARD, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR. BOB NAYLOR FOR
FIELDSTEAD AND COMPANY. THAT'S
HOWARD AHMANSON JR, AN ORANGE
COUNTY PHILANTHROPIST, IN
SUPPORT. CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING ACTION
COALITION AND HOUSING CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT SEAMUS
GARRITY FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
CALIFORNIA. SAND HILL
PROPERTIES. BUCKEYE PROPERTIES
BUILD CASA AND CIVIC WELL IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS RAFA SONNENFELD WITH
YIMBY ACTION AND ON BEHALF OF
EAST BAY YIMBY MOUNTAIN VIEW
YIMBY NORTHERN NEIGHBORS,
PENINSULA FOR EVERYONE, SAN
FRANCISCO YIMBY, SANTA CRUZ,
YIMBY. SANTA ROSA, YIMBY, SLOW
C¢M URBAN ENVIRONMENTALISTS GROW
THE RICHMOND VENTURA COUNTY
NIMBY STREETS FOR PEOPLE SOUTH
SIDE FORWARD. HOW TO ADU PEOPLE
FOR HOUSING ORANGE COUNTY
PROGRESS NÓ VALLEY, SOUTH BAY
YIMBY AND NAPA SOLANO FOR
EVERYONE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I ONLY REPRESENT ONE GROUP,
WE'RE HAPPY TO CO-SPONSOR THE
BILL. CALIFORNIA BUILDING
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CHRIS ROSA, ON BEHALF
OF THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, LAUREN
DE VALENCIA, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
WE'RE KIND OF IN AN IN-BETWEEN
POSITION, BUT JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BILL. WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS AND LOOK FORWARD
TO MOVING TO A NEUTRAL POSITION
SOON. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ANDRÉS
RAMIREZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
TRI-VALLEY CITIES COALITION,
WHICH INCLUDES DUBLIN,
LIVERMORE, PLEASANTON, DANVILLE
AND SAN RAMON. JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
SPUR FOR HAVING A MEETING WITH
OUR COALITION. A FEW WEEKS BACK.
WE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THOSE
CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED. WE
DON'T HAVE A FORMAL POSITION,
BUT THANK THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE MORE.
YEAH. ONE MORE APOLOGIES, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. BRADY
GANNON, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. TAKE YOU IN A
SECOND. OH I THOUGHT WE WERE
DOING BOTH. I'M MAKING SURE WE
HAVE ALL OF OUR SUPPORTERS WHO
HAVE REGISTERED SUPPORT. OKAY,
BRADY, IF YOU WANT TO COME ON UP
AND GIVE YOUR, UP TO TWO MINUTE
TESTIMONY, SURE. WHY NOT?
PROPOSITION APOLOGIES DIDN'T
EVEN WANT TO STAND IN AND BE
LEAD ONE, BUT THAT'S OKAY, SO
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARK
GOVERNMENT PARTNERS ARE IN A
RESPECTABLE PROPOSAL. UNLESS
AMENDED. THAT SAID, WE'VE HAD
VERY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
WILL CONTINUE THOSE THE CONCERNS
BEING, WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR
CITIES ARE NOT LOCKED IN DURING
THE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
PROCESS TO THE FEES THAT WE
HAVE. SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH
THOSE DIFFERENCES RIGHT NOW AND
LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS. AND WANTED TO
THANK THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE FOR
THAT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION? ALYSSA STILL HI. IN,
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICTS WITH AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION. AND
THEN ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUE
AT THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION THERE IN
OPPOSE. HOWEVER, FOR BOTH OF US,
WE REALLY THANK THE AUTHOR AND
HER STAFF, COMMITTEE STAFF AND
THE BILL SPONSORS. WE'VE HAD
REALLY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS.
OUR MEMBERS BOTH ARE LOOKING
OVER THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENTS
AND CONTINUE TO EVALUATE THE
IMPACTS. IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE
WHILE TO GET SOME OF THAT BACK
AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
DISCUSSIONS, AND HOPE TO BE ABLE
TO RESOLVE IT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
STATE A POSITION AT THIS TIME, I
BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO,
MADAM SECRETARY WOULD YOU CALL
THE ROLL? OF COURSE. WARREN, I,
HERE, HERE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. HERE. GRAYSON.
GRAYSON HERE. CHOLERA. LEE. LEE.
HERE. QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA.
HERE. REYES. SANCHEZ. WILSON
THANK YOU. WE HAVE QUORUM. I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR
MEMBER COMMENT. MR. LEE. YEAH.
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
THINK A SIMPLE FEE TRANSPARENCY
IN SOME ESTIMATION OF HOW OF
WHAT DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE WANT
TO INTEND TO BUILD IN OUR
COMMUNITY IS VERY REASONABLE. SO
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED AS
COAUTHOR, IF POSSIBLE, TO THIS
BILL, AND I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE
BILL AS WELL. THANK YOU, MISS
LEE. AND SECOND, BY MR. GRAYSON.
ANY OTHER MEMBER COMMENTS? VICE
CHAIR PATTERSON. YES. THANK YOU,
I HAVE A BILL UP LATER TODAY
THAT WOULD DELAY IMPACT FEES
UNTIL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY,
AND, HASN'T RECEIVED A TOO WARM
OF A RECEPTION FROM SOME GROUPS,
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO CREATE
SYSTEMS TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE
GOVERNMENT'S NOT GETTING IN THE
WAY, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THINGS
LIKE THAT. AND WE'RE JUST ASKING
FOR A LITTLE BIT OF TRANSPARENCY
, IN HELPING PEOPLE MAKE MASSIVE
MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENTS
IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. PATTERSON. SEEING
NO OTHER MEMBERS, MISS SHY, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD AND WORKING ON
SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
TRANSPARENCY SAKE, BUT
IMPORTANTLY, THE PREDICTABILITY.
K¾T, TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU
KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE GOING INTO,
THAT YOU CAN SCHEDULE AND PRICE
THIS OUT THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME
OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT
EVERY SIDE HERE. I APPRECIATE
ALSO YOUR EARNEST EFFORTS TO BE
ABLE TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION ON
SOME OF THEIR POINTS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY HAVE WHAT THEY
NEED FOR, THE ACCOUNTABILITY SAU
ON THEIR BACK END. AND WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS, FROM THE COMMITTEE
AND THE CHAIR AND YOU KNOW, WE
IT'S EXACTLY ABOUT THAT. IT'S
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, BUT IT'S
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WHEN IT
COMES TO DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW,
THOSE COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING THOSE
HOMES. AND WE KNOW THAT HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY IS A CRISIS RIGHT
NOW, SO BEING ABLE TO PLAN UP
FRONT, BEING ABLE TO PREDICT
THAT AND BEING ABLE TO KNOW, AND
HOPEFULLY LOCK IN THOSE PRICES
EARLY WILL MAKE A HUGE
DIFFERENCE, HOPEFULLY IN HOME
PRICES. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS, AS I SAID EARLIER,
THIS REALLY CAN BE SOMETHING
THAT MAKES OR BREAKS A
DEVELOPMENT. AND WHEN YOU GET A
SURPRISE MILLION DOLLAR FEE AT
THE END OF A PROJECT, AND YOU
DIDN'T ANTICIPATE FOR THAT WHEN
THAT, YOU KNOW THAT IS A RAZOR
THIN MARGIN, JUST APPRECIATE AN
EYE VOTE AND THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU
ARE TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
PRESENTED TODAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. SO THIS, HAS A MOTION FOR
DUE PASS, AS AMENDED. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
MOTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE COMMITTEE, TO THE COMMITTEE
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WARD. WARD
I. PATTERSON. PATTERSON I.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON. I. CHOLERA.
LEE I. LEE. I. QUIRK-SILVA
REYES. SANCHEZ WILSON. ONE. WE
WILL HOLD THAT BILL. OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. AND NEXT, YOU
ARE HERE TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER
17. THIS IS A B 2674. WHEN
YOU'RE NEW WITNESSES ARE READY
TO GO, YOU MAY BEGIN
PRESENTATION HERE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU AGAIN, MISTER CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I'M GRATEFUL FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB
2674 TO YOU TODAY. AB 2674
SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
FOR FOSTER YOUTH AND THE MANY IN
NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY
ADDING THREE ADDITIONAL
FINANCIAL TOOLS TO THE CALHFA
TOOLBOX. NEARLY 1 IN 3
TRANSITION AGE FOSTER YOUTH IN
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS. BOTH FEDERAL AND
STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE INVESTED
IN SUPPORTING FOSTER YOUTH AND
TRANSITIONAL AGE IN FINDING
PERMANENT HOUSING. BUT THE MAJOR
BARRIER IS THE LACK OF
AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING
DEDICATED TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE NATURE OF
FOSTER YOUTH RENTAL SUBSIDIES,
WHICH ARE PORTABLE, HAS LED TO
THE PERCEPTION THAT HOUSING IS A
RISKIER INVESTMENT. HOWEVER
FOSTER YOUTH HOUSING SUBSIDIES
ARE CONSISTENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN
PARTNERED WITH SERVICE
PROVIDERS. AB 2674 BORROWS FROM
THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND
INNOVATION ACT, WHICH USES LOAN
GUARANTEES, LINES OF CREDIT AND
LOANS TO ENCOURAGE PRIVATE
INVESTMENT INTO INFRASTRUCTURE
BY REDUCING PERCEIVED RISK
FACTORS FOR FINANCIERS, CREATING
AN ECOSYSTEM WHERE FOSTER YOUTH
SERVICE PROVIDERS CAN MORE
EASILY ACCESS PRIVATE FUNDING
FOR ACQUISITIONS AND
RENOVATIONS, WILL MAKE IT EASIER
FOR YOUTH TO FIND A PLACE TO
CALL HOME HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS SUE EVANS, CHIEF
OPERATING ENGINEERS OFFICE OFF.
SORRY, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
OF WALDEN FAMILY SERVICES, AND
KEVIN CLARK, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF
GOOD RIVER PARTNERS. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR WARD AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. KEVIN CLARK
WITH GOOD RIVER PARTNERS. AND WE
ARE A PUBLIC BENEFIT FIRM THAT
IS COMPLETELY DEDICATED TO,
ELIMINATING THE FOSTER CARE TO
HOMELESSNESS PIPELINE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. AS ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
CHAU JUST MENTIONED. YOU KNOW,
WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH THAT
ABOUT. EXCUSE ME, ABOUT ONE
QUARTER OF TRANSITION AGE FOSTER
YOUTH ARE GOING TO EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA
DURING THE AGES OF 21 AND 23.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, AN
ADDITIONAL ONE THIRD ARE GOING
TO EXPERIENCE ARE GOING TO HAVE
EXPERIENCED WITH COUCH SURFING.
PERSONALLY, I'M A FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH MYSELF. I EXPERIENCED
TRANSITION TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
WHEN I WAS ABOUT 19, AND I WAS
IN BETWEEN PLACES AND THE ONLY
THE ONLY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME, THE
ONLY ONE THAT HAD AN OPEN BED
WAS ABOUT THREE HOURS FROM THE
EVENING JOB. I WAS WORKING IN
HOLLYWOOD. SO AS AN, AS A, AS A
SOLUTION FOR ME, I WOULD JUST
SLEEP ON THE BUSSES AND JUST GO
BACK AND FORTH ON THE BUSSES IN
THE EVENING UNTIL THERE WAS A
MORE DIRECT LINE TO THE
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, LOCATION.
AND A LOT OF MY FRIENDS IN
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, YOU KNOW,
THEY CALLED HOME THEIR CARS. YOU
KNOW, THEY WERE RECLINED THE
PASSENGER SEAT OF THEIR CAR, AND
THAT WOULD BE THEIR PLACE TO
SLEEP FOR THE EVENING. SO IT'S
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FOCUS ON
LONG TERME GOALS WHEN OUR KIND
OF IMMEDIATE NEEDS ARE IN
JEOPARDY. WE, AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER
SHIAVO MENTIONED, AB 2674 IS A
SENSIBLE AND COST EFFECTIVE
SOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE, AND
WOULD EXPAND THE NUMBER OF
AVAILABLE UNITS FOR TRANSITION
AGED YOUTH AND LOW INCOME
FAMILIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
AS THE BILL DOES SO BY BORROWING
FROM VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.
TIFIA AS MISS HAD MENTIONED, AND
I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT TIFIA
HAS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL IN
LEVERAGING PRIVATE CAPITAL TO
FUND OUR NATION'S ROADS,
HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES. IN FACT,
BETWEEN FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2018
AND 20, TIFIA UTILIZED ABOUT 3.1
BILLION IN THEIR MECHANISMS.
THEIR FINANCING MECHANISMS TO
SPUR AN ADDITIONAL 12.2 BILLION
IN ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INTO THE
SPACE. THAT'S ALMOST A4X
LEVERAGE RATIO. AND AB 2674 AB
2674 WOULD ACTUALLY ACT AS A
REVENUE GENERATOR, WE BELIEVE,
FOR THE STATE, AS CALHFA COULD
CHARGE FEES AND INTEREST ON ANY
FINANCING PRODUCTS PROVIDED, SO
THAT'S THE HIGH LEVEL LEVERAGES,
PROVEN TRACK RECORD. THANK YOU.
GENERATES REVENUE. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT, MA'AM. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SUE EVANS.
I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
FOR ONE OF THE TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING PROVIDERS. IT'S A
NONPROFIT, WALDEN FAMILY
SERVICES. WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS
FOR ALMOST 48 YEARS, AND WE'RE
VERY PROUD TO BE A SPONSOR OF AB
2674. WALDEN PROVIDES
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORT
SERVICES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
FOR FOSTER AND FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH, 18 TO 25 YEARS SAN.
ODDLY, OVER 30% OF FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH END UP HOMELESS THIS
IMPACTS THEIR ABILITY TO
COMPLETE SCHOOL WORK AND
TRANSITION INTO BECOMING
SELF-SUFFICIENT YOUNG ADULTS. WE
AT WALDEN ARE PROVIDING SERVICES
IN SOME OF THE HIGHEST COST
COUNTIES, INCLUDING LA COUNTY
AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY. EVEN
THOUGH THE DEMAND FOR YOUTH
NEEDING HOUSING HAS INCREASED,
WE FREQUENTLY CANNOT FIND ENOUGH
NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE
RENTAL UNITS TO MEET THE NUMBER
OF BEDS WE ARE CONTRACTED TO
PROVIDE. WE ARE COMPETING FOR
RENTAL APARTMENTS ON THE OPEN
MARKET FREQUENTLY BEING FORCED
TO LEAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES AS
APARTMENTS ARE CONVERTED INTO
LUXURY APARTMENTS WITH
EXORBITANT RENTS. IN ADDITION,
MANY HOUSING MANAGERS ARE ALSO
TURNING US AWAY AS THEY'RE NOT
WANTING TRANSITIONAL AGE YOUTH
IN THEIR COMPLEXES. WALDEN
DECIDED TO PURCHASE SOME
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING WITH THE
SUPPORT OF A CONDITIONAL AWARD
FROM HOMEKEY. HOWEVER, THERE'S
BEEN A SHORT TIME GAP BETWEEN
THE PURCHASE OF OUR UNITS AND
THE FUNDS BEING REIMBURSED. THIS
HAS REQUIRED US TO TAKE A HARD
MONEY LOAN AT GREAT EXPENSE.
EVEN THOUGH WALDEN IS AN
ESTABLISHED NONPROFIT WITH MANY
COUNTY CONTRACTS, WE HAVE NEVER
OWNED ANY PROPERTY AND WE WERE
TURNED AWAY FROM ACCESSING
CONVENTIONAL LOANS AS WE WERE
SEEN TO BE A HIGH RISK. THE ONLY
LOANS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
ACCESS ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE,
WITH VERY HIGH INTEREST RATES,
WHICH TAKES AWAY FUNDING, WHICH
IS MUCH NEEDED FOR THE
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. WE HAVE TO
ASSIST MORE YOUTH. 10S HOMEKEY
HAS BEEN A HUGE SUCCESS AND
WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE
LEGISLATURE'S INVESTMENTS IN THE
PROGRAM. THOUGH ACCESS TO DEBT
FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROVIDERS REMAINS EXTREMELY
COSTLY AND OFTENTIMES OUTRIGHT
IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. THANK YOU
FOR THE PRESENTATION. TO PROVIDE
. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT?
NICOLE MORALES, ON BEHALF OF
CHILDREN NOW IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. RAFA SONNENFELD WITH YIMBY
ACTION IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, ADAM KAGAN ON BEHALF OF
THE TELEVISION ACADEMY
FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS IN
WISHING TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR
SUPPORT, ARE THERE ANY, PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS
BILL, SEEING NOBODY APPROACHED
THE TABLE, ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION? OKAY,
BRINGING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENT.
MR. PATTERSON, VICE CHAIR
PATTERSON MOVES THE BILL SECOND,
SECONDED BY MR. KALRA, MISS
SHIVA, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING ON THIS. CLEARLY, WE
KNOW THAT SUPPORTING OUR FOSTER
YOUTH THROUGH THESE PROGRAMS IS
ESSENTIAL. YOU'RE ONE OF A FEW
MEMBERS THAT IS REALLY STANDING
UP TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS
VULNERABLE COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE
GRATEFUL, CERTAINLY WE ALL ALSO
KNOW THAT WE'RE FACING THE
CHALLENGES THAT WE ARE WITH THE
STATE BUDGET, AND TRYING TO BE
ABLE TO PROTECT MANY OF OUR
INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE. AND
THAT IS A PRIORITY OF MINE, FROM
A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, I VERY
MUCH SUPPORT WHAT YOU WERE
TRYING TO DO, AND I'LL BE HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU.
YES. THANK YOU. AND I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS A SECOND
ITERATION. WE TRIED ANOTHER
VERSION OF THIS BILL LAST YEAR
WHICH DID NOT MAKE IT ACROSS THE
FINISH LINE, THIS ONE, WE'RE
VERY EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE IT
ACTUALLY IS BUDGET POSITIVE
INSTEAD OF BUDGET NEGATIVE, AND
SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TO ACTUALLY DO THE IMPORTANT
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE PROVIDING
HOUSING FOR, FOR, FOSTER YOUTH
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND
ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE A
POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR BUDGET.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THOSE ARE
SOLUTIONS WE NEED THIS YEAR, SO
APPRECIATE AND I VOTE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. MISS MADAM
SECRETARY, CALL THE ROLE, MOTION
TO PASS, TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES.
WORD I WORD I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I GRAYSON GRAYSON I
CHOLERA, CHOLERA I LI I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES SANCHEZ. WILSON. AND THAT
BILL WILL BE OUT, WE'RE AT SIX
ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. NEXT, WE WILL
ENTERTAIN ITEM NUMBER SIX BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN. MY
NEIGHBOR, THIS IS ASSEMBLY BILL
AB 2159. WHEN YOU AND YOUR
SPONSORS ARE READY, WE CAN BEGIN
THE PRESENTATION. WELL, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT
IS GOOD TO SEE YOU SITTING UP
THERE, AND LET ME START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AB 2159 WILL
AUTHORIZE A COMMON INTEREST
DEVELOPMENT TO USE AN ELECTRONIC
VOTING SYSTEM FOR A NARROW LIST
OF ASSOCIATION BUSINESS. THE
DAVIS-STIRLING ACT GOVERNS THE
OPERATION OF CIDS, OUTLINING THE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE
ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS. ONE
CRUCIAL ASPECT IS THE ELECTION
PROCESS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY
CONDUCTED THROUGH A PAPER AND
MAIL BASED SYSTEM, IT AKIN TO
CALIFORNIA'S SECRET BALLOT
PROCESS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, MANY ASSOCIATIONS
EMBRACE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
TECHNOLOGY TO INCREASE
PARTICIPATION. THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED A BILL LAST YEAR TO ALLOW
THE CONTINUED USE OF THAT
TECHNOLOGY TO CONDUCT
ASSOCIATION BUSINESS. AS OF
TODAY, 27 STATES HAVE AUTHORIZED
ASSOCIATIONS TO UTILIZE
ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS. THIS
METHOD OF VOTING ATTEMPTS TO
ADDRESS A KEY ISSUE IN CURRENT
ELECTIONS. VOTER APATHY. MANY
ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT EVEN ABLE
TO OBTAIN A QUORUM. AN ISSUE
THAT LEGISLATURES ATTEMPTS TO
ADDRESS. LAST SESSION. THE
CURRENT SYSTEM IS ALSO EXPENSIVE
AND INEFFICIENT, ESPECIALLY IF
IT'S REQUIRED TO BE DONE
MULTIPLE TIMES. AB 2159 IS
PERMISSIVE OF GIVING
ASSOCIATIONS AN OPTION. IT HAS
ALSO RECENTLY BEEN AMENDED TO
ADD PROVISIONS TO SAFEGUARD
HOMEOWNER PRIVACY AND ENSURE
ACCESSIBILITY, AND PROVIDE FOR A
HOMEOWNER TO OPT OUT AND REQUEST
A PAPER BALLOT. THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS NARROW THE SCOPE
FURTHER, ONLY ALLOWING THIS
OPTION TO BE USED FOR BOARD
MEMBER ELECTIONS AND CHANGES TO
THE ASSOCIATION'S GOVERNING
DOCUMENTS. OTHER THAN ALLOWING
FOR AN ELECTRONIC BALLOT TO BE
USED. AB 2159 MAKES NO OTHER
CHANGES IN THE ELECTION
PROCEDURES OR PROCESS CURRENTLY
OUTLINED IN LAW. THIS BILL
REPRESENTS A SOLUTION TO
INCREASE HOMEOWNER PARTICIPATION
WHILE ALSO REDUCING COSTS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND WITH ME HERE TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS LOUIE
BROWN, REPRESENTING THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
INSTITUTE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LOUIE
BROWN, HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE,
JUST A COUPLE POINTS TO SUPPORT
MR. MAIENSCHEIN STATEMENT IS
THAT FIRST, THIS IS PERMISSIVE.
WE'RE JUST AUTHORIZING
ASSOCIATIONS TO UTILIZE THIS AS
A TOOL. IF THEY SO CHOOSE, WE'VE
ALSO ADDED AND IN OUR RESEARCH
OF THE 27 STATES THAT AUTHORIZE
THIS, NOW, WE WENT THROUGH AND
LOOKED AT ALL THE VARIOUS
SECURITY MEASURES AND, AND
TRANSPARENCY MEASURES THAT ARE
PROVIDED. AND WE TOOK ALONG WITH
THE HELP OF, OF YOUR STAFF, WHAT
WE THOUGHT WERE THE BEST AND
MOST PROTECTIVE AND INCORPORATED
THEM IN THE BILL IN ORDER TO
ENSURE THE SECRECY IS STILL, IS
STILL THERE IN THE THESE
ELECTIONS AS WELL AS THE
PROTECTION OF THE HOMEOWNERS. SO
WITH THIS, WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT
IS A VIABLE TOOL. THE TECHNOLOGY
HAS COME A LONG WAY OVER THE
YEARS, AND IF A BOARD SO CHOOSES
TO DO IT, THEN THEY SHOULD BE
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO
TO SAVE COSTS, INCREASE VOTER
PARTICIPATION, AND HOPEFULLY
HAVE, GREATER TURNAROUND IN
THESE ELECTIONS. WITH THAT, WE
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT?
OKAY. SEE, NO ONE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE. ARE THERE, PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
?
SORRY. THANK YOU. THANKS. GOOD
MORNING, MARJORIE MURRAY, CENTER
FOR CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION LAW, WE ARE
EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
BILL, IT IS THE SECOND ATTEMPT
BY THE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
INDUSTRY TO INTRODUCE INTERNET
VOTING. THE LAST ONE WAS IN
2013, AND THAT EFFORT WAS WAS
REJECTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE. IN A TWO
PAGE LETTER TO THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH LAID
OUT HER REASONS MAY THE MAIN
REASON BEING INTERNET VOTING
CANNOT BE MADE SECURE. IT CAN BE
HACKED, IT CAN BE MANIPULATED,
THE OUTCOME CAN BE CHANGED.
AGED, VOTER IDENTITY CANNOT BE
ASSURED, AND THE BEDROCK OF
VOTING, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS THE
SECRET BALLOT. AND THE BILL AND
THE ANALYSIS REFER REPEATEDLY TO
THE ELECTRONIC SECRET BALLOT,
WHICH IS GOING TO BE CONVEYED BY
EMAIL AND BY WEBSITES. THIS IS A
CONTRADICTION IN TERMS THAT NO
SUCH ANIMAL EXISTS. YOU CANNOT
HAVE AN ELECTRONIC AN ELECTRONIC
SECRET BALLOT. AND IT'S NOT JUST
ME SAYING IT. IT'S THE
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE.
IT'S EVERY ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY
EXPERT FROM MIT TO UC BERKELEY.
THE MOST RECENT STUDY IS FROM
LAST OCTOBER. UC BERKELEY
GOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY,
WHICH ACTUALLY WAS ATTEMPTING TO
DETERMINE IF INTERNET VOTING
COULD BE MADE SECURE. AND
DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS IN A
60 PAGE POLICY PAPER, THEY MADE
CLEAR IT DOESN'T EXIST. YES, THE
EARLIER BILL WAS IN 2013 WERE
NOW TEN YEARS ON THE TECHNOLOGY
SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST. IT MIGHT
IN THE FUTURE. IT DOESN'T EXIST
NOW. 10S. SO SORRY, MY COLLEAGUE
TOM, SIR WILL TALK ABOUT ANOTHER
ASPECT OF THE BILL, WHICH IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US, AND
THAT IS HOW DOES A HOMEOWNER GO
ABOUT CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM AND
THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS THAT
SYSTEM IS IN PLACE NOW. THIS
BILL WOULD CHANGE THAT SYSTEM.
THANK YOU SIR, MY NAME IS TOM,
SIR. I'M A RETIRED SUPERIOR
COURT COMMISSIONER, AND I'VE
BEEN HEARING SMALL CLAIMS CASES
SINCE 2002. CONTINUING AFTER
RETIREMENT AND THROUGH THE
PRESENT. I ALSO SPENT FIVE YEARS
AS THE CHAIR OF THE ADVISORY
SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL ON SMALL CLAIMS. AND SO
I HAVE A LOT OF SMALL CLAIMS,
BACKGROUND. NOW, UNLIKE THE
FLORIDA STATUTE, WHICH HAS BEEN
CITED, OFFERED AS A PRIME
EXAMPLE OF A STATE THAT ALLOWS
THIS KIND OF VOTING, NOTE THAT
IN FLORIDA, THERE IS AN
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY THAT
ARBITRATES AND DECIDES
CHALLENGES TO HOA ELECTIONS.
CALIFORNIA BY CONTRAST, RELIES
ON SMALL CLAIMS COURTS TO
RESOLVE SUCH CHALLENGES. SIMPLY
PUT, ELECTRONIC VOTING SIMPLY
CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN SMALL
CLAIMS COURT WHERE LAYPERSONS
ARE THERE PRESENTING THEIR CASES
UNASSISTED BY ANYONE, INCLUDING
AN ATTORNEY. I WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT THERE IS AT THE SAN
DIEGO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
A SEVEN WEEK COURSE FOR
ATTORNEYS THAT DISCUSSES, QUOTE,
THE BEST PRACTICES TO PROPERLY
IDENTIFY, PRESERVE, COLLECT,
REVIEW, PRODUCE AND USE
ELECTRONIC ACTUALLY STORED
INFORMATION IN LITIGATION. SO IT
IS QUITE UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT A
LAYPERSON IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT
TO BE ABLE TO BRING ANY KIND OF
A CHALLENGE TO AN ELECTRONIC
VOTING, PROCESS. SO WE DO URGE
THAT YOU, A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL
FOR THOSE FOR THAT REASON AND
THE OTHER SIDED BY, MARJORIE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION? YOU SEEING NONE. WE
CAN BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MISS QUIRK-SILVA, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WE'VE NOW
HAD TWO UNDER THIS KIND OF TOPIC
THIS MORNING, BUT BUT THE
OPPOSITION'S REMARKS, DO SEEM
SERIOUS. ONE OF THE AREAS I'M
HOPING YOU CAN SPEAK TO IS NOT
ONLY THE OPPOSITION THÀNH, BUT
ALSO THE OPT OUT PART OF THIS, I
WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. MY
MOTHER DOES LIVE IN A, HOA, AND
SHE'S 87 YEARS OLD AND WOULD
HAVE NO, INTERFACING WITH ANY
TYPE OF ELECTRONIC NICK,
EXPERIENCE. SO IF YOU COULD
SPEAK TO THAT. SURE. AND I'LL
LET MR. BROWN TALK TO IT AS
WELL. BUT I'D START WITH WITH
THE PREMISE THAT THIS IS
PERMISSIVE ONLY. SO IN A LOT OF
THESE INSTANCES, THAT'S PROBABLY
IN PRACTICE, NOT AN ASSOCIATION
THAT'S GOING TO UTILIZE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THIS ISN'T
SOMETHING THAT'S BEING MANDATED
OR PRESSED DOWN OR REQUIRING OR
CHANGING. IT'S JUST ANOTHER
OPTION. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT
ALL OF US IN HERE. WE IN FACT,
OUR LEGISLATURE HAS DONE A GOOD
JOB OF IT. HOW DO YOU INCREASE
VOTING, WE KNOW FOR A LOT OF
THESE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A LOT OF
BOARDS, THEY CAN'T EVEN GET
PEOPLE TO BE ON THE BOARD, LET
ALONE VOTE FOR THE BOARD. SO I
THAT'S A PREMISE BEHIND IT.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE COMMITTEE
A LOT. WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH ANYBODY WHO BRINGS UP THE
OPPOSITION, ANYONE ELSE WHO
BRINGS UP POINTS, AS YOU KNOW.
AND I'LL TURN IT TO MR. BROWN IF
HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.
WELL, LET ME JUST ASK, WOULD
THEY THEN IN FACT RECEIVE A
LETTER SAYING THEY COULD OPT OUT
AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO,
LITERALLY MAKE A CALL TO OPT
OUT? SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT
WOULDN'T BE ELECTRONIC OPT OUT,
CORRECT? YES EVERY IF AN
ASSOCIATION MOVED DOWN THIS PATH
, EVERY MEMBER OF THE
ASSOCIATION WOULD RECEIVE NOTICE
ALONG WITH THE NORMAL ELECTION
PROCESS. AN ELECTION IS GOING TO
TAKE PLACE. AND WITHIN THAT
NOTICE IT WOULD SAY WE'RE
UTILIZING THIS ELECTRONIC
BALLOTING SYSTEM. IF YOU PREFER
TO RECEIVE A PAPER BALLOT, LET
US KNOW. NOW THAT COULD BE AN
ELECTRONIC NOTICE BACK. THAT'S
UP TO THE ASSOCIATION AND HOW
THEY WANT TO HANDLE THAT TYPE OF
COMMUNICATION. BUT IT IS GOING
TO BE GIVEN TO EVERY MEMBER OF
THE ASSOCIATION. THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE GIVEN ONE OF THOSE PAPER
BALLOTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
VICE CHAIR PATTERSON. THANKS,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT I'VE BEEN
AT A CONSTANT STATE OF WAR WITH
MY HOA OVER NOT ENOUGH BARK IN
MY FRONT YARD, I, I DO LIVE IN A
VERY LARGE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION IN MY DISTRICT IS
FILLED WITH, HOAS, MANY OF THEM,
OR AT LEAST TWO OF THEM BEING,
FOR 55 AND OLDER. AND I THINK
THE QUESTIONS ASKED, BY MY
COLLEAGUE ARE WELL PLACED. I
LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN GET A
PAPER BALLOT. STILL, I THINK
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT
ALSO WITH HOW LARGE MY HOA IS,
YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ELECTIONS WHERE I DON'T SUPPORT
IT, YOU KNOW, NORMAL ELECTIONS
BEING ELECTRONIC IS THAT IF WE
HAVE 10% VOTER TURNOUT, THE
ELECTION RESULTS STAND. YOU
KNOW, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. BUT
IN AN HOA ELECTION, THE
THRESHOLD IS HIGHER. IN THE
PROCESS OF SENDING THESE THINGS
OUT ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, IT'S
VERY HARD FOR US TO GET QUORUM,
AND, BUT WE HAVE BIG ISSUES, YOU
KNOW, THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE
WITH 3000 HOMES, BY THE WAY. SO
IT'S A REALLY BIG HOA. SO SO I
SUPPORT THIS, I DO THINK HAVING
MORE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE, YOU
KNOW, THE IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY
HOW IT IS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I
WOULD DEFINITELY LISTEN TO THE
OPPOSITION AND, AND SEE, YOU
KNOW, IF THERE ARE MORE WAYS TO
ENSURE THAT PEOPLE THAT DON'T
WANT TO VOTE ELECTED CHRONICALLY
CAN CONTINUE TO ACCESS A PAPER
BALLOT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE
HOA ARE UNABLE TO REALLY, YOU
KNOW, KIND OF GET AROUND THAT.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THIS
IS A REALLY IMPORTANT BILL AND
I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. SO THANK
YOU. MR. PATTERSON. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO COMMENT?
WELL, SOME MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON
THIS ISSUE. I WOULD HOPE THAT
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS THAT
WE'VE MADE IMPROVEMENTS,
INDUSTRY WIDE ON ISSUES OF
SECURITY. I KNOW THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS
PASSES COMMITTEE TODAY, YOU'RE
GOING TO BE TAKING VERY
SERIOUSLY AS WE THINK ABOUT
THINGS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ABOUT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE
PARTICIPATION FOR ME, AND
TESTING OUT NEW MODELS THAT
MIGHT BE ABLE TO AFFORD MORE
PEOPLE TO LEND VOICE. BUT FOR,
RESTATING, YOU KNOW, WHAT OTHERS
HAVE MENTIONED HERE AROUND, THE
OPTION, FIRST OF ALL, TO THE
PERMISSIVENESS OF THIS BILL, AND
SECONDLY, THE OPTION THAT, YOU
KNOW, THERE WOULD STILL BE
ACCESS TO A PAPER BALLOT, I
THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THAT. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? WELL SAID. I
WOULD USE THAT AS MY CLOSE. I
THINK YOU HIT THE EXACT
PERTINENT POINTS. I MEAN, THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID.
SO I'LL SAVE YOU THE TIME SO YOU
CAN GET THROUGH THE NEXT PEOPLE
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR.
MAIENSCHEIN. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MOTION TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, BOARD.
I'M SORRY, WAS THERE A MOTION?
OAN SO MOVED BY VICE CHAIR
PATTERSON AND A SECOND BY MISS
REYES. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL WARD. I BOUGHT I
PATTERSON, PATTERSON, I GRAYSON,
COLLURA LEE LI I QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA. I REYES. SANCHEZ
WILSON. REYES I SANCHEZ. WILSON.
HI WILSON, I THANK YOU. WE ARE
AT SIX ZERO. THE BILL WILL BE
OUT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD A
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
NEXT WE HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ALVAREZ, MY OTHER NEIGHBOR.
WHO'S HERE ON TWO BILLS AT THE
MOMENT, THIS IS A ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, AB 1886. AND ITEM NUMBER
13, AB 2560. WHICH ONE WOULD YOU
LIKE TO BEGIN WITH, MR. CHAIR?
I'LL BEGIN WITH 1886. EIGHT.
YEAH. WHEN YOU'RE READY, GO
AHEAD AND BEGIN PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR,
COLLEAGUES. GOOD MORNING. I'M
HERE ON AB 1886, WANT TO START
OFF BY, CLEARLY STATING WE ARE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK WITH US ON THIS
BILL, ASSEMBLY BILL 1886
CLARIFIES, BECAUSE IT APPEARS
THAT IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED
THAT HCD THE HOUSING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DETERMINES WHETHER A LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS HOUSING ELEMENT IS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOUSING
ELEMENTS LAW, AND THAT IF A
PROJECT IS SUBMITTED DURING THIS
PERIOD OF NONCOMPLIANCE, IT IS
ELIGIBLE FOR THE BUILDERS
REMEDY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
THE CITY REACHES COMPLIANCE
BEFORE IT IS APPROVED. FOR SOME
CONTEXT, THE BUILDERS REMEDY IS
A TOOL THAT THE LEGISLATURE
ESTABLISHED THREE DECADES AGO.
THE LEGISLATURE ENVISIONED THAT
IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT A HOUSING
ELEMENT THAT WOULD BE, COMPLETE
AND SUBSTANTIALLY, APPROVED,
WITH THE PLANNING FOR ENOUGH
HOUSING IN EACH ONE OF OUR
JURISDICTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE PROVISION WENT UNUSED FOR
DECADES, AND NOW THAT IT IS
BEING USED, THERE HAS BEEN SOME
CASES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
FORWARD TO CHALLENGE WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE'S INTENT WAS THREE
DECADES AGO, GIVEN THE SHIFT IN
SUPPORT FOR MORE HOUSING AT THE
STATE LEVEL, DEVELOPERS HAVE
BEEN USING THIS FORGOTTEN CODE
AND HAVE BEGUN TO SUBMIT
BUILDERS REMEDY PROJECTS.
DESPITE THE UPTICK IN THESE
PROJECTS. DUE TO THE LACK OF THE
CLARITY, MANY CITIES HAVE
REFUSED TO EVEN PROCESS THE
APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED BY PROJECT PROPONENTS.
AGAIN AS I STATED, A COURT CASES
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT MANY OCCASIONS
THAT HAVE SLOWED DOWN HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT EVEN MORE IN AREAS,
MAINLY IN AREAS THAT NEED THE
HOUSING THE MOST. AT ITS CORE,
AB 1886 IS A GOOD GOVERNANCE
BILL THAT WOULD FIX A TOOL THAT
THE LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED 30
YEARS AGO. IT IS WRITTEN TO
PROVIDE CERTAINTY AND CLEAR UP
AMBIGUITY IN THE LAW. WITH AB
1886, IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THE
BUILDERS REMEDY CAN AND SHOULD
BE USED AS INTENDED TO BUILD
MORE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY IN
CITIES THAT ARE NOT DOING THEIR
PART IN SOLVING THE STATE'S
HOUSING CRISIS. WE WILL
ELIMINATE THE THREAT OF LENGTHY
LEGAL DELAYS THAT ARE CAUSED BY
THOSE WHO JUST DON'T WANT TO
BUILD MORE HOUSING. I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE ANALYSIS BY THE
STAFF ON PAGE SEVEN, THERE'S ONE
SENTENCE, I THINK, IN PARTICULAR
THAT REALLY CAPTURES THE INTENT
OF THIS AND WANT TO MAKE SURE IT
PUTS THIS ON THE RECORD, FINAL
PARAGRAPH TOWARDS THE BOTTOM.
SORRY, NOT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH,
THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH. FINAL
SENTENCE. THIS BILL WOULD
ELIMINATE ARGUMENTS MADE BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT BY
SELF-CERTIFYING, WHICH IS A TOOL
THAT OFTEN IS USED BY
GOVERNMENTS THAT, ARGUMENTS MADE
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT BY
SELF-CERTIFYING OR ADOPTING A
HOUSING ELEMENT THAT DOES NOT
REFLECT HCD'S FINDINGS. THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLIANCE PER
THE BUILDERS REMEDY. ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGE WITH THE ANALYSIS
STATES THAT, THERE APPEARS TO BE
SOME REDUCTION CÁC OR IT'S
MENTIONED THAT IT MIGHT BE
UNNECESSARY REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION, IT IS BECAUSE THERE
HAVE BEEN SO MANY CASES. WE'RE
JUST TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR
WITH THIS LAW OF WHAT THE INTENT
OF THE BUILDERS REMEDY IS, AND
THAT'S WHY WE ARE, IN VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, RESTATING WHAT IS IN FACT
ALREADY LAW, BUT AGAIN, WANTING
TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. SO WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER,
TO NICK, CAMMARATA, WHO IS WITH,
GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE BIA FOR
SOME TESTIMONY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, CHAIR. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, NICK CAMMARATA FOR THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, PROUD TO BE A
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION,
I WANT TO BACK UP FOR A MOMENT
AND SAY THAT A BUILDER'S REMEDY
PROJECT IS NOT JUST ANY PROJECT,
BUT A PROJECT THAT INCLUDES 20%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO JUST A
100% MARKET RATE HOUSING PROJECT
IS NOT GOING TO QUALIFY. SECOND,
AND IN ANTICIPATION, I WOULD SAY
THAT MOST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
NOT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING
HAVING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW. MOST LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
SO THIS IS JUST TO TARGET THOSE
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SAID IT WANTS IN
LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENTS, AND TO
COMPLY WITH THE DATES THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN GIVEN. TO DO THAT, THE
EXISTING PROCESS REQUIRES LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO WORK WITH HCD IN
MAKING SURE THAT THEY COMPLY
WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW. HCD
HAS PROVEN TO BE, FLEXIBLE,
BEALL AND PERSISTENT, AND
ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SOME
DISCRETION IN DOING THAT. IT'S
IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR EVERYONE
INVOLVED THAT THAT THEY ARE NOT
LEFT TO JUST JUDGE FOR
THEMSELVES TO BE TO SELF-CERTIFY
FOR THEIR OWN HOUSING ELEMENTS.
AND SO WHAT THIS BILL SAYS IS
THAT YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
UNTIL YOU HAVE AN HCD SIGN OFF
OR YOU HAVE CAUGHT SIGN OFF. SO
IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T
LIKE WHAT HCD DOES, THEY CAN GO
TO THE COURTS AND CHALLENGE
THEIR DETERMINATION. AND THEN IN
ADDITION TO WHAT WAS SAID, I
THINK WHAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
IN THE SECOND PART OF THE BILL
IS REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
STATUS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME AN
APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IS
VESTED WITH THAT SUBMISSION OF
APPLICATION FOR THE FOR THE
PROJECT EIGHT SECONDS.
OTHERWISE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WILL JUST, DELAY PROCESSING THE
APPLICATION AND GO BACK AND FIX
THE HOUSING ELEMENT,
INSUFFICIENT. AND THAT PROJECT
WILL BE DEAD. SO THOSE ARE THE
TWO KEY POINTS, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT? AB
1886. BROOK PRITCHARD, ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
BOB NAYLOR, FOR FIELDSTEAD IN
SUPPORT. SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS. SPUR
AND CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT.
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION AND
SUPPORT RALPH SONNENFELD ON
BEHALF OF NBA ACTION. AND FOR
BREVITY'S SAKE, I WON'T INCLUDE
THE OTHER 19 COALITION MEMBERS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, REBECCA MARCUS WITH LEADING
AGE CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY, PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? YOU CAN
USE THE PRESENTATION OR THE MIC,
WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. BRADY GIRTON, ON BEHALF
OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES, IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
TO THE CURRENT MEASURE, OUR
CONCERNS ARE THE FACT THAT ONE
OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT WE'VE
SEEN WITH HCD BEING THE SOLE
DETERMINANT OF THIS HAS BEEN OUR
CITIES ARE WORKING CONTINUOUSLY
HARD TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT
TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
HOUSING ELEMENTS. SO MANY OF OUR
CITIES AND MEMBERS HAVE TOLD ME
THAT THEY'RE WORKING FROM 3 TO 4
YEARS TO GET A COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENT. WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO
IS WHEN HCD DETERMINES THAT THEY
ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, DESPITE
THE BEST GOOD FAITH EFFORTS,
THAT MEANS A DEVELOPER COULD
BUILD WHEREVER THEY WANT DURING
THAT TIME PROCESS, WHILE WAITING
TO GET IN COMPLIANCE OR WAITING
FOR A COURT OF LAW. SO THAT IS
WHERE OUR CONCERNS ARE. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT, OUR CITIES ARE
CONTINUING TO STRUGGLE WITH
GETTING A COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENT. WE'RE WORKING THROUGH
THAT. IT'S BEEN A LOT OF
DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF UNCLEAR
GUIDANCE, STAFFING, RESOURCES
THAT KIND OF DELAYS THE PROCESS.
AND OUR CITIES ARE DOING OUR
BEST TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE. SO
THOSE ARE OUR MAIN CONCERNS WITH
THE MEASURE, AND WE'LL LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION? ALYSSA STILL HI. ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CORONA,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WISHING TO REGISTER
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION, I'LL TURN
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. MISS
WILSON, THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHOR, DEFINITELY
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, TO ENSURE
THAT WE, AS AS I LIKE TO SAY,
PRODUCE, PRODUCE, PRODUCE
HOUSING IN THE STATE, ONE FOLLOW
UP QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERN, THE, TIME
PERIOD THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
AND MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND THE
BILL VERY CLEARLY IS THE TIME
WHEN HE'D SAID, WE'RE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
AND THE TIME PERIOD WHEN A WHEN
A CITY MAY TAKE THEM TO COURT OR
NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. WHAT PART
OF IS IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. AND
THAT TIME PERIOD USUALLY IS A
SELF-CERTIFICATION PERIOD. AND
THAT'S THE TIME PERIOD THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IN TERMS
OF ELIMINATING. SO AS IT REFERS
TO, ALLOWING AN APPLICATION TO
BE VESTED. YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
OKAY. AND, YOURS MAKES IT FROM
THE MOMENT HCD RESPONDS BACK TO
THERE, THERE'S NO TIME PERIOD IN
TERMS OF LIKE GIVING. I THINK
YOU NOTED THAT, OR MAYBE IT WAS
IN THE TESTIMONY, THAT A CITY
COULD THEN CHOOSE TO SELF
CERTIFY AND THEN NEVER TRY TO
RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND NEVER TAKE
THE COURT. AND THEY'RE FOREVER
SELF-CERTIFIED RIGHT. THAT IS,
THAT IS MAYBE WHAT SOME
CHARACTERIZE AS A LOOPHOLE. BUT
YES, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE
LOOPHOLE THAT'S TRYING TO BE
THAT WAS EXPIRED. AND SO AND
THERE IS NO THOUGHT TO JUST
PUTTING A TIME PERIOD MEANING
GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY,
THEY CAN SELF-CERTIFY FOR A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. WELL,
YOU KNOW, THERE IS A TIME PERIOD
GIVEN WHEN THE FIRST SUBMITTAL
OCCURS, WHEN HCD HAS 90 DAYS TO
REVIEW AND PROVIDE THE FEEDBACK
TO THE CITIES IN ORDER TO
COMPLY, THAT PERIOD EXISTS AND
THEY'RE IN EVEN PRIOR TO THAT.
HCD IS AVAILABLE AND CAN IF A
CITY WISHES TO SUBMIT PARTS OF
THEIR ELEMENT TO GET ASSISTANCE
TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE COMPLIANT.
AND SO I'M NOT IN THE PERIOD.
BUT YEAH. NO, NO, NO, I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE PERIOD OF
WHEN, WHEN HCD SAYS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE. SO UP UNTIL THAT
POINT, A BUILDER CAN SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION AND THE CITY HAS
FREE CONTROL TO SAY BASED ON
THEIR ZONING, WHATEVER, NOT
ACCEPTING, BUT THE MOMENT THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT IS NOT
CONSIDERED, NOT COMPLIANT BY
HCD, WHETHER THE CITY DISAGREES
OR NOT, THE AT THAT PARTICULAR
MOMENT IS WHEN THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY IS ALLOWABLE. FOR THOSE
THAT ARE MODERATE OR BELOW. THAT
INCLUDES THAT PERCENTAGE. SO
LIKE LIKE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT
SOMEBODY IS 100% MARKET. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN
AFFORDABLE COMPONENT TO THEIR
BUILDING AT THAT PARTICULAR
POINT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.
AND SO YOU HAVE NO LEEWAY TO
ALLOW, SO IF SOMEONE COMES IN
WITH AN APPLICATION THE NEXT
DAY, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO
WHATEVER IT IS THEY PLEASE, AS
LONG AS THEY HAVE AN
AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT. BECAUSE
OF THAT. SO THERE'S NO LEEWAY.
AND SO IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU
ALLOWED FOR NO LEEWAY ONCE THAT?
WHAT'S THAT MOMENT OF, THE
MOMENT HCD PUTS THAT DOWN, EVEN
THOUGH THE CITY MIGHT FEEL LIKE
THERE'S, THAT THEY HAVE A
REASON. YEAH AND IF YOU WANT TO
CHIME IN, YOU CAN, BUT I, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT THE THINKING
FROM US WAS WE BELIEVE THAT HCD
ACTS IN GOOD FAITH, MAYBE THERE
ARE SOME WHO MIGHT NOT BELIEVE
THAT IN THAT THERE IS A, AN
EXCHANGE IN ORDER TO REACH
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANCE, WHICH
WOULD WHICH THEN WOULD NOT
TRIGGER BUILDER'S REMEDY AND
THAT, THAT SHOULD, FIX THAT. BUT
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IN TERMS OF MAYBE THERE SHOULD
BE AN ADDITIONAL TIME PERIOD,
AND WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK
, JUST IF I COULD FOR
CLARIFICATION, THERE IS A
STATUTORY TIMELINE, A DEADLINE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE GIVES TO
EVERY JURISDICTION, AND THEY
KNOW THE PROCESS AHEAD OF TIME
AND PRIOR TO THEIR ADOPTION OF
THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THERE IS A
BACK AND FORTH WITH HCD AND EVEN
AT THAT TIME, IF HCD SAYS YOU'RE
NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY IS NOT TRIGGERED UNLESS
AND UNTIL THEY REMAIN NOT IN
COMPLIANCE BY THE DEADLINE. AND
SO IF THEY PLAN CORRECTLY AND
ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR HCD TO
REVIEW AND ENGAGE IN A BACK AND
FORTH WITH THEM ON WHAT THEY
WANT, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO MEET
THAT DEADLINE, AS I'M TOLD, 60%
OF THE JURISDICTIONS ARE DOING
AN. AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS IF THEY TELL HCD GO POUND
SAND, I'M NOT GOING TO DO WHAT
YOU SUGGEST AND THE DEADLINE
PASSES. NOW YOU'RE INTO THE
PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU'RE IN
BUILDER'S REMEDY. THERE IS A
PROCESS AFTER THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT FOR HCD TO GO
BACK AND COMMENT ON WHAT AND
FIND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IN
COMPLIANCE BASED ON THE FINAL
ADOPTION OF THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENT. AND IT'S AT THAT POINT
WHEN THE STATUTORY DEADLINE HITS
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IN
COMPLIANCE, THAT'S WHEN THE
BUILDERS REMEDY WOULD START.
IT'S REALLY MEANT AS A WAY TO,
TO ENCOURAGE GOOD FAITH ACTION
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS
BY WHEN THE ELEMENT HOUSING
ELEMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
SUBMITTED. AND THERE IS AGAIN,
AS STATED BEFORE AND STATED JUST
NOW, THE ABILITY FOR THAT BACK
AND FORTH TO MAKE SURE IT IS IN
COMPLIANCE WAS WE'RE SEEING IN
CASES LIKE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE,
THAT WAS JUST, LAST MONTH, WENT
TO COURT IS THERE'S SOME, SOME
ACTORS WHO JUST REFUSE TO DO
THAT IN GOOD FAITH. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE.
RIGHT. AND I THINK GIVEN THE
FACT THAT YOU SAID 60% ARE
COMPLIANT, 40% ARE NOT, BUT 40%
ARE NOT BAD ACTORS, WE WOULDN'T
SAY SO. THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS
THAT THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT TIME
FROM BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE
MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS, AND FOR
SOME OF OUR SMALLER, MORE RURAL
CITIES, WITHIN THAT THOUGH, THAT
ARE IN THAT 40% THAT WE WOULD
NOT CALL THEM BAD ACTORS, WE
WOULD CALL THEM OPERATING IN
FAITH THAT THERE IS NO WINDOW TO
THEN CHALLENGE, ONCE IT'S FINAL.
AND SO THAT THAT IS THE CONCERN
I HAVE IS CREATING POTENTIALLY A
WINDOW FOR THEM FOR THAT TO MAKE
THAT CHALLENGE. AND IF THEY'RE
NOT, THEN WE KNOW THEY'RE BAD
ACTORS. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO
THUMB THEIR NOSE AT HCD. AND
THUS THE STATE, AND WE DON'T
WANT THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO
PRODUCE HOUSING. BUT I THINK
THEY'RE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE A WINDOW OF WHERE
FOR, POST THE FINAL FINALITY
FROM HCD THAT THEY HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE BEFORE
THE BUILDER'S REMEDY, KICKS IN.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
NOTING EVEN FROM THE OAN
TESTIMONY, IS 60% ARE IN
COMPLIANCE, 40% ARE NOT, AND WE
DO NOT HAVE ANECDOTALLY IN THE
NEWS, 40% OF PEOPLE, CITIES, YOU
KNOW, BEING CALLING THEM BAD
ACTORS. WE DO HAVE CLEARLY A
HANDFUL OF CITIES WHO ARE NOT
DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO
DO AND REFUSE US, TO NOT ONLY
ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING,
BUT ALLOW FOR IN PARTICULARLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR WORKFORCE
HOUSING AND SO CAPTURING MAKING
SURE WE CAPTURE THOSE, AND NOT
THOSE THAT ARE ACTING IN GOOD
FAITH BUT DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO MULTIPLE
SUBMISSIONS AND ALL OF THAT, AND
DO ALL THIS PRE PLANNING WORK
WITH, WITH AN AGENCY THAT DOES
TAKE TIME, THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS
EVEN MEET THEIR OWN STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE. AND
SO THAT, THAT, THAT IS MY
CONCERN, I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT
TODAY. BUT I DO THINK YOU SHOULD
CONSIDER SOME TYPE OF WINDOW
POST THAT, DETERMINATION, YEAH.
DETERMINATION THAT ALLOWS THEM
TO DO THAT. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE
TO ACT WITHIN THAT TIME TO
EITHER CHALLENGE IN COURT OR
SUBMIT SOMETHING FORMAL BACK,
AND THAT THEY ONLY HAVE THAT
WINDOW BEFORE THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY KICKS IN. I APPRECIATE
THE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU, MISS
WILSON. ANY OTHER MEMBERS? VICE
CHAIR PATTERSON. THANKS. GREAT
QUESTIONS. AND RESPONSES, I
THINK IF WE TOOK LIKE 10% OF THE
BRAIN TRUST THAT GOES INTO THE
HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS TO
ACTUALLY DELIVER HOUSING, WE'D
PROBABLY BE IN A MUCH BETTER
POSITION. AND THAT'S WHAT I
REALLY DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT. BUT
WHEN I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL
AND WE WERE MOVING FORWARD, OUR
HOUSING ELEMENT, WE WOULD GET A
RESPONSE FROM HCD THAT SAYS
THINGS THAT, IN OUR OPINION,
REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE DELIVERY OF HOUSING AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED US TO
CHANGE ORDINANCES ON THIS AND
THAT AND DO ALL THESE SORTS OF
THINGS. AND I WILL SAY, IN
FAIRNESS, WE DID RESPOND WITH
LIKE, OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT
IT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE GOT
OUR HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED
EVENTUALLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE
TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY. WE WERE
ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING
CITIES IN CALIFORNIA. BUT
DESPITE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE
WAS LIKE, NO, NO CONSIDERATION
OF, YOU KNOW, THE EVOLUTION OF
THE TYPES OF PRODUCTS THAT MIGHT
BE DELIVERED, FOR EXAMPLE, ADUS
AND HOW WE HAD NO SUCCESS WITH
ADUS IN THE PAST. LAWS CHANGE.
AND YOU SAW IT STARTING TO COOK,
AND THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT TO
INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR
HOUSING ELEMENT AT ALL. DESPITE
THE NEW LAWS. AND SO WE HAD A
LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. AND SO I
AM CONCERNED THAT IF WE GET INTO
THAT SORT OF WINDOW THAT MISS
WILSON WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT
THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, OH,
YOU'RE NOT COMPLIANT BECAUSE
YOU'RE NOT CHANGING AN ORDINANCE
OR YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, INSISTENT
THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY MEET THOSE
OBJECTIVES THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED.
AND, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND KIND
OF BRACKETING IT A LITTLE BIT IF
YOU CAN, ON REALLY CATCHING THE
BAD ACTORS. I'M DEFINITELY
SYMPATHETIC TOWARDS IF YOU PUT
IN AN APPLICATION AND THEY'RE
KIND OF LIKE DRAGGING THEIR FEET
AND I, I KIND OF, I AGREE WITH
THE INTENT OF THE BILL. TOTALLY
AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE
BILL. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT
CITIES DRAGGING THIS OUT SO LONG
WHILE A DEVELOPER IS SITTING
THERE WAITING, GOING TO DELIVER
HOUSING, AND THEN ALL OF A
SUDDEN THEY GET AN APPROVED
THING AND THEN NOW THEY'RE
SAYING, OH, SORRY, YOU CAN'T DO
THE PROJECT NOW. SO I AGREE WITH
THE INTENT, BUT I AM VERY
CONCERNED. I'M GOING TO LAY OFF
TODAY BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT WINDOW THAT YOU'RE
DISCUSSING, WHEN THERE IS A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT ACTUALLY GONE
THROUGH THERE. SO THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MR.
PATTERSON. ANY OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING TO COMMENT OR QUESTION?
OKAY. MISS REYES. I JUST WANT TO
THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR SO
ELOQUENTLY, ELOQUENTLY ASKING
THE QUESTION. WE KNOW WE'VE GOT
TO FIND SOLUTIONS. AND I THINK
THAT, THE THIS WINDOW AS IT'S
BEEN DESCRIBED, I THINK IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I
APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK ON THAT. I ABSOLUTELY WILL
BE SUPPORTING IT. I THINK THAT
YOU'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. WE JUST NEED TO FIND
THE DETAILS AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE DON'T, PUNISH THOSE GOOD
ACTORS WHO ARE. THEY'RE NOT
DRAGGING THEIR FEET. THEY JUST
CAN'T TAKE CARE OF IT IN A
TIMELY WAY. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO
LIGHT A FIRE UNDER SOME PEOPLE
AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE
CARE OF BUSINESS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WOULD
MOVE THE BILL. MOTION BY MISS
REYES, SECOND BY MISS WILSON,
SUMMER ALVAREZ, I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS ISSUE,
FOR A VERY LONG TIME, CITIES
HAVE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
PLAN AND ZONE FOR APPROPRIATE
HOUSING SO THAT WE CAN MEET OUR
POPULATION'S NEEDS AND WE'VE GOT
THE RENA PROCESS, WHICH WE ALL
KNOW IS AN EVOLUTION. IT NEEDS
WORK. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THAT. AND WE'VE GOT OUR
KIND OF INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT THAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO SET
THROUGH OUR HOUSING ELEMENT LAW.
AND AGAIN, AS YOU MENTIONED IN
YOUR STATEMENT, REFLECTING BACK
ON THE ORIGINS OF THAT HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW, THIS HAS BEEN
AROUND BUT NOT REALLY EXERCISED
UNTIL RECENTLY, WHICH IS REALLY
HELPED US REALIZE WE DON'T HAVE
A RENA PROCESS THAT'S NOT
ENFORCEABLE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A
TOOL THERE WHICH COURTS HAVE
REALLY DUG INTO, AND REALIZE
THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY. AND
WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS TRYING
TO CODIFY THAT SO THAT THE RULES
ARE CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY GOING
FORWARD, WE HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PLAN AND ZONE
FOR. BUT THERE IS A CONSEQUENCE.
AND I DO LIKE AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE DEPTH THAT SOME
MEMBER WILSON AND WOULD ECHO
THAT AS WELL AS LOOKING BECAUSE
THERE SHOULD BE A GOOD FAITH
EFFORT ON BOTH SIDES TO BE ABLE
TO TRY TO GET THIS RIGHT, AND I
THINK THAT THAT, AS YOU'RE GOING
TO APPROACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE, IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BE ABLE TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT
DEEPER INTO, MAKING SURE THAT
THERE'S FAIRNESS ON BOTH SIDES.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU WILL, WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH. THANK YOU. AS YOU STATED,
AND THOSE OF US WHO COME FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES
TO HOUSING, CERTAINTY IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING. AND WE'RE
TRYING TO CREATE THAT CERTAINTY
WHEN IT COMES TO THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. VERY
WELL TAKEN AND APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT ON THE BILL. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. CALL THE ROLL.
MOTION TO PASS AND REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WARD A WARD A PERSON NOT VOTING.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON. I CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA.
QUIRK-SILVA I REYES. REYES I.
SANCHEZ. WILSON. WILSON. I THE
BILL CURRENTLY HAS SEVEN VOTES.
IT IS OUT. WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. AND
NEXT YOU HAVE ITEM NUMBER 13. EB
2560. AND WHEN YOUR PRESENTERS
ARE READY, YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AGAIN, GOOD MORNING TO
ALL. THIS IS ASSEMBLY BILL 2560,
THIS BILL I WOULD ALSO
CATEGORIZE AS A BILL ABOUT
CERTAINTY, CERTAINTY OF BUILDING
ALONG OUR COAST IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE WE NEED TO BUILD HOUSING
JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN
CALIFORNIA, WHAT 2560 DOES IS
WILL REQUIRE THAT THE STATE
DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ON MULTIPLE
OCCASIONS, CONTINUE TO INCREASE
AND SUPPORT HOUSING THROUGH THE
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW BE
IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE COASTAL
ZONE OF CALIFORNIA WITHOUT
RESTRICTION, AS YOU ALL KNOW,
YOU DEAL WITH THIS IN THIS
COMMITTEE ALL THE TIME. WE ARE
IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING
CRISIS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
TAKEN NUMEROUS STEPS IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION TO THE EXTENT
THAT LAST YEAR, HCD REPORTS
CALIFORNIA ADDED 123,000 HOUSING
UNITS OVERALL TO THE STATE
HOUSING STOCK, THE MOST SINCE
THE GREAT RECESSION. HOWEVER,
SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
HOUSING LEGISLATION THAT HAS
PASSED AND HAS LED TO THAT
INCREASE IN HOUSING UNITS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, HAVE
INCLUDED CARVE OUTS OR
EXCLUSIONS, EFFECTIVELY
EXEMPTING THE COASTAL PARTS OF
CALIFORNIA. KEEP IN MIND THAT AS
ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES
TO LIVE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY,
THE COASTAL ZONE DESPERATELY
NEEDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
STATE HOUSING LAWS. RESEARCH HAS
THE PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE
FOUND THAT IN 2019, EIGHT OUT OF
TEN OF THE LEAST AFFORDABLE
MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE
UNITED STATES WERE IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. IN THE
CALIFORNIA'S COAST, I SHOULD SAY
EIGHT OUT OF TEN LEAST
AFFORDABLE MAJOR METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN THE COUNTRY. IN COASTAL
CALIFORNIA, THIS EXORBITANT COST
IS PARTIALLY DUE TO THE LACK OF
DENSITY BEING BUILT ON COASTAL
AREAS. THE TERNER CENTER FOUND
THAT BETWEEN 1980 AND 20 1030
YEAR PERIOD, THE HOUSING UNITS
IN THE TYPICAL US METRO AREA
GREW BY 54, WHILE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL METRO AREAS INCREASED
ONLY BY 32. THE 2015 LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE REPORT THAT
DIRECTLY CALLED FOR AN INCREASE
IN DENSITY TO DECREASE THE COST
OF HOUSING IN THE REGION, WAS
ALSO SUPPORTED, SUPPORTED DOING
SO IN THE COASTAL AREAS. I FULLY
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
COAST. OBVIOUSLY, AS SOMEONE WHO
LIVES IN THE COASTAL AREA, AND I
VALUE THE RESOURCE FOR A STATE
AND THE NEED FOR IT TO HAVE A
LAYER OF PROTECTION TO STYMIE
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT ARE
TRULY NOT FIT FOR DEVELOPMENT,
SUCH AS WETLANDS NEAR CLIFFS
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SEA LEVEL
RISE. THIS RECOGNITION IS WHY
THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS
PERFECTLY TAILORED TO BE FULLY
IMPLEMENTED ON THE COAST. A
DEVELOPER CAN ONLY USE
INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS IN
THE STATE. DENSITY BONUS LINE
AREAS THAT WERE ALREADY
PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE FIT
FOR HOUSING THROUGH THEIR LOCAL
ZONED RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT
THIS IS NOT ONLY A HOUSING
ISSUE, BUT ALSO AN EQUITY AND
CLIMATE ISSUE FOR THE COASTAL
ECONOMY TO FUNCTION. IT REQUIRES
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SERVICE
WORKERS TO SERVE AS THE
BACKBONE. HOWEVER, BEING ABLE TO
AFFORD HOUSING NEAR THEIR PLACE
OF EMPLOYMENT MEANS THAT WORKERS
SPEND RESOURCES, EMIT FURTHER
CO2 INTO THE AIR, TRAVEL FURTHER
FOR WORK COMPOUNDING THE CLIMATE
CRISIS, AND THREATENS THE
COASTLINE AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, IS ENTRUSTED TO
PROTECT BY ENSURING THAT WE
INCREASE HOUSING DENSITY IN THE
AREAS DETERMINED FIT FOR
HOUSING. AGAIN, ALREADY APPROVED
FOR HOUSING ON THE COASTAL AREA,
WE CAN MAKE A REAL IMPACT IN THE
HOUSING CRISIS THERE. I
APPRECIATE YOU HEARING US ON
THIS ITEM. I'D NOW LIKE TO
INTRODUCE COLIN PERRIN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL
COUNSEL AT. EXCUSE ME. CIRCULATE
SAN DIEGO AND RAFA SONNENFELD
FROM, YIMBY ACTION TO TESTIFY.
GREAT. THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. I WAS GOING TO
BEGIN MY REMARKS BY SAYING IT
WAS GREAT TO SEE MY FRIEND CHRIS
WARD AND THE CHAIRMAN'S SEAT,
BUT I APPRECIATE SEEING HIS NAME
PLACARD. WHAT ABOUT ME? YEAH,
YEAH. APPRECIATE APPRECIATE YOU
GETTING BACK YOUR TIME EITHER.
SO, SO YEAH, AGAIN, I'M COLIN
PARENT, I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AND GENERAL COUNSEL AT
CIRCULATE SAN DIEGO. WE'RE ONE
OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL.
I ALSO SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
IN LA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ABOUT
TEN MILES EAST OF, THE COAST IN
SAN DIEGO, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST A
LITTLE INTRO ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
DENSITY BONUS, YOU KNOW, SO
IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS DENSITY
IN THE, IN THE NAME, IT'S NOT
IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT DENSITY.
IT'S ABOUT CREATING AFFORDABLE
DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE
HOMES. RIGHT. AND IF A PROJECT
DENSITY BONUS LAW SAYS THAT IF A
PROJECT INCLUDES AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND IT COMPLIES WITH
LOCAL ZONING RULES AND IT'S
ALREADY IN AN AREA THAT IT'S
ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING,
THEN IT LIMITS THE DISCRETION OF
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS, BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS TO SAY NO TO THOSE
PROJECTS, RIGHT? OR TO REQUIRE
OTHER OTHER BELLS AND WHISTLES
ON THOSE PROJECTS. AND AS THOSE
OF YOU WHO'VE SERVED IN ELECTED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT KNOW, THAT THAT
KIND OF TYING YOUR HANDS, MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING FOLKS
ACCOUNTABLE, LIVING UP TO THE TO
WHAT THEY'VE ZONED FOR AND
AGREED TO IN THEIR IN THEIR
PLANS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I
RELY ON THAT WITH MY COLLEAGUES
ALL THE TIME TO GET THEM TO, TO
DO THE RIGHT THING. AND WHAT
THIS BILL DOES IS IT APPLIES
THOSE SAME, BASIC STANDARDS THAT
WE'RE REQUIRING OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION RIGHT TO. AND IT ONLY
APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT ARE
ALREADY ZONED AS MULTIFAMILY. IT
ONLY APPLIES TO PROJECTS AND
THOSE AND BY THE WAY, THOSE
THOSE, THOSE LOCAL ZONING HAVE
TO BE APPROVED BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. RIGHT. SO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION'S LOOKED AT
IT AND SAID, YEAH, YEAH, THIS IS
AN APPROPRIATE PLACE. AND ALL IT
SAYS IS THAT NOW WHEN THOSE WHEN
PROJECTS THAT MEET THOSE
STANDARDS THAT INCLUDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT THEY
OUGHT TO BE HELD TO THAT SAME
ACCOUNT. AND, AND SO, AND
THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. WE WANT
MORE HOUSING. WE WANT MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY
IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS LIKE
LIKE MUCH OF THE COAST, THERE'S
BEEN TESTIMONY IN THE PAST TO
THIS COMMITTEE FROM FROM STAFF
AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION
SAYING, HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT
IT. WE'RE SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. WE ALWAYS WE ALWAYS
SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THERE'S SOME GOOD EXAMPLES WHERE
THAT SHOW THAT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS
EXACTLY THE CASE, RIGHT. SO IN
20 1989 AND 89 UNIT, CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT WITH ABOUT TEN, DEED
RESTRICTED, PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THERE WERE
APPROVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA
CRUZ. THERE WAS AN APPEAL TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. THE COASTAL
COMMISSION WAITED FOUR YEARS
BEFORE THE BEFORE CHANGING,
SAYING, ACTUALLY, THIS IS FINE.
IT CAN GO FORWARD NOW. GOOD ON
THEM FOR LETTING IT GO FORWARD.
BUT THE FACT THAT IT TOOK FOUR
YEARS TO MAKE THAT DECISION IS A
PROBLEM AND SOMETHING WE NEED TO
NEED TO FIX, AND THEN JUST IN
FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, IN THE,
IN THE VENICE AREA IN LOS
ANGELES, THERE'S A PROJECT THAT
THE COASTAL COMMISSION JUST
FOUND. JUST FOUND IS NOT
CONSISTENT BECAUSE IT WAS, HAD
DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND HEIGHTS, THAN THAN ITS
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. BUT
THAT'S LIKE SUCH A RELIEF FROM
SETBACK, LIMITS AND HEIGHTS ARE
EXACTLY WHAT DENSITY BONUS
ALLOWS. RIGHT. AND SO THIS IS A
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE 30S
WERE NOT, WHERE THERE REALLY
DOES NEED THERE'S REALLY
DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE WHERE
THERE'S EXAMPLES WHERE WE NEED
TO HAVE SOME REFORM TO BE ABLE
TO EFFECTIVELY AFFECT THE
LEGISLATURE'S, DESIRE TO
IMPLEMENT DENSITY BONUS AND TO
ALLOW FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, RAFA SONNENFELD, POLICY
DIRECTOR WITH THE MBA ACTION.
I'M ALSO A VOLUNTEER HOUSING
ADVOCATE IN MY HOME, COASTAL
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ. YIMBY
ACTION IN OUR CHAPTER IS FIGHT
FOR BETTER HOUSING POLICIES
BECAUSE WE WANT TO REDUCE
POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS,
ELIMINATE RACIAL SEGREGATION,
CREATE JOBS, AND STOP CLIMATE
CHANGE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE COASTAL ZONE INCLUDES
LARGE SWATHS OF URBANIZED AND
ALREADY DEVELOPED INTERIOR AREAS
FOR INLAND, FAR INLAND FROM THE
COASTLINE AND BEACHES WHERE NEW
HOUSING IS NEEDED AND WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE, INCLUDING IN SAN
DIEGO, SANTA MONICA, LOS ANGELES
, SANTA CRUZ, SAN FRANCISCO,
ARCADIA, ARCADIA, EUREKA,
AMONGST OTHERS, BY ENSURING
DENSITY, BONUS LAW IS FULLY
APPLICABLE IN THE COAST, WE
REDUCE THE RISK OF UNCERTAINTY
THAT COMES WITH THE LIKELY
RELITIGATION BEFORE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION OF ISSUES LIKE THE
APPLICABILITY OF A DENSITY BONUS
HEIGHT WAIVER, WHICH IS CRITICAL
FOR VIRTUALLY ALL MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING PROJECTS TO BE FEASIBLE.
THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL TELL
YOU THAT, THAT THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY, THAT THE LAW
ALREADY REQUIRES THE
HARMONIZATION OF DENSITY, BONUS
LAW AND THE COASTAL ACT, BUT
THAT, THAT REQUIRES BOTH A LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS MOTIVATION TO
UPDATE THEIR LCP, THEIR LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THE
COMMISSION'S DISCRETIONARY
APPROVAL OF THE LCP THAT ALLOWS
THE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT. AND
EVEN THEN, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION STAFF IS ON RECORD
OPPOSING HEIGHTS FOR DENSITY
BONUS PROJECTS IN CITIES LIKE MY
HOMETOWN OF SANTA CRUZ THAT HAVE
LCP, WHICH ALLOW DENSITY BONUS
HEIGHT WAIVERS FOR DENSITY BONUS
PROJECTS. THIS IS A COMMON SENSE
MEASURE TO ENSURE THAT THE
STATE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRODUCTION LAWS ACTUALLY PRODUCE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVERYWHERE IN
THE STATE, INCLUDING OUR MOST
AFFLUENT COASTAL COMMUNITIES.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, NAME
AND ORGANIZATION, PLEASE? MARK
STIVERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT
JT MAC, THE NONPROFIT HOUSING
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT SEAMUS
GARRITY LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR AND
CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT LAWRENCE
VALENCIA, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT ON ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT IN
SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. FRANCISCO MORALES, ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION HERE IN SUPPORT. AND
JIM FINNEGAN, REPRESENTING AARP.
AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. DON WILCOX WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF
CARPENTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. REBECCA MARCUS, LEADING
AGE CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. BOB
KNEELAND FOR FIELDSTEAD. WITH
APOLOGIES TO THE AUTHOR, WE HAVE
A TWEENER SUGGESTION EXEMPT A
HALF A MILE. GREAT. THANK YOU,
ANY PRIMARY, OPPONENTS TO THIS
MEASURE? YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES,
BUT I'LL GIVE YOU TWO AND A HALF
IF YOU'RE EXCITED TO SEE ME.
UNLIKE THE PREMIER, I APPRECIATE
THAT, I'LL. I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT
BRIEF. GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CHRISTOPHER MARWOOD, AND I'M A
LEGISLATIVE FELLOW WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE,
OR EAC, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY
ON BEHALF OF GROUPS THAT
SUBMITTED AND OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED LETTER ON APRIL 3RD. AND
WE SUBMIT AN OPPOSING, LESS
AMENDED LETTER RATHER THAN
HOLDING A STRAIGHT OPPOSE
POSITION, BECAUSE WE FIRMLY AND
GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT THERE
EXISTS A PATH WHERE THE DENSITY
BONUS LAW CAN COEXIST WITH
PUBLIC ACCESS AND COASTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION. APPLICABLE
STATE LAW OR APPLICABLE
STATUTORY LAW REQUIRES THE
HARMONIZATION OF THE COASTAL ACT
AND THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND
THIS IS EVIDENCE WITHIN
STATUTORY LANGUAGE WITHIN THE
COASTAL ACT AND THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
APPLICABLE CASE LAW DEMONSTRATES
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS
NOT A BAD ACTOR. RATHER, IT IS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE COMMISSION
APPROVED LAND USE PLANS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT DENSITY
BONUS LAW. AND THE OUR CONCERNS
STEM FROM THE AUTHOR HAVE
AUTHORS BILL HAVING UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES SIMPLY BECAUSE AN
AREA HAS BEEN ZONED FOR
RESIDENTIAL AREAS, OR JUST
BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT
CURRENTLY EXISTS ON A SITE DOES
NOT MEAN THAT SITE IS DEVOID OF
NATURAL RESOURCES OR PUBLIC
ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES. RATHER IT
MEANS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
EXISTS HAS HAD ITS IMPACTS
MITIGATED THE REMOVAL OF
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT
SAME SITE IS ILLOGICAL.
MITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITION OR
DENIAL. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR
PUBLIC ACCESS GUARANTEES IS NOT
FRIVOLOUS. PUBLIC ACCESS IS NOT
ALWAYS AN EIGHT FOOT CEMENT
WALKWAY WITH HAND RAILINGS. IT
CHANGES AS CONDITIONS ALONG OUR
COAST CHANGE FURTHER. THE
AUTHORS ASSERTIONS ARE
UNSUPPORTED BY HIS OWN MATERIALS
. MOST COMPELLING IS THAT THE
AUTHOR'S OWN CITATION TO MÀ 40 B
LAW URGES HIM TO CONSIDER USING
THE COASTAL ACT TO IMPLEMENT
HOUSING POLICY RATHER THAN
EXEMPT HOUSING POLICY FROM THE
COASTAL ACT. FURTHER, THE PPIC
REPORT THAT THE AUTHOR CITED
LISTS THREE JURISDICTIONS WHICH
DON'T EVEN HAVE A COASTAL ZONE
AND COASTAL AREAS SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS AREAS WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE. ULTIMATELY, THIS
BILL TAKES AIM AT THE WRONG
TARGET. WE ARE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR TO DEVELOP
LEGISLATION WHICH UTILIZES THE
COASTAL ACT AND COASTAL
COMMISSION AS A MEANS TO FURTHER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT AS AN
OBSTACLE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUTHOR OR
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS HERE
IN OPPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC. TOMAS VALDEZ WITH AZUL
AND OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
OTHERS, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. BEGINNING WITH SOME
MEMBER. CORA THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I DO, YOU KNOW,
AND I'M HAVING MY HOUSING HAT ON
HERE. I KNOW THIS IS IF IT GETS
THROUGH, IT'S GOING TO GO TO
NATURAL RESOURCES. SO I MAY HAVE
KIND OF FURTHER CONTEMPLATION,
PRIOR TO THAT, BUT JUST
REGARDING, SOME OF THE CONCERNS
FROM OPPOSITION, AN AND ONE
ASPECT OF WHAT'S BEING DONE
HERE, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF
CONVERSATION BECAUSE THERE'S NO
DOUBT THAT THE HOUSING THAT DOES
EXIST ALONG, CURRENTLY ALONG OUR
COASTAL AREAS, IS NOT EXACTLY
ACCESSIBLE TO MOST CALIFORNIANS,
INCLUDING THE WORKERS, AS WAS
ALLUDED TO, ARE THERE
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AS
PART OF THIS, AS PART OF THIS
LEGISLATION, SPECIFICALLY? YEAH.
YOU ONLY CAN UTILIZE THIS,
DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH,
TESTIMONY FROM, MR. PARENT, I
THINK IT'S LABELED DENSITY BONUS
LAW, BUT IT'S ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. SO ONLY IF YOU BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE YOU
ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THIS
INCENTIVE TO CREATE A PROJECT
THAT HAS A FEW MORE UNITS, BUT
IT'S GOT TO HAVE THE LOW INCOME
COMPONENT, AND YOU CAN GET AN
ADDITIONAL BONUS BY A LAW THAT
WE ALL APPROVE LAST YEAR THAT I
THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD, IF YOU
PROVIDE MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING,
THAT'S ALSO DEED RESTRICTED. SO
LOW INCOME MIDDLE INCOME IF
THAT'S, IF YOU HAVE DEED
RESTRICTED LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE
INCOME, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT
YOU CAN ACTUALLY UTILIZE THIS
INCENTIVE. YEAH. I JUST WANTED
TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS, REALLY
CREATE TRUE ACCESS TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS, INCLUDING AS YOU
STATED, THE WORKERS THAT ARE
WORKING IN THESE SAME COASTAL
COMMUNITIES. AND SO WITH
CERTAINLY WITH MY HOUSING HAT ON
WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY AND WE'LL JUST HOPE THAT
THERE'S CONTINUED CONVERSATION
WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM
THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN
TERMS OF COASTAL ACCESS, COASTAL
PROTECTION, TO WHATEVER EXTENT,
YOU KNOW, THAT CAN BE, YOU KNOW,
FURTHER WORKED ON AND I'LL TAKE
ANOTHER LOOK AT IT IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE. BUT FOR THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE, CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA. THANK YOU. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ, FOR
BRINGING BACK A VERY PRAGMATIC,
SOLUTION TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON OUR COAST. NOW, WHEN
WE USE THE WORD COAST, THIS
BRINGS UP ALL OF THE ICONIC
CALIFORNIA IMAGES THAT WE ALL,
SO ENJOY FROM, THE LAGUNA BEACH
LANDSCAPE TO ANY OF OUR SANTA
CRUZ FAVORITE PLACES. BUT WHAT
WE ALREADY KNOW, NOT EVEN
RELATED TO HOUSING, IS MANY OF
OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR DON'T
GET TO EXPERIENCE THOSE SAME
EXPERIENCE THAT HAVE MADE
CALIFORNIA ICONIC, AND NOT ONLY
THAT, RELATED TO NOT EVEN
TALKING ABOUT HOUSING. IT'S EVEN
THE ACCESSIBILITY TO SOME OF THE
MOST PRISTINE AREAS WHICH THERE
HAVE BEEN LONG TERME LEGAL
FIGHTS FOR DECADES OF HAVING
THESE VERY NARROW ACCESSES TO
SOME OF THE MOST PRISTINE.
THERE'S EVEN BEACHES IN
CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE SIGNS ON
THEM THAT SAY NO PUBLIC ACCESS.
WHEN WE KNOW THAT IT IS A PUBLIC
BEACH. BUT WHEN WE REFER TO
HOUSING AND WE HAD THIS VERY
STERN CONVERSATION LAST YEAR, I
THINK RELATED TO YOUR, TO YOUR
BILL, WHICH IS, THAT WE CONTINUE
TO LOOK FOR CARVE OUTS,
EXCLUSIONS, EXEMPTIONS, NOT ONLY
ON THE COASTAL AREA OF
CALIFORNIA, BUT ALL OVER THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO NOT
BUILD ON THE OTHER HAND, WE WILL
HAVE MANY WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION
OF THESE TYPES OF BILLS WHO WILL
SAY, WE DON'T LIKE HOUSING
ENCAMPMENTS. WHY AREN'T WE
SOLVING THE HOMELESS ISSUES? WE
DON'T WANT SOBER LIVING HOMES.
WE DON'T WANT MENTAL HEALTH
BEDS. SO THIS CONTINUES TO BE
THE RHETORIC. AND NOW THE NEWEST
WAY TO TRY TO GET AROUND
BUILDING HOUSING IS HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. TO USE A LANDMARK
AND SAY, WE CAN'T BUILD AROUND
THERE, THERE. SO I SIMPLY WOULD
SAY, NOT ONLY DO I SUPPORT THIS,
BUT WE CANNOT EXPECT OUR LOW
WAGE EARNERS TO BE COMING IN
FROM SAN BERNARDINO, COMING IN
FROM NORTHERN LÀ INNER CITIES TO
DO THE WORK, AND SOME OF THESE
HIGH INCOME RESORT AREAS AND
TRAVEL AN HOUR EACH WAY, AND
SOMETIMES EVEN FURTHER THAN
THAT, AND, TO WORK IN THE
RESTAURANTS, WORK IN
HOSPITALITY, TO DO ALL OF THOSE
JOBS AND SAY, BUT YOU ARE SHUT
OUT FROM ANY POSSIBILITY, THIS
IS A THOUGHTFUL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT FOCUSES ON
BUILDING SMALL SWATHS OF,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHEN WE LOOK
AT THE TIMELINE THAT IT TAKES TO
GET A PROJECT DONE IN CALIFORNIA
, SOMETIMES A DECADE OR MORE, WE
SHOULD NOT FEEL THAT ALL OF A
SUDDEN THE SKY IS GOING TO BE
FALLING AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
THOUSANDS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ON
THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA. THAT'S
THAT'S THAT IS WHAT WE HEAR IN
ANY PROJECT. AND IT'S A STALL
AND DELAY TACTIC. AND TO BE
HONEST, IT'S BECOMING VERY
OFFENSIVE WHEN WE SEE PEOPLE ON
OUR STREETS AND WE HEAR THE
COMPLAINT, WE KNOW IN POLLING,
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING IS A
NUMBER ONE CONCERN OF
CALIFORNIANS. BUT LET ME SAY IT
CLEARLY, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH
WAYS. YOU CANNOT SAY NO TO
SHELTERS, NO TO HOUSING
PRODUCTION, NO TO MENTAL HEALTH,
AND NO TO COASTAL BUILDING, NO
TO, SO MANY PARTS OF CALIFORNIA
BUILDING, AND THEN COMPLAIN. SO
I FULLY SUPPORT THIS AND I MOVE
THIS FORWARD. SECOND. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MOTION BY
QUIRK-SILVA. SECOND BY MR. LEE.
VICE CHAIR PATTERSON. YES THANK
YOU, JUST, WELL, THAT WAS A
FIERY SPEECH, BY THE WAY. THAT
WAS REALLY GOOD. SO I APPRECIATE
THAT. I THINK FROM THE
OPPOSITION STANDPOINT, WHAT'S
BEEN GREAT ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE
IS JUST LEARNING WHAT'S
HAPPENING STATEWIDE. AND, AND I
THINK IT IS SOMEWHAT
DISINGENUOUS TO SAY THAT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION HASN'T
DENIED, DENSITY BONUS PROJECT
BEFORE. I MEAN, THE TRUTH IS,
THE CAPITAL ISN'T GOING TO GO
INTO THERE BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH
MASSIVE RISK IN GETTING A
PROJECT DONE. I MEAN, I'VE SEEN
THE COASTAL COMMISSION IN MANY
DOCUMENTS NOW OPINE ABOUT THEIR
CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS LIKE AN
ADU IN SOMEBODY'S OWN PRIVATE
PROPERTY. SO, I THINK NOW WE'RE
SEEING SOME FRUSTRATION FROM
THAT, AND I THINK WE'RE OPEN TO
SOME SOLUTIONS, THIS IS ONE AND
MAYBE IT GOES TOO FAR. I MEAN,
MAYBE PROPOSE OTHER SOLUTIONS
THAT MEET IN THE MIDDLE, AND
MAYBE THERE'S AN AUTHOR, THERE'S
80, 80 OF US CRAZY PEOPLE HERE.
SO MAYBE ONE OF US WOULD TAKE
THE BILL AND 40. WELL, THEY'RE
NOT CRAZY. THEY'RE, YOU KNOW,
BUT I THINK WE CAN'T JUST SAY NO
TO THIS. WE HAVE TO ALLOW WE
CAN'T JUST ALLOW EVERY OTHER
COMMUNITY, MINUS COASTAL
COMMUNITIES, TAKE THE SHARE OF
HOUSING AND DENSITY BONUS. AND
BY THE WAY, THIS IS THIS IS FOR
THE, FOR A LOT OF THE PEOPLE MY
MOM LIVES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT,
BUT THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO, YOU
KNOW, WANT TO LIVE IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. I MEAN, THAT'S A
COMPONENT OF THIS BILL, NOT
THROUGH THIS BILL DIRECTLY, BUT
THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND SO IT
WILL HELP SOME PEOPLE GET OFF
THE STREETS THAT ARE LIVING
RIGHT NOW ON THE BEACH AND
THAT'S A BIGGER IMPEDIMENT TO
GETTING TO THE BEACH THAN A
HOUSE OR HAVING TO WALK AROUND
WITH YOUR FAMILY. PEOPLE WHO ARE
SLEEPING IN TENTS ON THE BEACH.
SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT, AND
THIS IS A GREAT SOLUTION. I'D
LOVE TO BE AT IT. AS A COAUTHOR,
IF YOU'LL HAVE ME. I CAN
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULDN'T, BUT
I'D LOVE TO BE ADDED IF THE TIME
COMES. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
VICE CHAIR PAT. YOU'RE WELCOME
TO COAUTHOR ANYTIME. ANY OTHER
MEMBER COMMENT OKAY. SEEING NONE
, SENATOR ALVAREZ, I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE, I REMIND EVERYBODY THAT
THIS PASSED OUT OF HOUSING
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR, WITH THE,
SORT OF INTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE
ALSO INCLUDED AS WELL, FOR
CONSISTENCY SAKE, I WANTED TO
NOTE THAT ON THE RECORD AND
APPRECIATE YOU CONTINUING TO
WORK ON THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK THAT OUR, OUR INTEREST
HERE ARE ACTUALLY MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE. WE HAVE, FIRST OF
ALL, CELEBRATED THE DENSITY
BONUS LAW. AND AS YOU MENTIONED,
THIS IS LIKE VERY IN A WAY,
NARROWED FOR 100% AFFORDABLE
UNITS, THAT, BUT FOR, FOR THAT,
THAT PRODUCT TYPE, IT IS WORKING
AND IT IS PRODUCING, A LOT MORE
OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS MOST
COMMUNITIES. BUT HERE, YOU KNOW,
WE STILL HAVE THIS EXTRA STEP
THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
COASTAL ZONE. AND MY PERSONAL
VIEW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS
MORE. I KNOW IN YOU'RE GOING TO
DO NATURAL RESOURCES. I GUESS I
HAVE LOCAL GOV THIS YEAR, YOU
KNOW, WE, WE, WE ARE HAVING
THESE VERY DIFFICULT AND
MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND WHERE
THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY AN
OVERLAY WITH THE LAND USE PLAN,
LAND USE AUTHORITY OF THE
COASTAL ZONE, I WANT TO SEE
THOSE REALLY REFLECTED. RIGHT.
AND SO IF WE HAVE ONE LAW THAT'S
DOING ONE THING THAT IS
CHANGING, SORT OF THE,
REQUIREMENTS OR THE OUTCOMES, I
GUESS FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT'S REFLECTED
IN WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. AND
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO
THROUGH THIS BILL AS WELL, IS
MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE'RE WE
HAVE PARITY HERE. AND THAT'S NOT
TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE ARE SOMEHOW THROWING OUT,
THE, SPECIAL ATTENTION THAT WE
GIVE TO COASTAL RESOURCES AND
ACCESS TO THE COAST AND,
PARTICULARLY SPECIAL SENSITIVE
LANDS THAT WE HAVE ALONG OUR
COASTLINE. MUCH OF THAT IS STILL
REFLECTED IN THE PLAN ITSELF,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY BACK IN TURN
BACK, A REFLECTION ON THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY PLAN OR THE GENERAL
PLAN FOR THAT CITY AS WELL. THEY
ARE IN HARMONY. SO THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THROUGH THIS
BILL AS WELL. AND THE ULTIMATE
GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT USING ADDITIONAL
ROADBLOCKS OR ADDITIONAL TIME
DELAY TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING VERY MUCH IN
A PLACE WHERE WE DESPERATELY
NEED IT, CLOSE TO JOBS, CLOSE TO
THE TOURISM SECTOR. AND FOR
THAT, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL HERE TODAY. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE ALL EVERYBODY'S
COMMENTS, I WOULD JUST REMIND
AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS RAISED
BY THE OPPOSITION WAS, THE
THREAT TO WETLANDS AND TO OTHER
THINGS. IF A CITY DOES NOT GET
THEIR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
APPROVED BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, THIS WOULD THIS
DOESN'T MATTER, THE PLAN, THE
PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY
CITIES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
COASTAL COMMISSION TO BEGIN WITH
. FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO BUILD
ANYTHING ON THERE. THIS IS NOT
SUPERSEDE THOSE PLANS, DOES NOT
SUPERSEDE THAT. IF THE CITY HAS
SAID WE WANT HOUSING ON THIS
PARCEL, THIS BILL ALIGNS TO
THAT. IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY
THAT, THAT DECISION THAT WAS
MADE LOCALLY, HOUSING ON THE
COAST IS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY. IT
IS ABOUT EVERYBODY HAVING ACCESS
TO THE COAST, NOT JUST THOSE WHO
CAN AFFORD IT TODAY. THE OTHER
THING ABOUT THIS, THIS PROJECT,
IN A TIME WHERE WE, WE FACE
BUDGET, DIFFICULTIES AND
INABILITY TO DO MORE, ALTHOUGH I
THINK SOME OF US ARE WORKING ON
THIS, PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS
DOES NOT COST THE STATE ONE
PENNY. THIS IS AN INCENTIVE TO
THOSE WHO ARE BUILDING, AND THEY
BUILD IT ON THEIR DIME. AND SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK THIS
IS AS WAS MENTIONED, I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND,
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO TRY TO
HELP SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND CREATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR
COAST SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS
ACCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL MOTION. DO PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES,
WARD A, WARD I PATTERSON, I
PERSON I GRAYSON GRAYSON I
CHOLERA CHOLERA I LI I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I
SANCHEZ WILSON I WILSON I EXCUSE
ME. OH, I'M SO SORRY. I'M SO
SORRY, MA'AM. I THINK THAT'S
8808. OKAY THAT BILL WILL BE OUT
EIGHT ZERO. WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS AT THIS
MOMENT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND CLEAN UP ON A COUPLE OF
ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO GO AHEAD
AND GET ON THE ON THE ROLL, AND
THEN WE'LL PROCEED, MR. WAS IT
ARAMBULA WOULD BE NEXT. IF YOU
WANT TO GET YOURSELF READY FOR
PRESENTATION, AT THIS TIME,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, WE
HAVE A, RULE CHANGE HERE FOR OUR
COMMITTEE RULES, TO MOVE
TOWARDS, FILE ORDER AS OPPOSED
TO SIGN AN ORDER, IS THERE ANY
OBJECTION TO AMENDING THE
COMMITTEE RULES AS STATED IN
YOUR PACKET, SEEING NONE THAT
WILL BE PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
CONSENT. WE NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND ON ITEM NUMBER 11. MR. TO
MOVED SO MOVED BY MR. PATTERSON,
SECOND BY MISS QUIRK-SILVA.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL MOTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.
WORD I WARD I PATTERSON, I
PATTERSON I GRAYSON. GRAYSON I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I LI NØ LI NØ
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REYES
I REYES I SANCHEZ. WILSON.
WILSON I SO THAT BILL WILL BE
OUT SIX 7 TO 1. WE'LL HOLD A
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
NEXT. I NEED TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR MOVE BY MR.
KALRA AND SECOND BY MISS REYES.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS, ITEMS
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR A, B
1801, DO PASS AND REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, A
B 20, 2597 DO PASS AND REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND A B 2897 DO PASS
AND REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION. WARD A
WARD A PERSON, A PERSON, A
GRAYSON GRAYSON I CHOLERA
CHOLERA I LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA I REYES REYES I
SANCHEZ. WILSON I WILSON I.
CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED BY
EIGHT ZERO. WE WILL HOLD A ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. GOING
BACK TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS
IS AB 1820. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
IS CHOLERA. CHOLERA? I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REYES
I REYES I SANCHEZ WILSON A
WILSON. I. THAT COUNT IS NOW UP
TO EIGHT ZERO. WE'LL HOLD THE
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 2159. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. GRAYSON.
GRAYSON. AYE. CHOLERA NOT VOTING
. SANCHEZ CURRENT ROLE IS AT
SEVEN ZERO WITH ONE NOT VOTING.
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. AND THEN ITEM
NUMBER 17, AB 2674. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE, CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. REYES. HI. REZ. I
SANCHEZ. WILSON I WILSON I.
OKAY. THAT NEW COUNT IS EIGHT
ZERO WILL HOLD A ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. ITEM FOR MEMBER.
SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. WE ARE READY
TO PROCEED, AND WE'RE BACK ON
BUSINESS. SO THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN AB 2240. WHEN
YOU'RE READY, DOCTOR ARAMBULA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FARM WORKERS SHOULD BE
TREATED WITH THE DIGNITY AND
RESPECT REFLECTIVE OF THE
ESSENTIAL CONTRIBUTION THAT THEY
MAKE TO CALIFORNIA'S
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY AND OUR
COMMUNITIES. THIS BILL
AUTHORIZES MIGRATORY FARM WORKER
CENTERS TO ALLOW RESIDENTS TO
LIVE IN THEIR HOMES YEAR ROUND,
AND REDEFINES THE TERMS
MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKER TO
REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A
FARM WORKER RESIDE OUTSIDE OF A
50 MILE RADIUS OF THE CENTER IN
THE OFF SEASON, BEFORE MODERN
MIGRATORY FARM WORKER HOUSING
CENTERS WERE ESTABLISHED, MANY
LIVED IN OVERCROWDED,
SUBSTANDARD MOTEL ROOMS,
MAKESHIFT SHACKS OR NEAR
ORCHARDS, AND STREAMS WITHOUT
PLUMBING OR SAFETY. IN RESPONSE,
IN 1965, CALIFORNIA PROVIDED
MIGRANT FARM WORKERS AND THEIR
FAMILIES WITH AFFORDABLE
SEASONAL RENTAL HOUSING. FROM
APRIL THROUGH NOVEMBER. TODAY,
HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF FARM
WORKERS ARE NO LONGER MIGRATORY.
SINGLE MEN, BUT INSTEAD ARE
SETTLED WITH FAMILIES. ONLY 8%
OF CALIFORNIA'S FARM WORKERS
WERE MIGRANTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR
2019, AND 2020, ACCORDING TO THE
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. IN 2023,
THE SACRAMENTO BEE SURVEYED
SEVEN MIGRANT CENTERS AND 150
FARM WORKERS. RESULTS FROM THIS
SURVEY CONFIRMED THAT 80% OF
FARM WORKERS WOULD CONTINUE TO
LIVE AT THEIR CENTER IF IT
REMAINED YEAR ROUND. ABOUT 69%
OF THE FARM WORKERS WITH
CHILDREN SAID THAT MIGRATION
NEGATIVELY AFFECTED THEIR KIDS
EDUCATION. AS THE DEMOGRAPHICS
OF FARM WORKERS ARE CHANGING, IT
BECOMES ESSENTIAL TO REMOVE
OUTDATED REQUIREMENTS. DESPITE
THIS CHANGE, FARM WORKERS STILL
MUST RESIDE OUTSIDE OF 50 MILE
RADIUS OF A CENTER FOR A MINIMUM
OF THREE MONTHS IN ORDER TO
QUALIFY FOR MIGRATORY FARM
WORKER HOUSING. THIS IS
DEVASTATING TO CHILDREN WHOSE
SCHOOL YEARS DO NOT ALIGN WITH
THESE CLOSURES, AND TO FAMILIES
WHO ARE REQUIRED TO SEPARATE AS
A CONDITION OF RESIDENCY. AB
2240 ENSURES THAT FARM WORKERS
AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE NOT
SEPARATED BECAUSE OF OUTDATED
POLICIES, AND THAT THEIR
CHILDREN'S EDUCATION IS NOT
INTERRUPTED. IN SUPPORT OF AB
2240 TODAY ARE TWO LEAD
WITNESSES, BEGINNING WITH RAUL
MORA, PRINCIPAL AT MARSHALL
ELEMENTARY FROM STOCKTON
UNIFIED, AND LAUREN ORNELAS
READING TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF
AN 11TH GRADER, BRENDA OCHOA
FROM EAST UNION HIGH SCHOOL IN
MANTECA. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RAUL
MORA AND I WAS A SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL FOR OVER 28 YEARS IN
MANTECA UNIFIED AT BOTH FRENCH
CAMP ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND EAST
UNION HIGH SCHOOLS. CURRENTLY, I
WORK AT MARSHALL SCHOOL IN
STOCKTON UNIFIED. DURING MY
TENURE, I HAVE EXPERIENCED THE
CHILDREN OF MIGRANT PARENTS
LIVING AT RTC MIGRANT CAMPS ONE
AND TWO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
WHOM ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
WHO WERE EITHER BORN HERE OR ARE
LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS BEING
IMPACTED BY THIS ARCHAIC AND
UNJUST LAW THAT MANDATES MIGRANT
FAMILIES MOVE MORE THAN 50 MILES
AWAY. THIS POLICY IS OFTEN
REINFORCED BY CAMP MANAGERS WHO
TELL FAMILIES THAT IF THEY SEE
THEM AROUND TOWN, THEY WILL LOSE
ALL OPPORTUNITY TO STAY AT THE
CAMPS THE FOLLOWING SPRING. THIS
FORCES ALL MIGRANT STUDENTS TO
LEAVE THEIR SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS
WHOM THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH, AND
TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CAMP, STATE
OR COUNTRY THAT HAS A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT CURRICULUM OR ARE
VIEWED AS MERELY A TEMPORARY,
SEASONAL STUDENT BY THE SCHOOL
THAT ABSORBS THEM AND REQUIRES
THAT THEY JUST SIT IN THE BACK
AND NOT CREATE PROBLEMS, OR IF
THEY ARE MOVED TO A RURAL TOWN
IN WASHINGTON STATE OR A SMALL
TOWN IN MEXICO FOR THE WINTER
HOLIDAYS, THEY MAY NOT BE IN
SCHOOL AT ALL. AS THEY ARE
CLOSED, THEY ARE CLOSED. ALL
SCHOOLS REQUIRE FEES IN MEXICO
AS WELL, SO STUDENTS HAVE NO
SCHOOL FOR 3 TO 6 MONTHS EVERY
YEAR. THIS CREATES HUGE GAPS AND
DISCREPANCIES IN A CHILD'S
EDUCATION, LEAVING MANY UNABLE
TO CATCH UP WITH THEIR PEERS AND
DROP OUT IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN THE
GAP BECOMES TOO BIG. AS STUDENTS
WHO ARE ABLE TO CATCH UP THEIR
SOPHOMORE OR JUNIOR YEAR, THEIR
FAMILIES ARE FACED WITH A VERY
HARD DECISION OF EITHER TAKING
THEIR STUDENTS WITH THEM AND
IMPACTING THEIR CHANCES OF
COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS OR
ENTRANCE, OR ALLOWING THEIR
CHILDREN TO STAY ALL ALONE WITH
OLDER SIBLINGS, EXTENDED
FAMILIES, OR UNFAMILIAR OR
UNSCRUPULOUS STRANGERS. ALWAYS
HIDING IN THE SHADOWS. JUST LIKE
THE PREVIOUS BILL YOU HEARD THIS
MORNING THAT ENSURES EDUCATION
EQUITY FOR HOMELESS AND FOSTER
YOUTH, THIS BILL WILL FINALLY
END. STUDENTS WHO MUST HIDE RUN
OUT OF MONEY WHEN LEFT BY THEIR
PARENTS IN A MOTEL, GET
ASSAULTED BY GANG MEMBERS, AND
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY CRIMINALS
WHO STAY IN LOW RENT HOUSING.
10S PLEASE ENSURE EDUCATIONAL
EQUITY FOR ALL OF CALIFORNIA
CITIZENS AND STOP HAVING
CHILDREN AND DREAMERS PAY THE
PRICE FOR THIS UNAWARENESS THAT
HAS OCCURRED IN THE FRINGES FOR
THE LAST 70 YEARS. WHEN MIGRANT
WORKERS AND FAMILIES WERE ONLY
VIEWED UPON AS NECESSARY FARM
EQUIPMENT. WE MUST BE BETTER
NOW. THANK YOU. YEAH HELLO,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS LORNA NELLIS, AND I'M
THE FOUNDER AND SENIOR PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR OF FOOD EMPOWERMENT
PROJECT, ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF
AB 2240. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE. I WILL BE READING A
STATEMENT FROM A HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS BRENDA OCHOA. I AM 16 YEARS
OF AGE AND I'M CURRENTLY
ATTENDING HIGH SCHOOL IN MANTECA
, CALIFORNIA, NEAR STOCKTON. MY
PARENTS AND I MOVED ORTEZ TO
MIGRANT FAMILY HOUSING CENTER
WHEN I WAS SIX. YOU COULD SAY I
HAVE BEEN BASICALLY LIVING MY
WHOLE LIFE HERE. THIS IS MY HOME
WHERE I TRULY FEEL COMFORTABLE
AND AT PEACE BECAUSE EVERYONE
HERE IS JUST ONE BIG FAMILY AND
I NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
BEING MISTREATED. BOTH MY
PARENTS ARE FARM WORKERS AND ARE
CURRENTLY WORKING WITH
STRAWBERRIES, MAKING AN INCOME
OF $500 EACH A MONTH. OUR RENT
IS MORE THAN $300 A MONTH, WHICH
LEAVES THE REST FOR FOOD. FOR
THE REST OF THE MONTH. MY
GRANDPARENTS WERE FARM WORKERS
AS WELL AND USED TO LIVE IN THE
EXACT SAME HOUSE I'M LIVING IN
NOW. SO DESPITE EVERYTHING I
LOVE ABOUT LIVING IN THE CAMPS,
JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, THEY REFER
TO THE MIGRANT CENTERS AS CAMPS,
MY FAMILY AND I ALWAYS STRUGGLE
WITH HAVING TO MOVE OUT EVERY
YEAR AND MISSING SCHOOL FROM
DECEMBER THROUGH LATE MARCH.
MOST OF US HAVE NOWHERE TO GO
WHEN THE CAMPS CLOSE. SOME
FAMILIES LIVE IN THEIR CARS SO
THEIR CHILDREN CAN FINISH THEIR
FINALS. I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING FOR
THE PAST THREE YEARS BECAUSE OF
ALL THE MOVING DUE TO THE CAMPS
CLOSING, AND I TRULY WISH I
COULD BE THERE WITH YOU ALL AT
THIS MOMENT. TO TELL YOU ALL THE
STORY OF MY COMMUNITY. BUT
SADLY, I COULDN'T MAKE IT DUE TO
THE FACT THAT I'M VERY BEHIND ON
MY CREDITS TOWARDS GRADUATION.
DUE TO THE SAME REASON, SINCE I
CANNOT ATTEND MY SCHOOL FOR THE
WHOLE YEAR, I CANNOT AFFORD
ANOTHER ABSENCE. I AM BRENDA
OCHOA AND I ASK THE MEMBERS TO
VOTE YES ON AB 2240. YOU
WOULDN'T ONLY BE HELPING ME, BUT
HUNDREDS OF MORE STUDENTS LIKE
ME WITH A DREAM TO BE SOMEONE IN
LIFE, TO GIVE BACK TO ALL THE
SACRIFICES OUR PARENTS HAVE MADE
FOR US. THANK YOU AND OUR THANKS
TO BRENDA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT? IF YOU ARE, YOU CAN
COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ANY
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION.
MANUEL BARAJAS, PROFESSOR OF
SOCIOLOGY AT SAC STATE I'M WITH
THE CENTER ON RACE, IMMIGRATION
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
GRACIAS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, JULIE SOLOMON. DOCTOR.
JULIE SOLOMON, REPRESENTING
HUMAN AGENDA, ONE OF THE
CO-SPONSORS OF THE BILL ASKING
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING.
ALEJANDRO, REPRESENTING CENTER
FOR FARMWORKER FAMILIES, ONE OF
THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL, ASKING
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. JEFF NEEL,
REPRESENTING YOLO COUNTY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ANA SANTANA.
I'M A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
AND A DOCTORAL STUDENT AT SANTA
CLARA UNIVERSITY. I'M ALSO THE
DAUGHTER OF FORMER FARMWORKERS
AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE
BRACERO. MY DOCTORAL
DISSERTATION IS FOCUSED ON THE
LIVED EXPERIENCES OF FARMWORKER
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN RESIDING
IN A STATE SPONSORED MIGRANT
HOUSING CENTER. FOR MORE THAN
TEN YEARS, I'VE DEDICATED MYSELF
TO SERVING AND ADVOCATING FOR
MIGRANT STUDENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES IN VARIOUS ROLES,
EVIDENT CLEARLY INDICATES A
CONNECTION BETWEEN HOUSING AND
THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION.
THOUSANDS OF MIGRANT FARMWORKER
STUDENTS ACROSS GENERATIONS HAVE
BEEN DEPRIVED OF STABLE
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO
THE RULES IMPOSED ON MIGRANT
HOUSING CENTERS, EDUCATION BEING
A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
DESERVES OUR SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY
FOR THE FAMILIES WHO FEED OUR
NATION AND THE WORLD. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR STATEMENT, CHRISTOPHER
LIU WITH DIVERSITY MATTERS AT
VALLEY CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JESSICA
ROMERO, MY FAMILY CURRENTLY
CURRENTLY RESIDES IN R2C2
MIGRANT CENTER. I AM A HIGH
SCHOOL SPANISH TEACHER AND I'M
HERE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MICHAEL LIU, RESIDENT OF,
FREMONT SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I'M
JASMINE WU, I'M MISS SAN JOSE'S
TÍNH, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF AB
2240. I VOLUNTEERED AT THE
CENTER FOR FARMWORKERS
ASSOCIATION DOWN IN WATSONVILLE,
AND I'VE MET THE PEOPLE AND THE
STUDENTS WHO ARE AFFECTED BY
THIS. AND AS A HIGH SCHOOLER
MYSELF, I COULDN'T IMAGINE
HAVING TO CHANGE SCHOOLS TWICE A
YEAR. SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
BILL. AB 2240 THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HI, ELISABETH ROCHEL ZUNIGA
, STUDENT AT MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF
LAW. AS A DAUGHTER OF IMMIGRANTS
, I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF AB
2240. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI,
MY NAME IS ESTHER WU. I AM THE
BOARD MEMBER OF YOUTH FOR
DEFENSE NONPROFIT IN GILROY. I'M
HERE TO SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYBODY HERE IN PRIMARY
OPPOSITION TO AB 2240? YOU CAN
COME UP TO THE PRESENTATION
TABLE OR USE THE MICROPHONE.
YOUR VOICE. YEAH. THANK YOU. GO.
GOOD MORNING. WHEN YOU'RE READY
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH UP TO
I'M JUST GOING TO DO IT IN
SPANISH AND THEN THAT'S FINE. WE
CAN WE CAN ALLOW DIFFERENT TIME.
ADDITIONAL TIME. BUENOS DIAS. ME
NOMBRE ES LORENA PEREZ GUZMAN.
Â VENGO REPRESENTANDO A LAS
FAMILIAS CAMPESINAS MIGRANTS DEL
CAMPO, HARNEY LANE DE LODI AND
SOMOS HOGARES DE TRABAJADORES.
TENEMOS CINCO PUNTOS Y EL
PRIMERO ES QUÊ SOMOS HOGARES
TRABAJADORES DEL CAMPO. ESTOS
CINCO PUNTOS VIENEN EN ESPANOL Y
ELLA SE LOS VÀ A LEER EN INGLÉS.
A SOMOS HOGARES TRABAJADORES DEL
CAMPO MIGRANT. QUIÉN TRABAJAMOS
PARTE DEL ANO DE CALIFORNIA Y
VAMOS A OTROS LUGARES? SEGUNDO
PUNTO NO PODEMOS A LA
ELIMINACION DE VIVIENDAS PARA
INMIGRANTES TEMPORALES IN
CALIFORNIA, LA TERCERA NOSOTROS
DEPENDEMOS EN EL ALOJAMIENTO DE
LA VENTA EN LA OMS PARA ASEGURAR
QUÊ TENGAMOS UN LUGAR SEGURO
PARA VIVIR DURANTE LA PARTE DEL
ANO, QUÊ TRABAJAMOS EN
CALIFORNIA, LA CUARTA SI SE
APRUEBA LA Ã VÆ DOS DOS
CUARENTA PERDEMOS EL ACCESO A
NUESTRA VIVIENDA Y NO TENDREMOS
DONDE VIVIR Y LA LÀ NÚMERO
CINCO. FAVOR NO HAGAN
ALOJAMIENTO EN OMS DURANTE TODO
EL ANO NO TENDREMOS UN LUGAR
DONDE ESTAR SI NO QUEREMOS ESO
C¯ QUÊ ESTÉ ABIERTO TODO EL ANO
Ã. QUEREMOS SEGUIR SIENDO LOS
TRABAJADORES MIGRANTES. QUEREMOS
UN POCO MAS DIALOGAR CON EL
SINHA JOAQUIN ARAMBULA NOS TOMO
DE SORPRESA, TODO ESTO QUÊ NOS
DIJERON AHORA YA HACER LA
ENTREGA A ÉL LE PETISYON EN SU
OFICINA POR LA CALLE O Â TODOS
ESTÁ ESTA FIRMADA POR TODOS LOS
RESIDENTES DE CAMPO. HA NIELSEN
C¯ NO ESTAMOS. DE ACUERDO CON LA
PETISYON. GRACIAS GRACIAS. OKAY.
HI. MY NAME IS ANGELICA. I COME
HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR MIGRANT
WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. WE
RECEIVED A NOTICE OF THE AB 2240
LAW AND HOW THIS LAW WOULD
AFFECT AFFECT US AS MIGRANT
WORKERS. ALTHOUGH WE ARE A GROUP
OF MIGRANT WORKERS WHO COME HERE
IN CALIFORNIA AND PICK SEASONAL
CROPS, WE RELY ON MIGRANT
CENTERS AND THE OMS HOUSING TO
ENSURE WE HAVE A SAFE PLACE PART
OF THE YEAR. WE OPPOSE
ELIMINATING SEASONAL MIGRANT
HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA IF AB 2240
LAW PASSES, WE WILL LOSE THE
ACCESS TO HOUSING AND WILL HAVE
NO WHERE TO LIVE. WE DON'T HAVE
THE RESOURCES TO AFFORD HOUSING
BEING MIGRANT WORKERS DUE TO A
MINIMUM WAGE. PLEASE DON'T MAKE
OM S HOUSING GROUND YEAR. WE
NEED MORE TIME TO DIALOG WITH
JOAQUIN ARAMBULA. I'M HERE FOR
YOU GUYS TO HELP US FIND A
SOLUTION FOR US AS MIGRANT
WORKERS. I WOULD LIKE TO TELL
YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME. I'VE
BEEN LIVING THERE FOR THE PAST
23 YEARS. I GRADUATED WITH
HONORS, AND I'VE BEEN GOING BACK
AND FORTH TO MEXICO. BUT, THANKS
TO THAT, I'VE ALSO LEARNED HOW
TO PICK CROPS, AND I'M THANKFUL
FOR THAT. AND I HAVE AN
EDUCATION IN JUST PASSING. THIS
LAW WILL NOT HELP ANYONE. I FEEL
LIKE IT'S IT DEPENDS ON
EVERYBODY AND HOW, IF THEY WANT
TO BECOME SOMEONE IN THE LIFE.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS
TIME, IF ANYBODY ELSE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WISH TO APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. OAN, I'M GOING TO
ASK IF I, ONE OF OUR WITNESSES
HERE, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH
TRANSLATION? IF ANYBODY WOULD
LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
RECORD, YOU MAY DO SO. WE
CERTAINLY SEE YOU IN THE
AUDIENCE. MISS REYES, MY NAME IS
AVELINO MAGANA AND I NÓ SUPPORT
THIS. THIS 20 2240 2240. THANK
YOU. SO OPINION ENCONTRE DE ESTA
PROPOSICION PUEDEN VENIR AL
MICROFONO DÂN SU NOMBRE Y C¯
ESTAN OPUESTOS Y SU ORGANIZATION
. THANK YOU, MISS REYES, HELLO.
MY NAME IS AARON RODRIGUEZ, AND
I'M A CURRENT RESIDENT AT THE
CAMP POINT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS ALEJANDRO SILVA AND I
DON'T SUPPORT 2222 2240. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS CECILIA CALDERON
DIAZ. ESTOY DE ACUERDO UNA
PROPOSITION CUARENTA. THANK YOU.
MONNING. MY NAME IS RODOLFO
ACEVEDO, AND I'M NOT SUPPORTING
2240. THANK YOU. BUENOS DIAS. ME
NOMBRE ES MARIA CONSUELO
GUTIERREZ Y ME PONGO A LA
PROPOSITION 22. CUARENTA THANK
YOU. BUENOS DIAS. ME NOMBRE ES
ROSA. MARIA Y ME PONGO A LA
PROPOSITION DOS CUARENTA. THANK
YOU. BUENOS DIAS, SALVADOR
CALDERON TORRES Y ME PONGO A LA
PROPUESTA CUARENTA. THANK YOU.
ONE OF DÍAS. MY NAME IS SALVADOR
CALDERON DIAZ Y ME PONGO.
GRACIAS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE? YES. SO, ANA LOPEZ
CUARENTA. THANK YOU. OKAY. I
WANT TO ALSO THANK AND RECOGNIZE
MANY INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE HERE
FOR THE FIRST TIME TO WEIGH
OPINION FOR THIS, THIS IMPORTANT
BILL. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
BEGINNING WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES. THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR. AND
CONGRATULATIONS ON GRADUATING
WITH HONORS. THANK YOU, NO
SENTIMOS MUY ORGULLOSOS DE QUÊ
HAGAS DE GRADUADO CON TANTO
TANTO, SENORES. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THOSE WHO SPOKE IN FAVOR.
WE, THE YOUNG LADY WHO SPOKE
MORE THAN SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO,
BUT SHE'S THE PHD CANDIDATE WHO
IS DOING HER DISSERTATION ON ON
THE LIVES OF MIGRANT WORKERS.
IT'S THE QUESTION WHEN WE SEE
THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS,
ABSOLUTELY, WE NEED TO PROVIDE
THE HOUSING THAT IS NEEDED AND
THESE ARCHAIC RULES OF, OKAY,
YOU'RE IN, YOU GOT TO BE OUT FOR
THREE MONTHS AND YOU BETTER NOT
SHOW YOUR FACE AROUND TOWN OR
YOU LOSE YOUR HOUSING, WE CAN'T
DO THAT TO HUMAN BEINGS. WE
CANNOT IMPOSE THAT KIND OF A
RESTRICTION ON A HUMAN BEING. ON
THE OTHER HAND, THERE HAS TO BE
SOME WAY TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE
WHO ARE MIGRANT WORKERS WHO DO
WANT TO LEAVE AND HAVE THAT WAY
OF LIFE, AND THEY WANT TO BE
ABLE TO LEAVE, BUT THAT IT BE A
CHOICE AS OPPOSED TO BEING TOLD
YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, YOU HAVE TO
BE GONE FOR THREE MONTHS AND
DON'T SHOW YOUR FACE AROUND TOWN
. MAY I SAY SOMETHING IN SPANISH
? IT ESTOY MUY DE ACUERDO DE QUÊ
LA LEY QUÊ C¯ ESTÁ QUÊ. PERO LA
PROPUESTA QUÊ DE EL DOCTOR
ARAMBULA ASAMBLEÍSTA ARAMBULA ES
ESPECÍFICAMENTE PARA NÓ IMPONER
ESTA LEY. QUÉ DICE TIENEN C¯
SALIR POR TRES MESES. Y SI SI
LOS VEMOS EN LA CIUDAD DURANTE
SUS TRES MESES AFUERA. YA NO VAN
A PODER REGRESAR A ESTE TIPO DE
THE ALOJAMIENTO. ESO TAMPOCO NO
LO PODEMOS PERMITIR SOMOS
HUMANOS Y NOS TENEMOS QUÊ TRATAR
CON DIGNIDAD, PERO TAMBIÉN
ACEPTO QUÊ PARA LOS QUÊ SI SON
MIGRANTES Y QUÊ QUIEREN PODER
TENER DONDE VIVIR DURANTE ESOS
NUEVE MESES Y DE C¯ ES SU
DECISION SALIR POR TRES MESES Y
SABER QUÊ PUEDEN REGRESAR. ESO
TAMBIÉN LO ACEPTAMOS. PERO NO
LES VAMOS A DECIR TIENEN QUÊ
SALIR. PERO SI ES ALGO QUÊ SE
TIENE QUÊ TOMAR EN CUENTA. I AM
CERTAIN THAT WITH THE AUTHOR
THAT WE HAVE THAT THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT THAT IT IS
DIGNITY, IT IS HONORING OUR FARM
WORKERS, IT IS PROVIDING HOUSING
FOR OUR FARM WORKERS. IT IS
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN WHO
SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO LEAVE
THEIR SCHOOL TO LIVE IN THEIR
CARS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE
REGULATION THAT YOU'RE OUT OF
THE THIS MIGRANT HOUSING. I
ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE BILL,
I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TRY TO
FIND SOME SOLUTION, AND I WOULD
LOVE TO BE ADDED ON AS A
COAUTHOR OF YOUR BILL. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU, MISS REYES, MOTION BY
MISS REYES, SECOND BY MR. CARRO.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER. CHOLERA THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO
MY TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR, PUTTING
FORWARD THE MOTION AND THE YOUNG
LADY, YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE OF THE
CALIFORNIA DREAM. QUITE, QUITE
SERIOUSLY, SO CONGRATULATIONS ON
ALL YOUR SUCCESS. AND, YOU KNOW,
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. YOU KNOW,
I THINK THE POLICY THAT'S BEEN
IN EXISTENCE HAS BEEN BEREFT OF
DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND CHOICE,
BECAUSE REALLY, THIS IS ABOUT
CHOICE. FAMILY SHOULD HAVE THE
OPTION TO DO WHAT THEY WOULD
WANT TO DO. I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO
LAUREN AND FOOD EMPOWERMENT
PROJECT, WHO WORKED A LOT WITH
THIS INCREDIBLE ORGANIZATION FOR
A NUMBER OF YEARS, HUMAN AGENDA,
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE FOLKS THAT
CERTAINLY ARE ON THE SIDE OF
DIGNITY OF FARMWORKERS. AND I'M
VERY GRATEFUL TO THE FARMWORKERS
THAT HAVE COME TAKEN TIME OUT TO
BE HERE TODAY, ALL OF THEIR
VOICES NEED TO BE HEARD. AND I
THINK THE KEY TO THIS IS THAT,
AGAIN, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT FAMILIES HAVE CHOICE. IF
THEY'RE IF THEY'RE TRULY
MIGRANT, THEY WANT TO BE SIX
MONTHS HERE, SIX MONTHS IN
MEXICO. AND THAT'S THE LIFE THAT
THEY CHOOSE BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR
THEM THE BEST AND WORKS WITH
THEIR CHILDREN THE BEST. AND
THAT'S WHY IN THE BILL ITSELF,
IT DOES ALLOW, IT DOES ALLOW FOR
APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO
CREATE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WOULD
BE ALLOWED. SO BUT WHAT IT'S
SAYING IS THAT IT DOESN'T SAY
YOU HAVE TO BE OUT IN SIX
MONTHS. AND THAT'S JUST IT. IT'S
SAYING THAT NO, YOU CAN'T DO
THAT ANYMORE, UNLESS THE
DEPARTMENT GIVES APPROVAL. AND
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO KIND OF LAND
THIS PLANE, SO TO SPEAK. AND I'M
HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN DOCTOR
ARAMBULA AND THE SPONSORS TO BE
ABLE TO FIND THAT BALANCING ACT
SO THAT FAMILIES, IT'S UP TO THE
FAMILIES. IT'S NOT UP TO THE
GROWERS, IT'S NOT UP TO THE, YOU
KNOW, THE THESE THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY OPERATORS TO SAY, NO,
YOU'RE OUT OF HERE. IF YOU WANT
TO STAY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
STAY. AND SO AND IF YOU WANT TO
LEAVE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
LEAVE. CHOICE SHOULD BE UP TO
THE FAMILIES AND THEIR CHILDREN.
AND THAT'S WHERE THIS BILL, HAS
IT ALREADY. IS THERE IN TERMS OF
HAVING A DISCRETION. BUT WE HAVE
TO MAKE MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS
POSSIBLE. AND WE'RE IN WORKING
WITH. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHY
IT'S LIKE THE OPPOSITION IS
FAMILIES. THAT'S NOT OPPOSITION
IN MY PERSPECTIVE. BECAUSE AT
THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS
BEING DONE FOR FAMILIES. BUT WE
MUST LISTEN TO THE FAMILIES THAT
ARE SAYING THAT, LOOK, WE NEED
TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE
HAVE THE OPTIONS HERE. SO, WITH
THAT, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR AND BE AS HELPFUL
AS I CAN BE TO MAKING SURE WE
GET THERE, BECAUSE I'M CONFIDENT
WE WILL. AND ULTIMATELY, THIS IS
A THIS IS A FAMILY. THIS IS A
BILL ABOUT EMPOWERING THE
FAMILIES THAT ARE DOING THE WORK
THAT ALL OF US, NEED TO SURVIVE.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
CARL. SENATOR QUIRK-SILVA.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. BUT, ALL OF THE
PARTICIPANTS WHO CAME TO SPEAK
AND FOR, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
CAME TO THE FIRST TIME TO THE
CAPITOL, WE WANT TO WELCOME YOU
AND SAY THAT WE SEE YOU AND WE
HEAR YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS REALIZE
ABOUT LEGISLATORS OR ELECTED
OFFICIALS IS WE HAVE A LOT TO
LEARN, WE MIGHT COME UP HERE FOR
A DIFFERENT REGIONS, DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS, DIFFERENT
OCCUPATIONS. AND STILL WE LEARN
ALL THE TIME THROUGH COMMITTEES.
SO I'M A FORMER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TEACHER, FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS IN FULLERTON AND CERTAINLY
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT, STUDENTS
MOVING BACK AND FORTH, FROM
SCHOOL TO SCHOOL, WE KNOW,
IMPACTS ANY STUDENT, THIS YEAR
AS A LATINO CAUCUS MEMBER, WE
WERE ABLE TO HEAR, SPEAK, JOSE,
HERNANDEZ, WHO IS AN ASTRONAUT,
THE FIRST LATINO ASTRONAUT,
COMING FROM STOCKTON. AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THERE'S A MOVIE ABOUT
HIM RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T
SEEN THAT, I RECOMMEND IT. BUT
IT PARTICULARLY HAS A PART THAT
SHARES THAT HIS TEACHER ACTUALLY
WENT TO HIS FATHER AND SAID THE
MOVING BACK AND FORTH CAN REALLY
HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR
EDUCATION. AND OF COURSE, WE
HAVE SEEN THAT. AND IT ISN'T
JUST FARM WORKERS, STUDENTS.
WE'VE SEEN THIS WITH ANY STUDENT
, FOSTER STUDENTS, FAMILIES THAT
HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE OF RENT
ISSUES, HOMELESS STUDENTS. THIS
DOES IMPACT THEIR, EDUCATION ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE CHOICE OF
THE FAMILY IS IMPERATIVE AND WE
ALWAYS WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE FAMILY CHOOSES TO DO. WE
DON'T KNOW THEIR PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES. REYES, GOING BACK
TO MEXICO FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT
OF TIME MAY BE VERY IMPORTANT.
PART OF, STAYING RELATED TO
THEIR CULTURE Ã SUSTAINING
THEMSELVES FINANCIALLY, WHAT I
WOULD SAY IS THE ONE QUESTION
THAT I REALLY DO HAVE, AND IS,
WHEN THE FAMILIES ARE TOLD THEY
NEED TO MOVE FOR A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF TIME, THE THREE
MONTHS, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH HOUSING AND
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET OTHER
FAMILIES IN, OR IT'S JUST A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT HAS
BEEN SPECIFIED THAT THEY SHOULD
BE THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER
SIDE OF THAT IS THE FAMILIES DO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAY
YEAR ROUND. WHAT WILL THAT LOOK
LIKE AS FAR AS NUMBERS FOR OTHER
FAMILIES WHO ARE GOING BACK AND
FORTH TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE, SPACES AS
CURRENT LAW, THEY HAVE UP TO 180
DAYS WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND
IT TO 270 DAYS TO STAY IN THE
FARM WORKER HOUSING. AFTER SUCH
TIME, THEY MUST LEAVE THE
RESIDENCE. THAT HOUSING THEN IS
VACANT UNTIL IT'S TIME FOR
PEOPLE TO MOVE BACK IN AND SO
FOR US TO UTILIZE THE HOUSING
SUPPLY WE HAVE MORE EFFECTIVELY
IF WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPTION
TO CONTINUE TO STAY WHILE
ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MIGRATE, IF
THEY SO CHOOSE, WE SHOULD DO
MORE WITH THE HOUSING SUPPLY
THAT WE HAVE. CAN I SAY
SOMETHING? OKAY, SO HOUSING
THERE ARE NOT LIKE DURING THE
COLD OR SUPER COLD. SO THEY'RE
NOT LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE HEATERS
ENOUGH. HEATERS FOR THEM. SO
THAT'S ANOTHER THING. IF YOU
GUYS MAKE THE HOUSES REAR LIKE
YEAR ROUND, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO
LIVE THERE. I'VE BEEN LIVING
THERE FOR THE PAST 23 YEARS OR
22, I BELIEVE. SO I BELIEVE IT'S
NOT ADEQUATE FOR THEM TO KEEP IT
LONG. TERME AND INSTEAD OF USING
THAT MONEY FOR THE INVESTING ON
HOUSING, I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD
INVEST IT ON HAVING PROGRAMS FOR
THOSE MIGRANT WORKERS THERE
DURING LIKE VACATIONS DURING
SUMMER. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT
THEY SHOULD DO. DO PROGRAMS FOR
THEM TO HELP THEM LEARN MORE AND
HAVE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES IN
LIFE. MR. CARR, YOU SAID
SOMETHING MORE JUST ON THAT ON
THAT POINT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, FOR YOUR INDULGENCE ON
THAT POINT. I THINK THAT THAT'S
THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE
HAVE TO LOOK INTO, MAYBE BECAUSE
THEY'VE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO FOLKS
NOT BEING THERE FOR THREE
MONTHS. THEY DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR
HEATING AND WHAT HAVE YOU. AND
THAT THAT IS NOT THAT'S AN ISSUE
THAT WE HAVE TO WORK ON BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. YEAH. AND
THE LAST THING I WANT TO MENTION
IS A LOT OF FOLKS FROM SAN JOSE
HERE, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE, CESAR CHAVEZ
HISTORICAL HOME FOR THOSE THAT
DON'T KNOW, WHEN HE CAME BACK
FROM THE WARS IN SAN JOSE, HE
LEARNED TO ORGANIZE THERE. SO
IT'S NOT A SURPRISE COMING FROM
THE VALLEY OF HEART'S DELIGHT,
WHICH BECAME SILICON VALLEY, TO
BE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE FARM
WORKER. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
VICE CHAIR PATTERSON. GREAT.
THANKS, I'M FROM NAPA AND, YOU
KNOW, QUITE SIZABLE. MIGRANT
POPULATION THERE. AND, MY
STEPDAD IS, WHO'S BEEN MY
STEPFATHER FOR THE MAJORITY OF
MY LIFE, 37 YEARS, HOW LONG HAS
HE BEEN MY STEPDAD? HE'S, HE'S A
MEXICAN IMMIGRANT. HE'S A
CITIZEN. AND BUT THROUGH THAT,
OBVIOUSLY, WE, HAVE A LOT OF
FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE STILL
LIVE IN MEXICO, AND THEY COME
BACK HERE TO WORK AND, THAT'S
WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO. YOU KNOW,
IN MY EXPERIENCE. RIGHT. SO IS,
THEY ALL HAVE FAMILIES NOW.
THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, YOU KNOW,
TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES,
THEY LEAVE THEIR FAMILIES, THEY
COME HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WORK
AND THEN THEY GO BACK. AND SO I
WAS KIND OF SURPRISED BY THE
OPPOSITION. BUT NOW I'M, YOU
KNOW, I'M KIND OF UNDERSTANDING
IT. SO, MAKES SENSE. I WAS
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
SPANISH, BUT THAT'S KIND OF I
HAVEN'T USED IT FOR LIKE 20
YEARS, SO A LITTLE RUSTY, BUT,
SO I HAD AN INTERPRETER, EXPLAIN
IT TO ME IN A COUPLE OF
SENTENCES, BUT. SO I WAS KIND OF
SURPRISED BY THAT. BUT I DO
BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
GET TO THE RIGHT PART HERE. I
THINK THERE'S A FISCAL, YOU
KNOW, COMPONENT TO THAT, THAT,
YOU KNOW, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT,
BUT I THINK JUST GIVEN THE
DISCUSSION AND JUST KIND OF SEE
WHERE IT GOES, I MIGHT LAY OFF
THIS BILL, BUT I PHILOSOPHICALLY
AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE GOING
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE KIDS HERE IN
SOME SITUATIONS, YOU MAYBE YOU
DON'T WANT TO GO BACK. RIGHT? SO
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST BEEN
AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION. I
APPRECIATE I APPRECIATE ALL OF
IT. I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE WHO
SHOWED UP IN OPPOSITION AND JUST
RAISED POINTS THAT I WASN'T EVEN
REALLY THINKING ABOUT. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE
BILL, I JUST, REALLY WOULD, KIND
OF SUMMARIZE SOME OF THOSE OTHER
THOUGHTS, I THINK MULTIPLE
THINGS ARE TRUE HERE. ONE, WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TOTAL
FARMWORKER HOUSING, AND WE NEED
TO WORK ON THAT. AND WE WILL
WORK ON THAT. AND WHILE WE ARE,
WE RECOGNIZE THAT I THINK SOME
OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC MIX THAT
WE'RE SEEING WITHIN OUR
FARMWORKERS COMMUNITY HAVE
SHIFTED OVER THE YEARS. AND SO
THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS GEL WELL
WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN STOCK
AVAILABLE AND SORT OF WHAT THE
CONDITIONS ARE, TO BE ABLE TO
ACCESS SOME OF THAT HOUSING
STOCK. AND I THINK TO THE POINT
THAT YOU HAD MADE IN RESPONSE IS
EXACTLY WHY YOU BROUGHT FORWARD
THIS BILL FOR ANY GIVEN DAY OF
THE YEAR. WE SHOULDN'T LET OUR
OWN LAWS BE THE BARRIER TO
KEEPING A HOUSING UNIT VACANT,
THERE IS SOME WHILE WE'RE
WORKING ON THE TOTALITY OF WHAT
OUR NEEDS ARE HERE, MAYBE,
SHIFTING OF THAT LAW THAT WILL
BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE, I THINK THE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY, BUT I KNOW
YOU'LL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION AS
WELL TO THE IMPORTANT POINTS
THAT THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO,
UTILIZE, MIGRATORY FARM WORKER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR NEEDS.
WE DON'T WANT TO SHIFT
EVERYTHING, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS
A SHIFT IN THAT PROGRAM THAT,
YOU KNOW, WOULD SOMEHOW ROB ONE,
GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS IN FAVOR OF
ANOTHER. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO
WORK ON THAT AND FIND THE
BALANCE FOR THAT. I'M VERY HAPPY
TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
DOCTOR ARAMBULA, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TODAY.
AND I ALSO WANT TO APPRECIATE
EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN
TODAY'S PUBLIC PROCESS. IT
ALLOWS US TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE PRODUCING THE BEST PIECES
OF LEGISLATION THAT WE CAN. I
LOOK FORWARD TO THE ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE
ABOUT HOW TO STRENGTHEN IT, AND
IN PARTICULAR, HOW WE CAN
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HOUSING
THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR FARMWORKER
COMMUNITIES WHILE WE WORK ON
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE
SUFFICIENT HOUSING TO MEET OUR
NEEDS AS A STATE. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MOTION TO
PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
AND APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD
I PATTERSON NOT VOTING. GRAYSON
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LI LI I
QUIRK-SILVA. KIRK SILVA I REZ
REYES I SANCHEZ. NOT BORING.
WILSON WILSON I. THAT MEASURE IS
SIX ZERO. WITH TWO NOT VOTING.
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS AND IT'S OUT.
THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE A
SENATE MEMBER. CONNOLLY WHO IS
HERE TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER 12.
THIS IS AB 2539. AND I KNOW WE
HAVE A LOT OF MOVEMENT IN THE
ROOM. SO WHEN WE ALL GET
SITUATED YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION ON
.
SEE, JUST MAKE SURE. NOT IN THE
AISLE. SO.
I'M SORRY. BUT I. Ó. REALLY.
ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE, WE'RE GOING TO RESUME
OUR PRESENTATION. SO I ASK FOR
YOUR SILENCE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, GREAT TO SEE
EVERYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN
BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE AND
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK AND INPUT
ON THIS BILL. AND I'LL NOTE THAT
I'LL OFFER AT THE END OF MY
REMARKS A SUGGESTION THAT I
THINK MAY CONTINUE TO MOVE THE
DISCUSSION FORWARD, AB 2539
WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS OF MOBILE
HOME PARKS THE TIME NECESSARY TO
ORGANIZE, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PURCHASE THEIR PARK WHEN AN
OWNER IS INTERESTED IN SELLING
MOBILE HOMES ARE ONE OF THE LAST
FORMS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
CALIFORNIA. THESE PARKS HAS AN
ESTIMATED 363,000 HOMES IN
CALIFORNIA. THE MOBILE HOME
PARKS ENABLE LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES TO ATTAIN HOME
OWNERSHIP AND BUILD EQUITY IN AN
OTHERWISE UNATTAINABLE HOUSING
MARKET. IN RECENT YEARS,
INVESTMENT FIRMS AND
CORPORATIONS NATIONWIDE HAVE
BEGUN BUYING UP MOBILE HOME
PARKS. MANY VULNERABLE
RESIDENTS, LIKE SENIORS OR
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHO
LIVE ON FIXED INCOMES, CANNOT
AFFORD THE RENT SPIKES THAT ARE
NOW COMMONPLACE. WHEN PARK
OWNERSHIP SWITCHES FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL PARK OWNER TO
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP, NOT OWNING
THE LAND THEIR HOME SITS ON
EFFECTIVELY TRAPS HOMEOWNERS AND
FORCES THEM TO PAY ENDLESSLY.
RISING RENTS AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE PARK OWNER OR ABANDON
THEIR HOMES. SINCE MOVING, IT IS
EITHER FINANCIALLY OR PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE, AS MOST HOMES ARE
NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO BE
RELOCATED. MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS
OFTEN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN THEIR
HOMES, AND DISPLACEMENT DUE TO
PARK SALE CAN BE DISRUPTIVE AND
EXPENSIVE. MANY RESIDENTS ARE
SENIORS AND OR LIVING ON A FIXED
INCOME OR LOW WAGE, LOW WAGE
EARNING FAMILIES WITH PAY THAT
IS INADEQUATE TO COVER ENDLESSLY
RISING RENTS FOR SENIORS. THERE
IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN EXISTENCE OR BEING
BUILT SHOULD THEY BE DISPLACED
FROM THEIR MOBILE HOME PARK
COMMUNITIES. THIS IS OF GREAT
CONCERN AS ADULTS AGE 50 AND
OLDER ARE THE FASTEST GROWING
AGE COHORT OF PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THEIR NUMBERS
ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO GROW
. THE AB 2539 BUILDS ON AN
EXISTING RESOURCE AT NO COST TO
THE STATE. BY ALLOWING RESIDENTS
TO SECURE THEIR OWN LONG TERME
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND
STABILITY BY PURCHASING THE PARK
AND CONTROLLING FUTURE RENT
INCREASES, IT CAN HELP ADDRESS
THE GROWING ISSUE OF
DISPLACEMENT AND LOSS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS,
PARTICULARLY FOR VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS LIKE FIXED INCOME
SENIORS. ADDITIONALLY, OWNING
THE PARK INCENTIVIZES RESIDENTS
TO INVEST IN REPAIRS AND
UPGRADES, WHEREAS CORPORATE
OWNERS OR INVESTORS HAVE LITTLE
INCENTIVE TO MAKE THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS. SO MANY PARKS NEED
TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS, SEVERAL
STATES HAVE PASSED SOME FORM OF
WHAT'S KNOWN AS A RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL LAW WITH SUCCESS UNDER
THE CURRENT MOBILE HOME
RESIDENCY LAW IN CALIFORNIA, A
PARK OWNER IS REQUIRED TO GIVE
AN EXISTING RESIDENT
ORGANIZATION A MINIMUM OF 30
DAYS NOTICE OF THEIR INTENT TO
SELL. AB 2539, AS DRAFTED, WOULD
PROVIDE A LONGER MINIMUM NOTICE
PERIOD OF 120 DAYS TO GIVE
RESIDENTS THE TIME NEEDED TO
FORM A RESIDENT ORGANIZATION,
THÀNH, FOR PURPOSES OF
PURCHASING THE PARK, AND WOULD
CREATE A RIGHT OF REFUSAL FOR A
RESIDENTIAL ORGANIZATION TO MAKE
AN OFFER TO PURCHASE A PARK
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF RECEIVING
NOTICE. THE PARK OWNER MUST THEN
ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RESIDENT
ORGANIZATION, AND WOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM NEGOTIATING WITH
OR ACCEPTING AN OFFER FROM
ANOTHER PARTY UNTIL THE SIX
MONTH PERIOD HAS ELAPSED. I HAVE
HEARD CONCERNS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES REGARDING THIS TIME
FRAME, AND INDEED SOME CONFUSION
WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN
JUSTIFIABLE REGARDING THE
PROPOSED PROCESS. SO WHAT I'D
LIKE TO OFFER IS, AS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
FOUR MONTHS NOTICE THAT,
RESIDENTS HAVE TO RECEIVE BEFORE
THE PROPERTY IS LISTED. AT THE
TIME OF THE NOTICE,
CONCURRENTLY, THERE'S A SIX
MONTH RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
TIME PERIOD. ANOTHER PROPOSAL,
AND I'M WILLING TO GO FORWARD
WITH THIS. AND WOULD LOVE INPUT
IS TO SHRINK THE TOTAL TIME
PERIOD DOWN TO THE 120 DAYS. SO
BASICALLY THAT WOULD SUBSUME
BOTH THE NOTICE CGRTS AND THE
TIME PERIOD WITH WHICH A
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE
TO COME FORWARD. AND, THE RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL WOULD BE IN
PLACE. SO WITH THAT, I WILL NOW
PASS IT OFF TO MY WITNESSES,
MARGARET DE MATEO, REPRESENTING
LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY, THE
BILL SPONSOR, AND PATTY RISTAINO
, A MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENT
FROM WINDSOR. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR WARD AND
HONORABLE HONOR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. LET ME MOVE THIS A
LITTLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL,
MY NAME IS MARGARET DIMAGGIO.
I'M THE HOUSING POLICY ATTORNEY
WITH LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY.
OUR HOUSING TEAM SEES
CALIFORNIANS STRUGGLING TO KEEP
A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS,
ESPECIALLY MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS
. HOME OWNERSHIP FEELS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST CALIFORNIANS
. WORKING FAMILIES, SENIORS AND
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES ARE
HIT THE MOST. AND I KNOW THIS IS
NOT NEW INFORMATION THÀNH FOR
THIS CRITICAL COMMITTEE. MOBILE
HOMES, THOUGH OFTEN OVERLOOKED,
OFFER A CHANCE FOR THESE
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS TO OWN A
HOME AND SET DOWN ROOTS INTO A
COMMUNITY. THEY'RE THE LAST
SOURCE OF NATURALLY OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE STATE,
AND WE NEED TO PROTECT IT. AB
2539 OFFERS A LIFE RAFT. IT
GRANTS MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS,
MANY OF THEM SENIORS, THE RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL, A REAL SHOT AT
COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP. THIS IS NOT
ABOUT TAKING PROPERTY. IT'S
ABOUT GIVING RESIDENTS A
FIGHTING CHANCE. AND IT'S NOT A
NEW IDEA. MANY STATES HAVE
SIMILAR LAWS TO PROMOTE RESIDENT
OWNED COMMUNITIES AND PREVENT
PARKS FROM BECOMING MERE
INVESTMENTS. THE BILL. THE BILL
BALANCES FAIRNESS. RESIDENTS GET
A REASONABLE TIME TO FIND
FINANCING WHILE SELLERS RECEIVE
FAIR MARKET VALUE. CALIFORNIA'S
HOUSING CRISIS THREATENS
DISPLACEMENT. RENTS, RENTS RISE,
WAGES DON'T BUDGE, AND STABLE
HOUSING IS A DREAM. AB 2539
OFFERS A WAY OUT FOR SOME. SOME
SAY IT RESTRICTS PROPERTY TO
PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT ISN'T STABLE
HOUSING A LEGITIMATE, LEGITIMATE
GOVERNMENT INTEREST? PROTECTING
SENIORS, REDUCING HOMELESSNESS.
ADDITIONALLY, RESIDENT OWNED
COMMUNITIES ARE OFTEN BETTER
MAINTAINED AND FOSTERING A SENSE
OF BELONGING AND SAFETY,
ESPECIALLY FOR SENIORS. LET'S
EMPOWER OUR MOST VULNERABLE TO
WEATHER THE STORM. PLEASE PASS
AB 2539 OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD DAY
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
SERVICE. MY NAME IS PATRICIA
RESTAINO. I OFFER YOU A SENIORS
PERSPECTIVE WHO LIVES IN A LOW
INCOME MOBILE HOME PARK. I TURN
65IN JULY AND I ASK YOU TO
SUPPORT AB 2539 TO PROTECT
SENIORS AND TO PRESERVE LOW
INCOME HOUSING, MOBILE HOMES MAY
BE SIMPLE, BUT THEY OFFER
INDEPENDENT LIVING, A PLACE TO
GARDEN, A COMMUNITY WHO
SOCIALIZES AND WATCHES OUT FOR
ONE ANOTHER. MOST OF US CHOOSE
THESE HOMES AS OUR FINAL RESTING
PLACE, A PLACE TO COMPLETE OUR
LIFE'S JOURNEY HONORABLY,
HONORABLY. AB 2539 IS IMPORTANT
TO US. I LIVE IN WINDSOR MOBILE
COUNTRY CLUB, A SENIOR PARK WITH
OVER 330 MOBILE HOMES AND MANY
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS LIKE ME,
OUR LANDOWNER IS RESIDENT OWNED
PARKS. DESPITE THE NAME, THE
RESIDENTS DO NOT OWN THE PARK.
THE HOMEOWNERS, WHEN WE MOVE IN,
WERE TOLD THAT THAT WE WILL
EVENTUALLY OWN THE LAND, BUT THE
OWNERS AND THE OWNERS SHARED
THAT PROMISE WITH THE TOWN OF
WINDSOR DURING THEIR PURCHASE
PROCESS. THESE DAYS, IF SOMEONE
BRINGS IT TO THE PARK OWNERS
ATTENTION, WE'RE LAUGHED AT. SO
AB 2539 WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE US
THE RIGHT TO ACTUALLY OWN THE
PARK IF WE SO DESIRED. WE ASK
THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF
LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME. WHEN
PROFIT ORIENTED INVESTORS BUY
MOBILE HOME PARKS, THEY SEE THE
VALUE OF THE LAND, NOT THE
PEOPLE THEY OFTEN SHIFT THE
PARKS TO ALL AGES, RAISE RENTS
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, OR REMOVE
THE HOMES AND BUILD SOMETHING
ELSE. THAT'S GREED IN ACTION.
INVESTORS ASSUME THAT SENIORS
ARE EASIER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
BECAUSE THEY THINK OUR VOICES
ARE WEAKER AND OUR ENERGY IS
DECLINING. IMAGINE IF HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF LOW INCOME
SENIORS LIVING IN MOBILE HOMES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA LOSE THEIR
HOMES, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT US?
PROTECT THE AFFORDABILITY AND
QUALITY OF HOUSING FOR SENIORS.
AB 2539 OFFERS INDEPENDENT
LIVING AND SUPPORTS COMMUNITIES
THAT TAKES CARE OF THEMSELVES.
SO PLEASE SUPPORT AB 2539. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL? GOOD MORNING, ANNIE
LAWLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, THE
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT IN
REYES ECONOMY AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, RAFA
SONNENFELD WITH MBA ACTION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANYBODY HERE? IS THERE ANYBODY
HERE IN PRIMARY OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? WELCOME. IF YOU'D
LIKE YOU CAN COME TO THE
PRESENTATION TABLE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CHRIS
WYSOCKY, REPRESENTING W MÀ, THE
LARGEST ASSOCIATION OF MOBILE
HOME PARK OWNERS IN THE STATE.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO
VOTE ON AB 2539. THIS BILL
REMOVES THE RIGHT TO SELL MOBILE
HOME PARKS TO A SELECTED BUYER,
A RIGHT PROVIDED BY THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. IT
STOPS A PARK OWNER FROM SELLING
A PARK BY ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO
FREEZE TITLE FOR TEN MONTHS,
WHILE DECIDING TO TAKE CONTROL
AND OPERATION FROM THE PARK
OWNER. ALREADY 133 183 RESIDENT
GROUPS OWNED PARKS IN CALIFORNIA
, AND THAT REPRESENTS ABOUT 10%
OF THE SPACES IN THE STATE, AND
ANOTHER 70 OR SO ARE UP FOR SALE
RIGHT NOW. IN FACT, FACILITATING
TENANT PURCHASES HAS BECOME A
COTTAGE INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA
FOR SEVERAL NONPROFITS THAT
SPECIALIZE IN HELPING RESIDENTS
BUY OR SUBDIVIDE, SUBDIVIDE, OR
LEASE THEIR PARKS ARE IN
EXISTENCE. AB 2539 IS
EFFECTIVELY A TAKING OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER IN
CALIFORNIA, GIVING RESIDENT
GROUPS 120 DAYS TO DECIDE IF
THEY ARE EVEN INTERESTED. TAKES
MOBILE HOME PARKS OUT OF THE
EQUATION FOR OTHERS WHO MAY WANT
TO PURCHASE THE PARK THROUGH A
1031 EXCHANGE. EVEN WORSE, IF,
AFTER 120 DAYS, A GROUP DECIDE
THAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO BUY THE
PARK OR DOES WANT TO BUY THE
PARK, THEY GET ANOTHER SIX
MONTHS TO PUT TOGETHER THE
FINANCING AND KEEPS THE CURRENT
OWNER FROM EVEN TALKING WITH
ANYONE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED.
WHAT HAPPENS IF, AFTER THAT TEN
MONTHS, A RESIDENT GROUP FAILS
TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY, OR IS
SIMPLY CHANGES ITS MIND? I
UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO MAKE
SURE MOBILE HOME PARKS ARE NOT
SWEPT UP BY WALL STREET FIRMS.
BUT MORE THAN 90% OF MÀ PARKS IN
CALIFORNIA VÀ ARE CALIFORNIA
BASED BUSINESSES. YOU SIMPLY
CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO SELL A
STAY IN BUSINESS WHO WANTS TO
SELL 10S. I UNDERSTAND IT'S
HOUSING, BUT IT'S STILL A
BUSINESS. JUST LIKE A FLOWER
SHOP OR A RESTAURANT. FOR THESE
AND MANY OTHER REASONS CONTAINED
IN OUR LETTER, MÀ STRONGLY
OPPOSES 2539 AND WE ASK FOR A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND I ASK. I'M
AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. JASON ECKERT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA MOBILE
HOME PARK OWNERS ALLIANCE, ALSO
OPPOSED TO THE BILL FOR MANY OF
THE SAME REASONS, STATED BY MR.
WYSOCKY, BUT WANT TO START, BY
SAYING THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY
MIND THAT THE AMENDMENT OFFERED
BY THE AUTHOR IS MADE IN GOOD
FAITH AND GENUINELY, AS OUR
LETTER STATES, OUR OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL
THAN THE TIMELINES. IT RELATES
TO THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
AS MR. WYSOCKY SAYS, WE VIEW
THIS AS A AS A FUNDAMENTAL
TAKING OF A PROPERTY, RIGHT,
THAT WE HAVE NOT NOT ONLY OUR
OUR ABILITY TO VOLUNTARILY
NEGOTIATE WITH PARTIES, ON A
VOLUNTARY RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL, BUT MORE FUNDAMENTALLY
ON THE VALUE OF OUR PARKS AND
OUR ABILITY TO DISPOSE OF THEM,
WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY,
RIGHT, PROTECTED UNDER THE
STATE'S CONSTITUTION. I
APOLOGIZE, NOT NOT A FUNDAMENTAL
PROPERTY RIGHT TO GET
COMPENSATION FOR ANY TAKING, I
APOLOGIZE, REGARDLESS, WE ARE
VERY CONCERNED THAT, THERE IS
NOT AN ALLEGATION OF BAD FAITH
ON THE PART OF CMPA OR AS MR.
WYSOCKY SAID, MÀ MEMBERS, WE
ARE, CALIFORNIA BASED PARK
OWNERS, AND WE OPERATE OUR PARKS
IN GOOD FAITH, AND WE TRY TO
MAKE THEM GOOD PARKS FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES. BUT THIS BILL
SERVES THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING
US OF OUR ABILITY TO GET A FAIR
MARKET VALUE FOR OUR PARKS,
AFTER OWNING THEM, OPERATING AND
HOLDING ALL THE LIABILITY FOR,
FOR THAT PROPERTY FOR, FOR, FOR
MANY YEARS, LASTLY, JUST A
COUPLE OF QUICK ITEMS, IN THE
LAST SIX YEARS, THE IF THIS BILL
IS TO PASS AND BECOME LAW, OUR
INDUSTRY WILL WILL BE FACING,
YOU KNOW, THREE BILLS THAT HAVE
PASSED IN THE LAST SIX YEARS
THAT WE'VE HAD TO GO TO THE
COURTS AND LITIGATE TO PROTECT
OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS ON. I DON'T
KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
OTHER OTHER FOLKS IN THIS
CAPITAL THAT OPERATE AS
STAKEHOLDERS WHO COULD SAY THE
SAME, AND IN THIS CASE, AGAIN,
EVEN, YOU KNOW, EVEN EVEN WHERE
YOU KNOW, THE INTENDED PURPOSE
IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO
RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, THE COURTS
HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL TO DO THIS
WITHOUT COMPENSATION. SO IT
WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT
LEGAL EXPENSES FOR OUR CLIENTS
TO DEFEND THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS,
BUT ALSO SIGNIFICANT EXPENSES
FOR THE STATE TO DEFEND THE
STATUTE. SO FOR THESE REASONS,
WE REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE BILL
AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION? GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, KAREEM TRACY,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND
OPPOSITION, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ARE YOU SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? WE'LL
BRING THEM BACK TO COMMITTEE.
BEGIN WITH MR. KALRA. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. SENATOR CONNOLLY,
DOES THIS BILL REQUIRE A MOBILE
HOME? PARK OWNERS TO SELL THE
PROPERTY BELOW MARKET RATE? NO.
SO AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING
THAT. I'M GOING TO CLEAR UP A
FEW THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THIS
DOES NOT FREEZE TITLE FOR TEN
MONTHS. THAT'S THE CONFUSION.
AND SO LET'S BE CLEAR. THE RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL RIGHT NOW IS
SIX MONTHS. THE FOUR MONTH
NOTICE IS CONCURRENT. WHAT I'M
SAYING IS LET'S JUST COLLAPSE IT
DOWN TO FOUR MONTHS FOR THE
WHOLE PROCESS, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER KALRA.
THIS IN NO WAY IMPOSES A
REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT ANY OFFER.
LET ALONE ONE FOR BELOW MARKET
RATE, SO IT DOES NOT PREVENT
GETTING, FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BEING
POSITED TODAY IS NOT ON POINT.
IT'S NOT A TAKING, THERE'S
SIMPLY A GOOD FAITH, REQUIREMENT
TO NEGOTIATE RATE, IT IS GOING
ON IN OTHER STATES RIGHT NOW. SO
I JUST WANT TO GET THE RECORD
CLEAR ON WHAT IT DOES AND DOES
NOT DO. THANK YOU. AND, YOU
KNOW, SAN JOSE WITH AREAS THAT I
REPRESENT AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR
LEE HAVE AMONGST THE HIGHEST
RATE OF MOBILE HOME, PROBABLY
ONLY RIVALED BY SAN DIEGO, I
THINK MAY HAVE MORE, AND THEY
HAVE BECOME DE FACTO SENIOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MANY
CASES, AND I THINK THAT THESE
ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YOU
KNOW, 120 DAYS, I THINK IS, IS
QUITE REASONABLE BECAUSE IT DOES
YOU KNOW, THESE THESE ARE
TYPICALLY LARGER LAND SALES, AND
SO I THINK THAT EVEN REDUCING IT
FURTHER, I THOUGHT SIX MONTHS
WAS REASONABLE, REDUCING IT DOWN
TO 120, I THINK GIVES A FAIR BUT
LIMITED TIME TO SEE IF THERE'S
EVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OR INTEREST
AND THAT THERE'S NOT, THEN, YOU
KNOW, THE MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER
CAN MOVE ON AND SELL IT TO
WHOEVER THEY'RE SELLING IT TO
AGAIN, AT MARKET RATE. EITHER
WAY, IT'S GOING TO BE MARKET
RATE OR WHATEVER IS NEGOTIATED
IN GOOD FAITH. AND SO I LIKE TO
BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR AND MOVE
THE BILL AND APPRECIATE YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. THANK
YOU. MR. CARR MOVES. MR. LEE
SECONDS. SENATOR WILSON, THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR. I UNDERSTAND
THE INTENT AND, PROTECTING, YOU
KNOW, SOME OF THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE WHEN IT COMES
TO HOUSING AS IT'S VERY
AFFORDABLE TO LIVE IN MOBILE
HOME. SO OUR SENIORS ARE THERE,
VETERANS ARE THERE, YOU KNOW,
FOLKS WHO CANNOT, FOR WHATEVER
REASON, AFFORD, YOU KNOW, TO, TO
OWN A, TO OWN A PERMANENT HOME,
AND YET, SEE, THERE'S AN OPTION
TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY AND HAVE
SOME LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP. RIGHT
BECAUSE IT IS A LEVEL OF
OWNERSHIP, AND MY CONCERNS ARE,
ARE, ARE, I GUESS WHAT THE WHOLE
PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER. SO
CURRENTLY CURRENT LAW DOES ALLOW
FOR A FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL FOR
30, NOT FIRST REFUSAL. I'M
SORRY, A NOTIFICATION OVER 30, A
NOTICE 30, 30 DAYS TO THE,
RENTAL ORGANIZATION NOW. AND NOW
ONE, THERE IS A FLAW IN THAT.
IT'S NOT NOTICED TO THE PEOPLE
WHO LIVE THERE. IT'S ONLY IF
THEY FORMED A RENTAL.
ORGANIZATION. AND SO I DO THINK
THAT, YOU KNOW, IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT, BUT
THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL IN
TERMS OF, YOU SAY IT ONLY DOES
FOUR MONTHS AND IT'S NOT IT,
FREEZING. I MEAN, NOW IT'S SIX.
I MEAN, BUT YOUR YOUR I GUESS
YOUR AMENDMENT IS TO FOUR MONTHS
NOTICE AND. RIGHT. ALL WITHIN
FOUR MONTHS. AND YOU SAID SO YOU
USE A PHRASE IT'S NOT FREEZING
FOR TEN MONTHS OR EVEN SIX
MONTHS. IT'S. SO WHY ISN'T IT
NOT CONSIDERED FREEZING? IT
WOULD BE FREE. IT WOULD HAVE
FROZEN FOR SIX MONTHS. I WAS
CHAFING AT THE TEN MONTHS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO IT IS. SO YOU DO
CONSIDER IT FREEZING THE SALE
PROCESS EVEN IN THE AMENDED
VERSION FOR FOUR MONTHS. AND NOT
AND. OKAY. AND YOUR BILL, MAKES
NO DISTINCTION WHETHER IT IS A
NATURAL PERSON WHO OWNS IT
VERSUS A BUSINESS OR CORPORATE
ENTITY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S
CORRECT. OKAY. SO A NATURAL
PERSON, I, I, I OWN MY MOBILE
HOME PARK AND I LIKE TO, DISPOSE
OF IT AND NO LONGER BE IN THE
BUSINESS. I WOULD BE FROZEN
UNDER YOUR AMENDED VERSION FOR
FOUR MONTHS FROM BEING ABLE TO
DO ANYTHING WITH THAT PROPERTY.
Tð AND, WELL, NOT ANYTHING YOU
WOULD YOU WOULD BE ENGAGING IN
GOOD FAITH IF AN RO EVEN COMES
FORWARD TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS. BUT UNDER YOUR
CURRENT AMENDMENT, I IT WOULD BE
FOUR MONTHS SO SOMEONE COULD
COME IN AT MONTH THREE. NO, THE
WHOLE WELL, THE WHOLE PROCESS
WOULD HAVE TO BEGIN AND END
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS, RIGHT. SO
THEY CAN COME IN MONTH THREE AND
IT MIGHT TAKE THEM 30 DAYS, BUT
AT ANY POINT FOR FOUR MONTHS,
THE MOMENT I GIVE THAT NOTICE, I
CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH MY
PROPERTY FOR FOUR MONTHS. NO
MATTER WHO I AM, I. I'M
STRUGGLING. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
OKAY SO I CAN ONLY I CAN ONLY DO
IT WITH ONE. I CAN'T EFFECTUATE
A SALE AND I CAN'T. AND WITH
ONLY I CAN ONLY EFFECTUATE A
SELL WITH ONE ENTITY IN THAT
FOUR MONTH PERIOD. BECAUSE I
CANNOT, UNDER YOUR LANGUAGE,
NEGOTIATE EVEN WITH ANYONE ELSE.
I CAN'T CONCURRENTLY CONSIDER
SURE. I MEAN, YOU CAN NEGOTIATE.
YEAH, BUT THE FACT IS, IS IF,
YOU AT LEAST HAVE TO CONSIDER A
GOOD FAITH OFFER FROM. I THOUGHT
YOU CANNOT ENTERTAIN. AND MAYBE
I'M INCORRECT. I THOUGHT YOU
CANNOT ENTERTAIN WITH ANYONE
ELSE BEYOND THE RENTAL
ORGANIZATION AND THAT WHATEVER
MONTH PERIOD. BY AMENDING. I'M
USING YOUR LANGUAGE AMENDMENT OF
FOUR, A FOUR AND. EXCUSE ME.
I'M. THAT'S MY BACK IS SPASMING.
SO IF I'M PAUSING EVERY MOMENT,
THAT IS WHY, BUT, I THOUGHT I
UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT YOU CANNOT,
INTER EVEN ENTERTAIN OR ENTER
NEGOTIATIONS WITH ANYONE ELSE,
DURING THAT PERIOD. THAT'S
CERTAINLY OUR READING OF THE
BILL. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS WAIT, YOU
GUYS ARE TALKING OVER DO YOU
HAVE A SITE? I'M WORKING ON
THAT. YEAH, YEAH. GREAT, THE
PAGE TWO. THANK YOU. IT
PROHIBITS AN OWNER FROM
NEGOTIATING WITH OR ACCEPTING AN
OFFER FROM ANOTHER PARTY UNTIL
THIS SAYS SIX MONTHS HAVE
ELAPSED FROM DELIVERY OF THE
NOTICE. SO FROM THAT FOUR MONTH
PERIOD, I'M USING THE WORD FOUR
MONTHS. WORKING WITH YOUR
AMENDED YOUR TO PROPOSE AMENDED
LANGUAGE THAT YOU LITERALLY
CAN'T TALK TO OR WITH ANYONE
OTHER THAN THE R0, RIGHT? YOU
CERTAINLY CANNOT ACCEPT AN OFFER
FROM SOMEONE ELSE. AND YEAH,
THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE LANGUAGE
RIGHT NOW. THE PRESUMPTION IS
YOU'RE ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS
WITH, THE RESIDENT ORGANIZATION
AND, AND, AND, AND SO THAT, I
MEAN, AND THEN THAT'S THAT I
THINK IS A BIG ISSUE. IT SEEMS
LIKE YOU WOULD ALLOW, IF
ANYTHING AND NOT SAYING I'M
THERE YET, BUT I'M JUST SAYING
JUST IN GENERAL, IF ANYTHING, IT
SEEMS LIKE YOU WOULD ALLOW
NEGOTIATIONS AND OFFERS. IT'S
SAYING IF AN RO SUBMITS AN
OFFER, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER
THAT AS A GOOD FAITH OFFER FIRST
BEFORE ACCEPTING ANOTHER OFFER
THAT YOU RECEIVED. I THINK
THAT'S THE INTENT. YEAH, BUT THE
WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN, IT IS
EXCLUSIVE, WHICH WHICH IS A BIG
DEAL. AND, AND I'M JUST NOTING
THAT IN THE SPIRIT OF, EVERY
BILL NEEDS, NEEDS WORK ON IT,
NOT IN SAYING THAT I'M LEANING
TOWARDS A YES ON THAT, BUT JUST
NOTING THAT THAT THAT IS A FLAW
AND HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED.
BECAUSE THAT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.
AND PROPERTY PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE
IMPORTANT AND, AND, AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE IS AN ARGUMENT AND I
THINK OPPOSITION MADE THE
ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A PRODUCT
AND IN THEORY IT IS. BUT WE ALSO
KNOW THAT THE MASS LOWES
HIERARCHY OF NEEDS SAYS SHELTER
IS AT THE BOTTOM OF IT. RIGHT.
AND SO IT IS THERE IS SHOULD BE
SOME PROTECTIONS AROUND THIS
PARTICULAR PRODUCT, BECAUSE IT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T EXIST
AND LIVE WITHOUT. AND IF THIS
LEGISLATION HERE IS FOCUSED ON
HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FOLKS
AND ENSURING PEOPLE HAVE
HOUSING, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE
PROTECTION AND GUARDRAILS IN
PLACE, AND SO THIS IS A MATTER
OF HOW DO WE GET THERE WHEN IT
COMES TO MOBILE HOME PARKS? AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK
OPPOSITION NOTED IT IN THEIR
TESTIMONY IS THERE ARE QUITE A
NUMBER OF, MOBILE HOME PARKS FOR
SALE IN OUR STATE THAT ARE NOT
YET PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE
ENTITY, NOR BY RESIDENTIAL
ORGANIZATIONS. AND SO I'M
WONDERING WHY THIS PROTECTION,
PARTICULAR PROTECTION NEEDS TO
BE IN PLACE, AND THIS PARTICULAR
WAY, VERSUS NOT ALLOWING MORE
FREEDOM, FOR RESIDENTIAL
ORGANIZATIONS TO FORM AND TO
MAKE A COMPETITIVE OFFER WITHOUT
TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY FOR A
PROPERTY OWNER, TO, TO BE ABLE
TO, YOU KNOW, DISPOSE OF THEIR
PROPERTY AS NEEDED OR, OR,
RELIEVE THEMSELVES FROM BEING AS
A PART OF THAT MARKET. AND THE
OTHER ISSUE IS, IS THAT I THINK
THERE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A NATURAL
PERSON AND A BUSINESS BECAUSE
THERE ARE DIFFERENT, ISSUES
RELATED TO THAT. I THINK YOU
WERE GOING TO RESPOND TO
SOMETHING. YEAH. SO A LOT TO
UNPACK THERE. BUT FIRST OF ALL,
YOU WERE RIGHT. EARLIER, THE
LANGUAGE IS THE OWNER SHALL NOT
NEGOTIATE WITH OR ACCEPT AN
OFFER FROM ANOTHER PARTY UNTIL
THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN
THE PARAGRAPH. WE'RE NOW SAYING
FOUR MONTHS. I CERTAINLY THINK
IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO TAKE OUT,
NOT NEGOTIATE WITH OR AND MAKE
IT. THE OWNER SHALL NOT ACCEPT
AN OFFER WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD
THAT SEEMS REASONABLE, TO YOUR
OTHER POINT, STARTING WITH THE
LAST POINT, WHAT ABOUT NATURAL
PERSONS WHO ARE OWNERS? WHAT IF
THEY SELL TO A BIG CORPORATION?
I MEAN, SO I THINK YOU STILL,
WE'RE NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
WHO THE CURRENT OWNER IS. WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS WHO
IS THE, WHO IS THE PARTY SOLD
TO, WE FEEL THERE'S SOME SOCIAL
BENEFIT FIT IN, AT LEAST
ALLOWING THE RESIDENTS IF DULY
ORGANIZED, TO HAVE A GOOD FAITH
SHOT AT THAT, WHY IS THIS
IMPORTANT AND WHY? I KNOW OTHER
MEMBERS HAVE HAVE DONE SIMILAR
LEGISLATION AROUND, OTHER TYPES
OF RENTAL PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE.
WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST THIS IS A
NARROWER APPROACH, FOCUSED ON A
TYPE OF HOUSING WE KNOW, I WOULD
EVEN SAY DISPROPORTIONATE. HE
SERVES LOW INCOME FOLKS,
INCLUDING SENIORS. AND I THINK
WE HEARD ABOUT THAT TODAY. SO
THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
SOLVE ALL POSSIBLE FORMS OF
HOUSING OR ISSUES, BUT FOCUSED
ON ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE. SO MY
LAST THROUGH THE CHAIR, MY LAST
COMMENT OR QUESTION RELATED TO
THAT IS THAT, CURRENTLY THERE
ARE CAPS ON, SOMEONE WHO OWNS A
PROPERTY, AND ON WHAT THEY CAN
CHARGE OR AREN'T THEY SUBJECT TO
THE SAME STATEWIDE RENT CONTROL
CAPS AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND?
WELL, OFTENTIMES WITH THE MOBILE
HOME PARKS, THERE'S SPECIFIC
LOCAL RENT STABILIZATION
ORDINANCES. I KNOW IN MY AREA,
THAT INFAMOUSLY WAS FIGHT ALL
THE WAY UP TO THE US SUPREME
COURT. THE LOCALS WON, BUT YEAH,
CERTAINLY IT WOULD ALSO BE. YEAH
AND IF THEY WEREN'T, IF THEY
WEREN'T, REGULATED BY SOMETHING
HAPPENING LOCAL, THEY WOULD FALL
UNDER THE STATEWIDE. YEAH,
OWNER OF THE HOME THAT WE ARE
RENTING TO A PERSON. OUR SPACES
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL.
BUT AS MR. CONNOLLY SAID, AND
HE'S CORRECT, THERE ARE
NUMEROUS, I MEAN, HUNDREDS OF
LOCAL RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES,
OFTEN LESS PERMISSIVE THAN WHAT
STATEWIDE LAW ACT IS ALREADY.
AND I GET THAT. OKAY, I WANTED
TO WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS
IS IN THE SENSE THAT IF UNDER A
RENTAL ORGANIZATION, IT DOESN'T
IT DOESN'T STOP. IT GIVES THEM
MORE CONTROL OF THEIR DESTINY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOESN'T
REDUCE THEIR COST BECAUSE THE
FULL COST OF OWNING THE HOME, OF
OWNING THE RENTAL PARK IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO
SHARE IN AS AS A COST, RIGHT?
THE THE INCREASED PURCHASE OF
THE LAND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
CURRENT MARKET RATE, THE
PROPERTY TAXES ASSOCIATED WITH
IT AND THE INVESTMENTS IS THAT
IS THAT NOT TRUE, IF YOU DON'T
MIND, MY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION IS JUST THAT WHAT IT
DOES CONTROL FOR IS THE
SKYROCKETING RENTS. SO WE
LOCALLY IN SONOMA COUNTY HAVE A
LOT OF PARKS, AND WE HAVE A LOT
OF RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES
. AND GENERALLY THOSE ARE CAPPED
AT BETWEEN 3 AND 5% OR 70, 75%
OF THE CPI, THE PARK, IF THEY
WERE A RESIDENT OWNED PARK,
WOULD HAVE A DECISION TO
INCREASE THE RENT LESS THAN
THAT. THEY'RE NOT HELD TO THE
CAP, THEY'RE HELD TO WHAT THE
COMMUNITY DESIRES AND WHAT WE
SEE WHEN INVESTOR BACK FIRMS BUY
PARKS IS THEY RAISE THE RENT TO
THE MAXIMUM, AND THEY ALSO DEFY
THE LOCAL RENT STABILIZATION
ORDINANCES BY RAISING THE RENT
ABOVE THE ALLOWABLE INCREASE. IN
FACT, IN HARMONY COMMUNITIES
RAISED IT 350% IN PETALUMA AND
THREE PILLARS RAISED IT 100,
WHICH TRIGGERED AN ARBITRATION
PROCESS WHICH WAS VERY EXPENSIVE
FOR THE RESIDENTS. THEY HAD TO
PAY FOR THAT $50,000. RIGHT NOW,
LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY $100,000
JUST TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHT, NOT
TO, INSANE RENT INCREASE. SO IF
A PARK OWNS, IF THE RESIDENTS
OWN THE PARK, THEY WILL NOT HAVE
THAT FEAR. AND THEY WILL BUILD
EQUITY IN THE LAND UNDER THEIR
HOME, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN WHEN IT'S CORPORATE OWNED
. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION? IT DOES. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU. MEMBER REYES.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS ON THIS, AND I
APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE FROM
SASSOON CITY. SASSOON CITY. THE
COMMENTS AND THE QUESTIONS THAT
WERE ASKED THIS RESIDENT
ORGANIZATION, THE NOTICE TO THE
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION. THAT'S
ONE OF THE NOTICES, BUT THE
OTHER IS TO ALL THE RESIDENTS
AND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
CORRECT. SO IF A RESIDENT
RECEIVES THE NOTICE, WOULD THEY
THEN BE ABLE TO FORM THE A
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION DURING
THAT FOUR MONTH PERIOD? YEAH.
OKAY. AS WRITTEN NOW UNDER A SIX
MONTH PERIOD, WHAT I'M SAYING IS
LET'S DURING THE FOUR MONTH
PERIOD. ALL RIGHT. CLEARLY AN
OWNER WANTS TO GET THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT, AND THEY WANT TO
NEGOTIATE WITH ANYBODY IN GOOD
FAITH TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY FOR
THE MOST THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE.
AND CLEARLY, A BUYER, NOT JUST A
BUYER HERE, BUT A BUYER ANYWHERE
WANTS TO BUY THE PROPERTY FOR
THE LEAST AMOUNT POSSIBLE, THUS,
THE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION
BEGINS BETWEEN THE TWO. I MY
QUESTION IS IT HERE'S MY FIRST
QUESTION IS IF NOTICE IS GIVEN
TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS AND ON
THE NOTICE IT SAYS AND ALSO TO
THE RESIDENT ORGANIZATION. AND
THE NOTICE SAYS IF YOU ARE
INTERESTED. WELL, NO, AS I'M
THINKING OF MY QUESTION, I KNOW
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD ONE
BECAUSE THEY HAVE FOUR MONTHS TO
SAY THEY'RE INTERESTED,
INTERESTED, FORM AND MAKE OFFER,
MAKE OFFER. OKAY, SO IF THE
RESIDENTS DURING THIS FOUR MONTH
PERIOD, IF ALL THE RESIDENTS
SHOULD SAY, I'M NOT INTERESTED
IN THIS AND THE RESIDENT
ORGANIZATION ALSO SIGNS UP
SAYING WE ARE NOT INTERESTED,
THEN THAT FULFILLS THEIR THE
THEIR OBLIGATION TO HAVE
PROVIDED NOTICE AND GIVE THE
FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL BECAUSE
AT THAT POINT IT'S ALREADY BEEN
REFUSED. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. IF
DURING THIS FOUR MONTH PERIOD,
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
INCREASES IS OR DECREASES, IS
THERE ANYTHING THAT PROTECTS THE
, THE, THE, THE OWNERS WHO ARE
NOW SELLING IT FOR LESS THAN
FULL VALUE OR PROTECTS THE
BUYERS, THOSE WHO OWNED THE
MOBILE HOMES, THAT PROTECTS
THEM. IF THEY STARTED
NEGOTIATIONS. AND THEN IT TURNS
OUT THAT THE VALUE IS MUCH LESS.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BILL
THAT WILL PROTECT EITHER OR BOTH
SIDES, LIKE A REOPENER OF SOME
SORT? THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD
LOOK AT. OKAY. IT CURRENTLY IS
NOT IN THE BILL. OKAY AND THIS
WILL BE GOING TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HOPEFULLY. I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO IT. IT IT SEEMS THAT
THE PURPOSE FOR THE BILL, AS
LONG AS I THINK WE HAVE TWO
INTERESTS AND THEY AREN'T ALWAYS
COMPETING INTERESTS, I MEAN, THE
OWNERS WANT TO BE ABLE TO SELL
ONCE THEY MAKE THE DECISION THEY
WANT TO SELL, THEY WANT TO BE
ABLE TO SELL. AND I WOULD
IMAGINE MOST OF THEM HAVE GOOD
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE MOBILE
HOME OWNERS. AND I'M GOING TO
ASSUME THAT FOR THE MOMENT AND
THEY HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT
TO ANYBODY, THEY WOULD SELL IT
TO THE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN
RENTING FROM THEM ALL THESE
YEARS, AND IF THEY HAVE A BAD
RELATIONSHIP NOW, THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO NEGOTIATE IT. THEN
THE, THE, THE HOME OWNERS GET A
CHANCE TO, TO BUY IT AND THEY
GET TO MAKE THE DECISIONS AND,
ABOUT IT. AND AS YOU SAY, BUILD
EQUITY. THE AND I HAD TEXTED AND
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, IT IS A
FOUR MONTH PERIOD. SO THE AND
I'LL USE YOUR PHRASE, THE
FREEZING IN IS FOUR MONTHS. AND
DURING THAT FOUR MONTHS. SO LONG
AS THERE IS NO THERE'S NO
REFUSAL, THEN IT REMAINS OPEN
UNTIL THE FOUR MONTHS ARE UP.
AND AT FOUR MONTHS, THEN THE
NEGOTIATIONS CAN THEN BEGIN WITH
ANYBODY. YES. AND THAT'S
ACCURATE. AND I WOULD SAY GOING
TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON'S
POINT, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE
SENSE TO JUST MAKE IT FREEZE ON
ACCEPTING ANOTHER OFFER, I, I
WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, I'M NOT
SURE THAT'S THE BEST THING
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NEGOTIATING
HERE, YOU'RE USING THAT
NEGOTIATION TO, TO HAVE AN
EFFECT ON THE PRICE HERE.
ALTHOUGH IF THAT IS THE INTENT
AND THAT IS THE INTENT. WELL,
I'M, I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF
TRYING TO RUSTLE UP ENOUGH
SUPPORT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
CURRENTLY IT IS SHALL NOT
NEGOTIATE WITH OR ACCEPT, BUT I
THINK WE'RE OPEN TO FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS. BUT I DO APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS THAT IN THE END,
YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO SELL YOUR
PROPERTY, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO
GET THE BEST PRICE FOR IT. AND
YOU DON'T WANT YOU DON'T WANT
YOUR HANDS TIED. THE MOMENT
YOU'VE DECIDED YOU WANT TO SELL,
YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE WORLD. AND
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT IN THAT RESPECT. BUT YOU
KNOW, LET'S BE CLEAR, RESIDENT
ORGANIZATIONS CAN ALREADY DO
THIS. THERE'S NO PROHIBITION
UNDER EXISTING LAW FOR FROM A
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION TO
ACTUALLY FORM A COMMITTEE AND
MAKE AN OFFER ON A MOBILE HOME
PARK, 183 PARKS RIGHT NOW ACROSS
THE STATE ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY
RESIDENTS. IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST
SINCE 2021, ANOTHER 114 OF THEM
HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY RESIDENT
ORGANIZATIONS. THIS CAN ALREADY
BE DONE. WHAT A FORBEARANCE ON
WHETHER IT'S FOR MONTHS OR TEN
MONTHS IS IMMATERIAL, BECAUSE
THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY IS THAT
MARKET CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE IN
FOUR MONTHS. WE'VE ALL SEEN IT.
FLUCTUATION OF INTEREST RATES.
YOU KNOW, THE PRICE OF CAPITAL,
CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN
A COMMUNITY. IT ALSO STILL KEEPS
IT OUT OF THE 1031 EXCHANGE
RULES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN
PLACE. BECAUSE AS YOU AS
EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE
KNOWS, YOU HAVE 45 DAYS TO
EXERCISE AT 1031 EXCHANGE. BUT
THAT'S 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
THE SALE, FROM THE DATE OF THE
FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCEPTED
OFFER. RIGHT. SO WHETHER IT'S
FOUR MONTHS LATER OR IT'S ONE
YEAR LATER, IT'S FROM THAT DATE.
RIGHT. SO BY THAT TIME ON THE
1031 EXCHANGE, YOU'VE ALREADY
SELECTED, WHERE WHATEVER
PROPERTY YOU'RE GOING TO USE FOR
THE EXCHANGE, I WOULD IMAGINE.
BUT BUT THE PRIME POINT HERE IS
THAT, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS CAN
ALREADY DO THIS. YOU KNOW,
THERE'S NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES
IT. AND I JUST HAVE TO ADDRESS
THE, THE CONCEPT OF RENT
INCREASES BEING DRIVEN BY, BY
WALL STREET FIRMS, RESIDENT
GROUPS ALREADY HAVE A LEG UP,
FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THEY'RE
TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND
OFTEN LOCAL RENT CONTROL
ORDINANCES EXEMPT, PROPERTY TAX
REASSESSMENTS WHEN THEY INVOLVE
A NONPROFIT TRANSACTION. YOU
KNOW, IF THIS IF THE COMMITTEE
IS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING TO
INCREASE HOUSING, WHY JUST NOT
MAKE THE SALE OF MOBILE HOME
PARKS EXEMPT FROM, REASSESSED
PROPERTY PROPERTY VALUES? WELL,
I KNOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
GOING TO GO BALLISTIC OVER THAT
BECAUSE THEY WANT THE REVENUE,
BUT THAT'S WHERE THE RENTS COME
FROM GENERALLY. AND THE CASES
INVOLVING, YOU KNOW, IN SONOMA
COUNTY, THEY INVOLVED
MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES THAT
DECIDED TO GET OUT OF THE MOBILE
HOME BUSINESS. AND THEY ACTUALLY
SOLD. BUT THEY HAD BEEN IN THE
SAME CORPORATE AND FAMILY
OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE FOR MANY,
MANY DECADES. THE RENT INCREASES
COME AS A RESULT OF THE PROPERTY
TAX. PASTORS THAT COME WITH
REASSESSMENT. SO BUT IF YOU'RE A
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION, THOSE
ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT INCREASED.
YOU KNOW FURTHER. I JUST KIND OF
AM WONDERING IF THERE'S
SOMETHING SOMETHING ELSE GOING
ON HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE
IS A THERE IS A BILL THAT WOULD
HAVE IMPLEMENTED STATEWIDE RENT
CONTROL FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS,
AT THREE AND 5, THE BILL, IS
CURRENTLY UNDER LITIGATION. I
DON'T WANT TO GO ON TO MAYBE OFF
TOPIC ON ANOTHER BILL. I DO WANT
TO TRY TO KEEP US ON SCHEDULE TO
THE EXTENT WE CAN, AND I
UNDERSTAND, BUT ALL I I'LL I'LL
CLOSE WITH IS THAT THE RENT
INCREASE ARGUMENT, HAS TO DO
SOLELY WITH PROPERTY TAX
PASSTHROUGHS. AND I'LL JUST
CLOSE WITH THAT. I WILL TELL YOU
THAT IF I MAY, THROUGH THE
CHASE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT IN
IN MY COMMUNITY I HAVE MANY
MOBILE HOME PARKS AND RENT
INCREASES ARE A BIG ISSUE. AND
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, AS WAS
MENTIONED EARLIER, MANY OF OUR
TENANTS, MANY OF THE HOME
OWNERS, THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS,
ARE ARE ON A FIXED INCOME. AND
WHEN YOU HAVE A RENT INCREASE OF
100% AND WE'VE SEEN THOSE THIS
ISN'T OUT OF THE ORDINARY. WE'VE
SEEN TOO MANY IN MY COMMUNITY,
THIS IS BASICALLY FORCING THAT
PERSON TO LEAVE. AND OFTENTIMES
LEAVING THEIR MOBILE HOME
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET A SELLER,
THEY CAN'T GET A BUYER, I THINK
YOUR BEST ARGUMENT HAS TO DO
WITH CONSTITUTIONALITY. AND I
KNOW THAT THE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
ARE WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT IS ADDRESSED, BUT I THINK
IT'S ALREADY BEEN MOVED. AND CAN
I JUST ONE FINAL POINT THROUGH
THE CHAIR, HOW ABOUT YOU IN YOUR
CLOSE? OKAY. WHY DON'T WE DO
THAT? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. MISS. YES THAT WAS A
MOTION. YES. YES SIR. THANK YOU,
MISS SANCHEZ. OKAY I DON'T GET
TO HEAR FROM YOU MUCH. SO THIS
IS OKAY. GREAT. WE'RE GOOD.
APPRECIATE IT. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO COMMENT ON
THE BILL. I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST
REALLY BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE. YOU
KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE DOING HERE. WE KNOW THAT
THIS IS ONE FORM, AN IMPORTANT
FORM OF, WHAT IS MORE NATURALLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR,
MEMBERS OF CALIFORNIANS THAT,
YOU KNOW, ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY, WE HEARD
SENIORS, VETERANS, DISABLED
INDIVIDUALS, THOSE THAT
DESPERATELY NEED THIS HOUSING
TOPOLOGY. AND OF COURSE, WE NEED
A LOT MORE ACROSS THE BOARD OF A
LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING
TYPOLOGIES. AND I WANT TO
COMMEND AS WELL, YOU KNOW, YOUR
INTEREST IS YOU'RE GETTING INTO
WHAT IS A, A REAL, DIFFICULT
SITUATION HERE AS YOU'RE TRYING
TO SORT OF SHIFT CONDITIONS,
RECOGNIZING THE BALANCE OF THE
RIGHTS FOR OWNERS AS WELL AS THE
NEEDS FOR MANY OF THE RESIDENTS
THERE THAT ARE ALREADY OUT OF
THE GATE, YOU'RE WILLING TO
COMPROMISE SIGNIFICANTLY ON SOME
OF THE PARAMETERS THAT I THINK
STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
NONE OF THAT'S BEFORE US HERE
TODAY. BUT I KNOW THAT YOU AND I
TRUST VERY MUCH, HAVE GOOD FAITH
EFFORT THAT YOU WILL, SHOULD
THIS MOVE FORWARD, WORK ON SOME
OF THESE CONDITIONS AND PUT THEM
INTO WRITING AHEAD OF JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. I WOULD AGREE WITH
SOME MEMBER REYES AS WELL, TO BE
CAUTIOUS OF HOW YOU APPROACH,
THE CONSIDERATION ABOUT A
OUTSIDE NEGOTIATION, BECAUSE YOU
DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SITUATION
WHERE YOU SAY, OKAY, I CAN'T
REALLY PUBLICLY NEGOTIATE WITH
YOU, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW,
GIVE ME AN OFFER. I CAN'T
REFUSE. AND LET'S WAIT OUT THE
120 DAYS AND EVERYTHING. RIGHT.
SO YOU CAN WORK ON ALL THESE
THINGS. BUT I SEE YOU'RE THERE.
I THINK YOU SEE THEIR POINTS AS
WELL, TOO, THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW,
WE WANT TO NOT, IF THIS BECAME
LAW, SHIFT THE WORLD SO MUCH
THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FAIR
AND DIFFICULT ON ON OTHER
PARTIES TO, I GUESS I WOULD
JUST, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
SUMMARIZE WITH, YOU KNOW, KIND
OF A BRIEF OBSERVATION THAT WHEN
WE'RE ADDRESSING BILLS LIKE THIS
AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THINGS ARE
LIMITED AND THE CONSTRAINTS THAT
WE HAVE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WE ARE HAVING TO
MAKE POLICY CHOICES. AND THERE
CAN BE WINNERS OR LOSERS OR
ADJUSTMENTS, I GUESS, TO BE ABLE
TO TRY TO BALANCE, YOU KNOW,
PROS AND CONS, DEPENDING ON
WHO'S AFFECTED. AND SO FOR ME,
I'M, I DO WANT TO SUPPORT THIS
TODAY. AND I KNOW YOU'LL WORK ON
SOME OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS
GOING FORWARD BECAUSE, YOU'RE
BALANCING WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS
FOR A SALE. AND THAT MUST BE
DONE VERY CONSTITUTIONALLY. AND
CAREFULLY, WITH THE NEEDS THAT
WE HAVE FOR SOME VULNERABLE
POPULATION. AND I THINK WHEN YOU
SORT OF FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND
THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES IT
SO THAT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE
WORKABLE IN PRACTICE, WITHOUT
NECESSARILY AFFECTING THE
OPPORTUNITIES, FOR, YOU KNOW,
THE, THE SELLERS ON ONE HAND, WE
HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER HOUSING
TYPES THAT WE DO SET THESE KINDS
OF PARAMETERS ON, WE'VE GOT
EVICTION LAWS THAT MAKE SURE
THAT THOSE, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT
BE SUBJECT TO THAT, YOU KNOW,
SORT OF HAVE SOME CERTAIN
PROTECTIONS. SO WE ACTUALLY WORK
ON, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THESE
QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME, TO MAKE
SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE WHO
ARE BOTH VULNERABLE, BUT, BUT
ALSO IMPACTED BY THIS, THE KIND
OF TRANSACTION HAVE A, HAVE HAVE
SOME ASSURANCES AND HAVE SOME
STAKES IN THE MATTER HERE, TOO.
AND THE THING THAT I ACTUALLY
LIKE THE MOST ABOUT THIS IS
WE'RE SORT OF IN THAT SPACE IS
THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TURN RENTERS
INTO OWNERS OR PARTIAL OWNERS,
AND THAT'S A THAT'S A
FUNDAMENTAL LIKE OPPORTUNITY AND
GOAL HERE, TOO, FOR, FOR
POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF
INDIVIDUALS ON ONE TRANSACTION,
SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THAT
THERE IS MORE WORK THAT CAN BE
DONE ON THIS BILL, BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, AND I
KNOW THAT YOU'LL NEGOTIATE
REALLY STRONGLY WITH THE
OPPOSITION WHO'S BRINGING SOME
VERY REAL, CONCERNS OF THEIRS,
TO THE TABLE, WITH THAT, MR.
CONNOLLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU TO EVERYONE. BUT
PARTICULARLY GREAT, REMARKS ON
YOUR PART. SO, REALLY, JUST TO
UNDERSCORE THE MAIN POINT YOU
MADE, MR. WIECKOWSKI IS RIGHT
THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW, AN
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
ORGANIZATION, OAN, HAS 30 DAYS
NOTICE. AND CAN THEY. IT'S VERY
SHORT, THEY'RE IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IN FORM
WITH FOUR MONTHS NOTICE, CAN A
BROADER GROUP OF TENANTS THAT
MAYBE HAS NOT EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT
AN ARO COME TOGETHER FOR, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PURSUING
OWNERSHIP, SHIP IN THEIR OWN
INTEREST AND TO GET THAT DONE,
TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH AND
EFFECTUATE WITHIN THE FOUR
MONTHS, TIME FRAME. IF MY
AMENDMENT MAKES SENSE, THERE'S
MANY OTHER DETAILS, AS WE'VE
LEARNED. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
TALKING WITH EVERYONE ABOUT YOUR
CONCERNS AND IDEAS, I'M VERY
COMMITTED TO THAT. AND WITH
RESPECT, AND WITH THAT IN MIND,
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
TO PASS A MOTION TO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
WARD A, WARD I PATTERSON.
GRAYSON. CHOLERA CHOLERA. I LI I
LI I QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
NØ. WILSON AT 40. THE MOMENT
THAT BILL IS OUT FIVE, ONE WITH
ONE NOT VOTING, AND WE WILL HOLD
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OUR WORK CONTINUES, I THINK.
NEXT WE HAVE MY PREDECESSOR, OUR
FORMER CHAIR WOMAN. BACK TO JOIN
US. HELLO EVERYONE. ITEM 14 HB
2580 KANSEN MEMBER WICKS. WHEN
YOU'RE SITUATED WITH YOUR,
PRESENTERS, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION. REALLY MISSED. I
REALLY MISSED YOU GUYS. WE HAVE
A MOTION MOTION BY LEE, SECOND
BY MR. CALLER, MISS WICKS, WE
WILL KEEP IT BRIEF. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, AND, HAPPY TO BE BACK
IN THE BEST POLICY COMMITTEE IN
SACRAMENTO. SO THAT'S RIGHT. YOU
HEARD IT HERE FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE, THE HARD
WORKING COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR
THEIR WORK WITH US AND DRAFTING
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS. I ACCEPT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. THE
PURPOSE OF AB 2580 IS TO
INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE
INTERSECTION OF HOUSING POLICY
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION,
HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND BUILDINGS
DESIGNED AS HISTORICALLY
SIGNIFICANT RECEIVE SPECIAL
PROTECTIONS THAT THAT SUBJECT
NEW DEVELOPMENTS, BUILDING
RENOVATIONS AND DESIGN CHANGES
TO A MORE RIGOROUS AND THOROUGH
REVIEW PROCESS TO PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS.
THESE PROTECTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL
TO PRESERVING OUR STATE'S RICH
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE.
HOWEVER, THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROCESS CAN
ENCOURAGE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO
WEAPONIZE IT AGAINST HOUSING
PRODUCTION, PARTICULARLY IN
WEALTHY SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NOT
WILLING TO ACCEPT GENTLE
INCREASES IN DENSITY FROM
DUPLEXES AND ADUS. THIS ABUSE OF
THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS
IMPEDES OR BLOCKS URGENTLY
NEEDED HOUSING WITHOUT
PROTECTING OUR IMPORTANT
RESOURCES. THERE ARE CURRENTLY
NO MEASURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REVIEW ALL NEW
HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS WITHIN
THEIR JURISDICTION, AND BALANCE
THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS TO PRESERVE
HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON A
COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO MEET ITS
HOUSING NEEDS. AB 2580 SEEKS TO
ADDRESS THIS DEFICIENCY IN TWO
WAYS ONE, IT WILL REQUIRE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO DISCUSS IN THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENTS HOW HISTORIC
PRESERVATION POLICIES AND
PRACTICES COULD, CAN, COULD
CONSTRAIN NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT. IT ALSO REQUIRES
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO LIST ALL
NEW HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS IN
THEIR ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. TOGETHER,
THESE CHANGES WOULD INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOUSING
POLICY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
. IN, AND, WITH ME HERE TO
TESTIFY, WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER
AND FORMER MAYOR OF SAN MATEO,
AMARANTH LEE. AM I PRONOUNCING
THAT CORRECTLY? YES GREAT. AND,
AFTER TESTIMONY WAS RESPECTFULLY
ASKED FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, MISS WIX. GREAT TO SEE
EVERYONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, AS THE
MEMBER SAID, MY NAME IS AMARIN
LEE. I'M FROM THE BEAUTIFUL CITY
OF SAN MATEO AND FORMER MAYOR,
CURRENT COUNCILWOMAN. I'M HERE
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB 2580.
I RECOGNIZE, AS I'M SURE WE ALL
DO, THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN PROTECTING
CALIFORNIA'S ARCHITECTURAL
HISTORY AND CONSERVING PLACES OF
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
PERSONALLY, I SUPPORT AND VALUE
LEGITIMATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. HOWEVER, AS A
LOCAL OFFICIAL, I HAVE SEEN
FIRSTHAND HOW THE ABUSE OF
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DESIGNATIONS ARE BEING USED TO
BLOCK NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE BAYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD,
WHICH HAS A HISTORY OF
RESTRICTIVE RACIAL COVENANTS AND
REMAINS ONE OF SAN MATEO'S MOST
EXPENSIVE AREAS. THERE'S A SMALL
GROUP OF NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE
SPECIFIC AND EXPLICITLY SOUGHT
HISTORIC DISTRICT PROTECTIONS IN
ORDER TO LIMIT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW HOUSING, INCLUDING ADUS
AND DUPLEXES. OUR CITY IS BEING
USED AS A TESTING GROUND FOR
PERILOUS NIMBY STRATEGIES.
ALREADY, THERE IS A LOCAL
ORGANIZATION THAT IS CALLED TO
EXPAND HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. AND IN MY
COMMUNITY, 444 PROPERTIES IN
BAYWOOD ARE IMPACTED. I ASK YOU
TO PLEASE IMAGINE THE
IMPEDIMENTS TO URGENTLY NEEDED
HOUSING. IF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
PROLIFERATE ACROSS THE STATE.
EVEN WHEN A MAJORITY OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND THE IMPACTED
RESIDENTS WHO OPPOSE THE
HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SUPPORT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE HOMES,
WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO STOP IT.
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS NO
MECHANISM FOR OVERSIGHT.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO MEASURES
IN PLACE TO ENSURE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BALANCE LEGITIMATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WITH THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE
COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO MEET ITS
HOUSING NEEDS. AB 2580 WOULD
REQUIRE LOCAL JURISDICTION
JURISDICTIONS TO MONITOR HOW
HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS COULD
IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO MEET
HOUSING NEEDS UNDER EXISTING
STATE LAW, AND REPORT NEW
HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND DISTRICTS
TO HCD DURING THE ANNUAL
PROGRESS REPORT. REPORTING AND
MONITORING ALL NEW HISTORIC
DESIGNATIONS IS JUST THE FIRST
STEP TO ENSURING THAT
COMMUNITIES ARE NOT DEPRIVED OF
NEW HOUSING IN OUR DISTRICTS.
AND IT IS FOR ALL THESE REASONS
I ASK YOU TO RESPECT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO SUPPORT
AB 2580. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL?
SHEAMUS WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR AND
SUPPORT. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE JORDAN CARVAJAL.
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA YIMBY, HERE IN
SUPPORT AS A PROUD SPONSOR.
THANK YOU, RAFA SONNENFELD WITH
YIMBY ACTION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MARY ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYBODY HERE AS PRIMARY
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL SEEING
NONE AND ARE THERE ANY SIR. YES
THANK YOU, SIR DAVID BULLOCK I
AM A UNION MEMBER WORKING
CALIFORNIA WHO HAS NOT BEEN
VACCINATED WITH THE COVID 19
VACCINE. I DO WANT TO LET YOU
REMIND YOU ALL THAT WHAT'S KNOWN
IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IS BEST
KNOWN BY THEM, AND THEY
UNDERSTAND WHAT HOUSING THEY
WANT AND WHAT THEY DON'T WANT.
CALIFORNIA HAS A LOT OF
UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT CAN BE
DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE MORE
HOUSING FOR PEOPLE. THAT'S WHERE
WE SHOULD GO, YOU SHOULD ALLOW
LOCAL ZONING, LOCAL, LOCAL
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY
WANT BEST IN THEIR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? SEEING
NONE. WE'LL BRING YOU BACK TO
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. MISS QUIRK-SILVA, I'D
LIKE TO BRING, THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I'VE
BEEN VOICING MY CONCERNS ON THIS
, PARTICULAR TOPIC FOR QUITE A
WHILE. I'D LIKE TO, ASK TO BE A
JOINT AUTHOR, BECAUSE IT IS NOT
JUST THE, PRESERVATION. WE ALSO
KNOW IN CALIFORNIA WE HAVE A
DESIGNATED CULTURAL ARTS
DISTRICTS, AND NOW WE'RE
STARTING TO SEE THIS, TREND THAT
EVEN IN, I BELIEVE THERE'S 10 TO
15 CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICTS
ACROSS THE STATE, THIS SAME TYPE
OF, IF YOU WANT TO SAY, REASONS
WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY
HOUSING PRODUCTIONS IN THOSE
AREAS. SO BETWEEN, DELAYING
BETWEEN, NOW, HOUSING
PRESERVATION OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. THÀNH, WE CONTINUE
TO FIND NEW, BARRIERS TO
BUILDING. AND SO, AS A COMMITTED
HOUSING MEMBER, I FULLY SUPPORT
THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER REYES. I LIVE IN A
HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1851.
IT'S BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A
HISTORIC HOME. I ABSOLUTELY
SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. SEE NO
OTHER MEMBER. MISS WICKS, I WANT
TO THANK YOU TO BE ABLE TO WORK
ON MY STAFF WITH WHAT I THINK IS
A GREAT BILL, WE WANT TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BALANCING
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND SOME
OF THE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOALS.
AND I KNOW THAT THIS BILL GOES A
BIG STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND APPRECIATE, COMMENTS FROM
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU, MISS
SILVA, AS QUIRK-SILVA AS A JOINT
AUTHOR. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION. DO PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY,
AS AMENDED TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WARD A WARD I PERSON. GRAYSON.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LEE LI I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA. IRIS
REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I
WILSON. THANK YOU. THAT BILL HAS
SIX VOTES. WE WILL HOLD A ROLL
OPEN. THANK YOU FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YOU'LL BE OUT, MR. GABRIEL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 18, AB 2728.
WHEN YOU AND YOUR PRESENTERS ARE
ARE READY, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION.
THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. IT'S NICE TO BE BACK IN
HOUSING COMMITTEE. I WANT TO
START BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
AND THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR
YOUR THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK AND
ASSISTANCE, IN THE INTEREST OF
BREVITY, I WILL SPARE YOU ALL
THE DETAILS ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S
CRIPPLING HOUSING SHORTAGE,
WHICH WE ALL KNOW ABOUT AND HAVE
TALKED ABOUT FOR, FOR MANY YEARS
IN THE LEGISLATURE HERE. AND ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE
DID LAST YEAR WAS PASS SB FOUR,
WHICH MADE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION EASIER, FASTER AND
CHEAPER ON LAND OWNED BY FAITH
BASED INSTITUTIONS AND NONPROFIT
COLLEGES. THE EFFORTS TO DO THIS
WERE SEEKING TO CAPITALIZE ON A
REPORT BY THE UC BERKELEY TERNER
CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION
THAT FOUND A POTENTIAL OF
171,000 DEVELOPABLE ACRES ON THE
LAND, ON ON SUCH LAND. THIS BILL
WILL BUILD ON THE PROGRESS THE
LEGISLATURE HAS MADE BY
INCORPORATING STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK AND ADDING SOME COMMON
SENSE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES TO
EXISTING PROGRAMS. THIS WILL
ENCOURAGE CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON FAITH
OWNED LANDS, AND REQUIRING THEM
TO TRACK THE UTILIZATION OF
EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
INCENTIVES WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
HCD TO PROVIDE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS AND ELIGIBLE
INSTITUTIONS WITH IMPORTANT
RESOURCES AND INFORMATION FOR
IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING THE
CREATION OF MODEL PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENTS AND A LIST OF
EXISTING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT. THIS BILL HAS NO
OPPOSITION, AS IS SUPPORTED BY A
COLLECTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND FAITH BASED GROUPS. WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL ARE JT HERSCHBACH,
SENIOR POLICY MANAGER AT THE
NONPROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND CHRIS
WILSON, SENIOR ADVOCACY MANAGER
FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUSINESS
FEDERATION. THANK YOU AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN, YOU
HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY NAME IS JT
HERSCHBACH WITH THE NONPROFIT
HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. WE REPRESENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND ADVOCATES ACROSS THE NINE
COUNTY BAY AREA REGION. WE WERE
A PROUD SPONSOR LAST YEAR OF SB
FOUR, AND I AM HAPPY TO REPORT
THAT SINCE THAT LAW HAS GONE
INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, I
KNOW OF THREE DEVELOPMENTS THAT
ARE ALREADY MOVING FORWARD IN
OUR REGION WITH OTHERS ACROSS
THE STATE, AND MANY MORE LINING
UP TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW
STREAMLINING OPPORTUNITIES
THERE, AB 2728 BUILDS ON SB FOUR
BY FURTHER INCENTIVIZING CITIES
AND COUNTIES TO PLAN FOR AND
ENCOURAGE THE PRODUCTION OF
HOUSING ON THOSE LANDS THAT ARE
NOW ELIGIBLE FOR SB FOUR.
STREAMLINING, EXPANDING EXISTING
DATA TRACKING, WHICH IS GOING TO
BE VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE
DISCUSS THIS LAW AGAIN AT ITS
SUNSET AND PROVIDING EXAMPLE
AGREEMENTS FOR PARTIES
INTERESTED IN USING SB FOUR,
BECAUSE A LOT OF THE CHURCH
PARTNERS THAT WE HAVE HERE ARE
NOT EXPERIENCED DEVELOPERS, AND
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
ARE SUPPORTED IN THEIR DECISIONS
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS INVOLVES
HCD TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES THAT
WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE
WELL SUPPORTED IN THIS DECISION.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP
FORWARD IN HOUSING CALIFORNIANS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. I ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
WARDEN. MEMBERS MY NAME IS CHRIS
WILSON WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BUSINESS FEDERATION.
BESFORD IS A MASSIVE ALLIANCE OF
240 DIVERSE BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
410,000 EMPLOYERS WITH 5 MILLION
EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. WE ARE A PROUD
SPONSOR OF AB 2728, AND THANK
MR. GABRIEL FOR HIS LEADERSHIP
IN THIS SPACE. MEMBERS. WE'VE
ALL HEARD THE SAYING, YOU CAN'T
MANAGE WHAT YOU DON'T, WHAT YOU
WHAT YOU CAN'T MEASURE. AS THE
AUTHOR MENTIONED, WE BELIEVE AB
2728 WILL BUILD ON THE SUCCESS
OF LAST YEAR'S AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON FAITH AND HIGHER
EDUCATION LANDS ACT, OR SB FOUR,
TO REQUIRE A LOOKBACK PROVISION
WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROVIDE,
NUMBER ONE, THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED UNDER SB
FOUR. THE LOCATION OF THESE
PROJECTS, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF BUILDING PERMITS AND UNITS
CONSTRUCTED AS A RESULT OF SB
FOUR. ADDITIONALLY, THIS THIS
BILL WILL REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT
OF HCD TO IDENTIFY AND DEVELOP A
LIST OF STATE GRANTS AND
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNING,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF
HOUSING. AB 2728 IS ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND MAKING SURE THAT WE IMPROVE
CALIFORNIA'S ABILITY TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND APPLY
LESSONS LEARNED THAT WE HAVE
LEARNED FROM PAST EXISTING
MODELS. THANK YOU AND WE URGE
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT?
HELLO, BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. HELLO, REGINA BANKS,
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN
SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, LUTHERAN OFFICE OF
PUBLIC POLICY, CALIFORNIA.
STRONG SUPPORT. SHAINA'S SCAREDY
LIGHTHOUSE, PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
HERE ON BEHALF OF SPUR CIVIC
WELL. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
CALIFORNIA AND EDEN HOUSING.
MARY ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES AND SUPPORT.
ERIC VASQUEZ FROM Â HOUSING IN
FULL SUPPORT. RAFA SONNENFELD
WITH THE NBA ACTION AND SUPPORT.
FRANCISCO MORALES, REPRESENTING
THIS HOUSING ACTION COALITION
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
REBECCA MARCUS, REPRESENTING
LEADING AGE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY, ANYBODY HERE IN OPPOSITION
PRIMARY FOR THIS BILL, SEEING
NONE AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WISHING TO EXPRESS A
POSITION OF OPPOSITION, SEEING
NONE, WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. MOVED BY MR. LEE,
SECONDED BY MISS REYES. ANY
COMMENTS? THANK YOU, MR.
GABRIEL. WE ARE ALL VERY EXCITED
TO BE ABLE TO SEE SB FOUR
PROJECTS TAKE ROOT, AND I KNOW
THAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO BE
ABLE TO HELP CITIES BE ABLE TO
DO THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE
TRANSPARENCY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU. I THINK
THOSE OF YOU THAT WORK WITH ME
KNOW THAT I'M BIG ON STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK, ACCOUNTABILITY AND
CUTTING COSTS. AND BUREAUCRACY.
THIS BILL HAS ALL THREE. AND ON
BEHALF OF MY CHIEF OF STAFF,
ABRAHAM, WHO'S VERY EXCITED
ABOUT THIS BILL, RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, MR. GABRIEL. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, WARD I, WARD I,
PATTERSON. HARRISON I GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I CHOLERA. LEE I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA. IRIS.
IRIS I SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING
WILSON. THAT BILL HAS SIX VOTES.
IT'LL BE OUT AND WE'RE GOING TO
HOLD A ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. WE WILL
RETURN TO. WE'RE LEFT WITH
MEMBER BILLS. AND I'M GOING TO
BEGIN WITH MISS QUIRK-SILVA.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB
1789. WHEN YOU AND YOUR
PRESENTERS ARE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. ASSEMBLY BILL 1789
EXPANDS ACCESS IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, REINVESTMENT
PROGRAM. WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR
QUITE A WHILE, SO I WILL KEEP
THIS SIMPLE. THIS IS ABOUT
TAKING THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS THAT WE HAVE BUILT OVER
THE LAST DECADES AND
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE NEED TO
REINVEST IN THESE UNITS AS WE
KNOW THAT AFTER FOR MANY YEARS
OF USAGE, THERE COMES A TIME
WHEN WE NEED TO PUT DOLLARS BACK
INTO THOSE UNITS. WITH ME TODAY,
I HAVE, MR. MARK STIVERS,
DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
AND JENNIFER ARMENTA, POLICY
ASSOCIATE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM, TO MAKE
REMARKS. THANK YOU, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR TAKING. PARDON.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, JENNIFER ARMENTA WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM, AND MARK STIVERS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP. WE ARE PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF ASSEMBLY BILL
1789, AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA, SO THE IDEA
WITH THIS BILL, THIS BILL WOULD
EXPAND HCD'S, ACCESS IN THE
PORTFOLIO REINVESTMENT PROGRAM,
ALSO KNOWN AS THE PRP, TO
CHALLENGE, DEVELOPMENTS IN NEED
OF REHABILITATION. SO WHAT THIS
MEANS IS THAT WE WOULD STILL
MAINTAIN A PRIORITY FOR THOSE,
DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HCD LOANS
AND EXPIRING REGULATORY
AGREEMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE, I
WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS JUST
BACKGROUND, THE PRP PROGRAM, IN
2021 AND 2022, IT PROVIDED LOANS
AND GRANTS TO HCD, DEVELOPERS
WITH LOANS AND SOME OF THOSE
HAVE EXPIRED AFFORDABLE
COVENANTS, WHICH IS WHY IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THIS BILL TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE OF
DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AT RISK
OF, YOU KNOW, LOSING
AFFORDABILITY AND ESPECIALLY IN
A TIME WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES
IN A DEEP HOUSING CRISIS AS WE
ALL KNOW, THERE IS A NEED TO
PRESERVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THAT WE DO HAVE. AND TO, DO THE
BEST THAT WE CAN. THANK YOU.
MARK STIVERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP HERE TO
MOSTLY JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS,
BUT ALSO WHAT WE'RE ADDING.
THESE ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT
REALLY HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO BE
REFINANCED IF THEY DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THIS PROGRAM AND
RECAPITALIZE AND REHABILITATE
IT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL? MARY ELLEN SHEA,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES IN
SUPPORT. I WILL SAY THAT I WAS
WORKING AT HCD WHEN SOME OF
THESE PROPERTIES WERE FUNDED.
THANK YOU. REBECCA MARQUEZ
REPRESENTING LEADINGAGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. SEAMUS
GARRITY WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS HERE ON BEHALF OF EDEN
HOUSING IN SUPPORT. ELIZABETH
ROCHEL ZUNIGA, STUDENT AT
MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1789. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. FRANCISCO MORALES,
REPRESENTING HOUSING CALIFORNIA.
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ERIC
VASQUEZ FROM Â HOUSING IN FULL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ROB
SONNENFELD WITH THE NBA ACTION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN PRIMARY OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL OR IN GENERAL OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE? WE'LL TURN IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. IS THERE A MOTION?
MOTION BY MR. ALLEN, BY MR. LEE,
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN SANCHEZ.
ANY COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
ESSENTIALLY HELPING US TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE,
HELPING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS BE QUALIFIED FOR
PRESERVATION FUNDING. WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE
AN APPROPRIATIONS AWARD. I, I
PATTERSON, HARRISON. I GRAYSON,
GRAYSON I KARLA CARL CHOLERA I
LEE I LI I QUIRK-SILVA I
QUIRK-SILVA I REYES HI REZ I
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ I WILSON. THANK
YOU. WE'RE AT EIGHT ZERO. THAT
BILL WILL BE OUT. WE'RE GOING TO
HOLD IT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
AND YOU HAVE ONE MORE BILL.
THAT'S ITEM FIVE AB 2023, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
ASSEMBLY BILL 2023 CREATES
PARITY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT
REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. EVERY
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FAVORITE
TOPIC. THIS BILL RECTIFIES
DISPARITIES IN HOW HCD ASSESSES
LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENTS, WHETHER
THEY MEET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OR
NOT, ENSURING COMPLIANCE AND
ENCOURAGING RELUCTANT
JURISDICTIONS TO ADHERE TO STATE
HOUSING LAWS. CURRENT LAW
REQUIRES CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
UPDATE THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS
EVERY EIGHT YEARS FOR LARGER
POPULATIONS, AND EVERY FIVE
YEARS FOR SMALLER POPULATIONS.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT MUST BE
TIMELY AND REFLECT THE
COMMUNITY'S PLAN TO ADDRESS
THEIR SHARE OF THE REGIONAL
HOUSING ASSESSMENT NEEDS. ONCE
HCD AGREES THAT A LOCAL HOUSING
ELEMENT COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW,
IT ENJOYS A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY IN LEGAL
CHALLENGES. HOWEVER, WHAT IS
CURRENTLY LACKING IS A
COMPARABLE PROVISION FOR A
REBUTTABLE REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION OF INVALIDITY FOR A
HOUSING ELEMENT THAT FAILS TO
MEET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OR
ACTIONS. DEVIATE SUBSTANTIALLY
WITH LOCAL ADOPTED HOUSING
ELEMENT. THIS IS ALL VERY
TECHNICAL. AS WE SPOKE ABOUT A
BILL EARLIER, THIS, THIS
HEARING. BUT WE KNOW THAT THE
SPIRIT OF THE LAW IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT JURISDICTIONS ARE
BRINGING FORWARD THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND
MAKING SURE THEY HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS, AND
WORK WITH HCD ON THESE, WITH
THAT, HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE ANYA LAWLER, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE, REPRESENTS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW PROJECT AND RAFA
SONNENFELD, POLICY DIRECTOR WITH
YIMBY ACTION TO MAKE REMARKS.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. ANYA LAWLER
AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW PROJECT. I'LL BE
BRIEF. I KNOW WE ALL WANT TO GET
TO LUNCH, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
PROJECT IS A NONPROFIT LEGAL
SERVICES ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS
STATEWIDE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF
OF LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES TO
ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. THEY HAVE LITIGATED
PROBABLY UPWARDS OF 100 HOUSING
ELEMENT RELATED CASES TO ENSURE
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
TAKING SERIOUSLY THEIR
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS AND TO BREAK DOWN
PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION AND
EXCLUSION. THE VERY COMMON SENSE
CHANGES TO HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
PROPOSED IN THIS BILL ARE THINGS
THAT WE THINK WOULD ACTUALLY
REDUCE OUR NEED TO LITIGATE AND
ENSURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SIMPLY BRING THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENTS INTO COMPLIANCE, BASED
ON HCD'S EXPERT FEEDBACK AND THE
EXPERT FEEDBACK THAT COMES FROM
ADVOCATES LIKE PHILIP AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE ON TIME BY THE ACTUAL
STATUTORY DEADLINE, SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE TO THE IMPORTANT WORK
OF ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THOSE
ELEMENTS AND MAKING SURE WE
DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND
WITH THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. YES, RAFA SONNENFELD,
REPRESENTING, CO-SPONSORS YIMBY
LAW, THE LEGAL ARM OF THE
NATIONWIDE PRO HOUSING MOVEMENT
AND AFFILIATE OF NBA ACTION. I'M
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? MARK STIVERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, FRANCISCO MORALES,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING. CALIFORNIA ALSO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? DAVE, A
GENERAL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. NOW,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, BRADY GIRTON,
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES. FIRST OFF,
WANTED TO APOLOGIZE. WE WEREN'T
ABLE TO GET A LETTER IN TIME,
BUT THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AWARE OF
OUR CONCERNS, WE HAVE AN
OPPOSING LIST AMENDED. MOSTLY
OUR CONCERNS IS, THIS BILL DOES
A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
INVALIDITY AS OPPOSED TO A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
VALIDITY, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS IF
IT'S COMPLIANCE. SO WE WOULD
RATHER SEE KIND OF THE SAME
STANDARDS AS OPPOSED TO TWO
SEPARATE STANDARDS. IT CAN GET
REALLY CONFUSING FOR A LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THE OTHER CONCERN
THAT WE HAVE IS BASED OFF OF
SOME OF THE READS OF OUR GENERAL
COUNSEL. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IT
WILL SLOW DOWN THE HOUSING
ELEMENT PROCESS, WHERE WHEN
YOU'RE GETTING AMENDMENTS, YOU
HAVE TO RESTART THE CLOCK OF
THAT 120 DAYS, AS OPPOSED TO
JUST MOVING FORWARD. SO I THINK
WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT FINE
TUNING THE LANGUAGE, AND WE'LL
LOOK FORWARD TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE, AS WELL AS PUTTING THOSE
COMMENTS IN A LETTER AS IT IF IT
SHOULD HAVE MOVED TO THE NEXT
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WISHING TO REGISTER
SUPPORT, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MOTION BY MR. LEE,
SECOND BY MISS REYES AND VICE
CHAIR PATTERSON. YES THANK YOU,
IT'S KIND OF MIRRORS MY COMMENTS
EARLIER, REGARDING MY CONCERNS
REGARDING, YOU KNOW, GIVING HCD
A LOT MORE AUTHORITY, SOMEWHAT
SUBJECTIVE AND TIMES, TO ENFORCE
, TO CREATE THIS NEW PRESUMPTION
IN COURT. AND SO I'M JUST
WONDERING IF WE CAN, IF YOU CAN
HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS
PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE, SO WE
HAVE THIS HOUSING ELEMENT,
PRESUMABLY IT IT LOOKS LIKE IN
THIS CASE THEY WOULD BE
APPROVED, BUT THEN THEIR
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS ARE NOT
CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER WAS
APPROVED. SO I WAS JUST
WONDERING WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK
LIKE. SO JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY
WHAT THE BILL IS DOING WITH
RESPECT TO THAT PIECE. SO RIGHT
NOW, IF HCD SAYS A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT'S HOUSING ELEMENT
COMPLIES WITH THE LAW, THAT GETS
A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
VALIDITY IN COURT, IF THEY SAY
WE DON'T THINK YOU'VE MET THE
STANDARD, WE DON'T THINK YOUR
HOUSING ELEMENT IS COMPLIANT,
THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME LEGAL
WEIGHT IN COURT. THAT DOESN'T
MAKE ANY SENSE. SO ALL WE'RE
SAYING HERE IS THAT HCD'S
FINDINGS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT
THEY ARE, SHOULD HAVE A
PRESUMPTION IN COURT, THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE A DIFFERENT
STANDARD, WHETHER THEY'VE FOUND
THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE OR OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
YEAH. IT'S THIS IS ALWAYS A HARD
ISSUE BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO
BAD ACTORS, I'M ALL ABOUT THAT,
YOU KNOW, HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT
OF CITIES THAT ARE. BUT I STILL,
AS I KIND OF REFERENCED IN
EARLIER COMMENTS, WHEN THE BACK
AND FORTH GOES BETWEEN CITIES
AND HCD ON THE DOCUMENTS, I
MEAN, IN MY EXPERIENCE OF A VERY
PRO HOUSING CITY, WE RECEIVED A
LOT OF FEEDBACK IN THE LETTERS
SAYING, HEY, CHANGE THESE
ORDINANCES, DO THESE CERTAIN
THINGS THAT I REALLY DON'T THINK
IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH
PRODUCING HOUSING AND WAS MAKING
A ASSESSMENT ON OUR ORDINANCES
THAT I DON'T THINK WAS REALLY
FAIR. OF COURSE, WE WORKED IT
OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND
WE HAVE A COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENT, BUT BECAUSE WE I THINK
WE WERE GOOD ACTORS, BUT BUT TO
THE EXTENT THERE WAS AN ISSUE
THAT WE WERE ALMOST WILLING TO
KIND OF PICK A FIGHT ON, AND
THAT WAS ADU PRODUCTION IN
PARTICULAR, AND, AND THE LAWS
HAVE CHANGED TO PROMOTE ADU
PRODUCTION. YET HCD DIDN'T
REALLY WANT TO EVEN REALLY
CONSIDER THAT YET. WE WERE A
GOOD ACTOR IN THAT WE WERE ONE
OF THE FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA. SO THE FACT THAT WE
WEREN'T GIVEN ANY LEEWAY AND
IT'S LIKE, OH, WELL, WE'LL JUST
FIGHT WITH HCD OVER THIS. BUT,
YOU KNOW, THE RISKS WERE TOO
LARGE. AND I FEEL LIKE THIS BILL
MAKES THE RISKS EVEN LARGER, IN
CHALLENGING SOME OF THE WHAT I
FELT AND EVEN MY EXPERIENCE WERE
MISGUIDED, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
HCD. SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
WITH THAT. I'M NOT LIKE CLOSING
THE DOOR IF THIS BILL GETS KIND
OF TIGHTENED UP ON THAT. BUT AND
I KNOW THE AUTHORS, YOU KNOW,
I'VE SERVED WITH HER ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES
AND THE INTENT IS, I THINK, A
GOOD ONE. I JUST HAVE A LOT OF
CONCERNS WITH HOW IT'S HOW IT'S
WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. I'D BE HAPPY
TO WORK ON IT. YEAH, SURE. SO
SOME, CURRENT LAW ALLOWS A, A
CITY TO ADOPT A HOUSING ELEMENT
THAT HCD DOES NOT FIND IS, IS
CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW,
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT ALLOW A
CITY TO ADOPT A HOUSING ELEMENT
THAT HCD HAS NOT YET REVIEWED.
THIS BILL CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW
REQUIRING A CITY TO ADOPT A
HOUSING ELEMENT THAT HCD HAS
REVIEWED, IF A CITY DISAGREES
WITH WITH HCD'S DETERMINATION,
THAT'S WHY, WE THEY CAN GO TO
COURT TO, TO CHALLENGE THAT, WE
THINK IT'S, IT'S ONLY FAIR FOR,
FOR HCD'S DETERMINATION THÀNH TO
BE GIVEN THE SAME WEIGHT,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY CERTIFY THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OR DETERMINED
NOT TO CERTIFY THE HOUSING
ELEMENT. YEAH, WELL, THANKS FOR
THAT, JUST ONE ONE MORE POINT ON
THAT IS THAT THAT'S CURRENT LAW.
BUT THERE ARE EFFORTS IN THIS
BUILDING RIGHT NOW, INCLUDING AN
EFFORT, BILL, I ALMOST AUTHORED,
THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT A LITTLE
BIT. BUT, IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS
OF THE REVIEW PROCESS. YES. AND
GIVING HCD TIME TO ACTUALLY
REVIEW, A HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE
SELF CERTIFYING IF YOU WILL.
BUT, THAT THIS LAW IS GOING TO
APPLY IRRESPECTIVE OF FUTURE
LAWS THAT THAT COME INTO PLACE
RIGHT NOW. AND. I'M WILLING TO
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS. I
JUST, I DON'T REALLY LOVE GIVING
THAT KIND OF PRESUMPTION
PRESUMPTION TO HCD OR TO
LITIGATION, BUT, SO, YOU KNOW,
I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH, CERTAINLY
ME GOING TO COURT, WHETHER IT'S
HCD OR IT'S THE LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES, THAT'S OUR LAST,
STEP THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN MY
OPENING COMMENTS. I MENTIONED
THAT, LARGER JURISDICTIONS HAVE
EIGHT YEARS, TO WORK WITH THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT AND SMALLER
JURISDICTIONS, FIVE THAT IS A
LOT OF TIME TO WORK BACK AND
FORTH, WHICH HCD THERE HAS BEEN
IN THE LAST HANDFUL OF YEARS,
KIND OF A STANDOFF SOMETIMES
BETWEEN CITIES OR JURISDICTIONS,
ÓRDENES THAT ARE SIMPLY WAITING
OUT NOW, WAS MENTIONED IN
EARLIER COMMENTS TODAY. THEY'RE
NOT ALL CITIES ARE BAD ACTORS.
AND TO BE HONEST, IT'S PROBABLY
A PRETTY SMALL AMOUNT. BUT WE
ARE TRYING TO KEEP OUT OF THE
COURTS AND SIMPLY GET THESE
HOUSING ELEMENTS, CERTIFIED AND
MOVE FORWARD. SADLY, IN THE CITY
THAT I LIVE IN, FULLERTON, THAT
WE HAVE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS HAD TO BECOME NOW INVOLVED
BECAUSE OF NONCOMPLIANCE IN
ORANGE COUNTY. HUNTINGTON BEACH,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT'S
JUST TWO OF REASONS, BUT IT'S
REALLY THE LAST STEP THAT WE
WANT TO SEE THESE BATTLES FOUGHT
IN COURT BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT IT
ULTIMATELY DOES IS IT DELAYS
HOUSING PRODUCTION, WHICH IS
WHAT WE WANT TO GET TO. SO WITH
THAT, I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS. WE
WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THEM AS
THE THIS BILL MAKES ITS WAY. AND
I APPRECIATE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
YOU DID SERVE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND, THESE ARE VERY
DIFFICULT ISSUES. BUT, THAT
WOULD BE MY CLOSE AND WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. JUST DOUBLE
CHECK. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY
OTHER MEMBER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENT WITH THAT. I APPRECIATE
THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING. THE
BILL, EXCEPT YOUR CLOTHES. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WARD A WARD A PERSON NOT VOTING.
GRAYSON GRAYSON. AYE. CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA
I QUIRK-SILVA I REYES REYES I
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. WILSON.
THAT BILL HAS SIX VOTES. WE WILL
HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. IT WILL BE OUT NEXT. WE
ARE MOVING FORWARD TO ITEM 16.
MR. LEE, THIS IS AB 2665. AND
YOU AND YOUR PRESENTERS ARE
READY. YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 2665, WHICH
WOULD CREATE A REVOLVING LOAN
FUND TO BUILD MIXED INCOME
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. EXISTING
MODELS OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING,
USUALLY MEAN THAT ONCE MONEY IS
APPROPRIATED AND SPENT, IT IS
GONE. THE STATE IS NOT ABLE TO
RECOUP ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INVESTMENTS. THESE MODELS HAVE
THEIR PLACE. HOWEVER, OTHER
MODELS EXIST IN THE WORLD WHICH
ALLOW THE STATE TO MAINTAIN A
SUSTAINABLE POOL OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUNDS THAT ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO CUTS DURING DOWN
BUDGET YEARS. AS WE ARE NOW IN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND,
THEIR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED A
MODEL FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
THAT PROMISES MORE SUSTAINABLE,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
THAT CAN SCALE. MONTGOMERY
COUNTY'S HOUSING PRODUCTION FUND
INCLUDES A REVOLVING LOAN THAT
OFFERS DEVELOPERS 0% 0%
CONSTRUCTION LOANS WITH A FIVE
YEAR REPAYMENT SCHEDULES IN
EXCHANGE FOR 30% LOWER INCOME
HOUSING. PRIVATE DEVELOPERS,
NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR
PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THESE FUNDS. THE
FACT THAT IT IS A REVOLVING LOAN
MEANS THAT FUNDING WILL COME
BACK INTO STATE COFFERS AND THE
SAME APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS CAN
BE USED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR
DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS FINANCED
THOUSANDS OF DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WITH
THIS FUND. IF THE STATE HAD
ESTABLISHED A SIMILAR REVOLVING
LOAN FUND FUND TEN YEARS AGO,
THEN WE WOULD NOT. THEN WE WOULD
HAVE A SUSTAINABLE POT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS THAT
WOULD NOT BE AT RISK FOR BUDGET
CUTS. TODAY. IT MAKES PROJECTS
VIABLE DURING CHALLENGING
FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT, MOSTLY
DUE TO RISING COSTS OF CAPITAL
HAS NEVER BEEN HARDER TO FINANCE
A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
THAN TODAY. THIS PROGRAM COMES
WITH FLEXIBILITY AS WELL. MARKET
DEVELOPERS, LIHTC DEVELOPERS,
AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY'S PUBLIC
HOUSING DEVELOPER HAVE ALL TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF THIS FINANCING TO
PRODUCE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
RHODE ISLAND, ATLANTA, CHICAGO,
SEATTLE AND NEW YORK CITY ARE IN
THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING THIS
MODEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, AND THE BAY AREA
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY IS
ALSO CONSIDERING A REVOLVING
LOAN FUND OF A SIMILAR TYPE. AB
2665 WILL PROVIDE THE STATE WITH
A SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUND MECHANISM AND ALLOW
THE STATE TO BUILD DESPERATELY
NEEDED DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT SCALE AND
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE
MY LEAD WITNESS TODAY, RAFA
SONNENFELD, WITH THE ACTION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. RAFA
SONNENFELD, POLICY DIRECTOR, IMB
ACTION. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR TAKING UP THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. CALIFORNIA
FACES A SEVERE HOUSING SHORTAGE
AT ALL INCOME LEVELS. TO MEET
STATE HOUSING TARGETS,
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO BUILD
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNITS A
YEAR. BUT AT A TIME WHEN WE NEED
TO BE SCALING UP PRODUCTION,
HOUSING STARTS ARE SLOWING. HIGH
INTEREST RATES ARE CURRENTLY
SQUEEZING BUILDERS. THIS
INCLUDES BOTH MARKET RATE AND
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DEVELOPERS,
MAKING IT HARDER FOR ALL KINDS
OF PROJECTS, FROM BEING ABLE TO
PENCIL OUR OUR PERMITTING
NUMBERS REFLECT THIS. 2023 SAW
SIGNIFICANT DECLINES IN HOUSING
PRODUCTION IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THE STATE IS
EXPECTED TO SEE FURTHER DECLINES
IN PERMITTING NUMBERS THIS YEAR
AS WELL, TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE,
POOR BUDGET CONDITIONS WILL
REQUIRE THE STATE TO MAKE
SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO A VARIETY OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS. AB
2665 OFFERS A NOVEL SOLUTION TO
ADDRESS THESE. THIS WEB OF
FINANCING ISSUES FACING THE
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY,
INSPIRED BY THE SUCCESS OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY'S HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION IN
MARYLAND, AB 2665 WOULD CREATE A
REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
WITHIN CALHFA FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF MIXED INCOME HOUSING
PROJECTS. THIS BILL WOULD OFFER
0% CONSTRUCTION LOANS FOR
PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE AT LEAST
30% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BY
OFFERING SUBSIDIZED CONSTRUCTION
LOANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MIXED
INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS, THE
STATE CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKE
MORE PROJECTS VIABLE AND SCALE
UP LOWER INCOME HOUSING
PRODUCTION, ALL WHILE
MAINTAINING A RELIABLE SOURCE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FUNDING. THE
COST OF CONSTRUCTION DEBT IS
ALSO A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, AND THIS
BILL ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE BY
OFFERING A SIGNIFICANT COST
REDUCTION IN EXCHANGE FOR
ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY.
CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT EXPERIENCE
WITH BUDGET CUTS HIGHLIGHTS THE
DANGER OF BEING COMPLETELY
RELIANT ON ONGOING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUNDING. THE REVOLVING
LOAN FUND MECHANISM ENSURES THAT
MONEY SPENT ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CAN BE RECOUPED BY THE
STATE AND USED FOR OTHER
PROJECTS. IN ADDITION, THE MIXED
INCOME MODEL ENSURES INTEGRATED
COMMUNITIES AND ONGOING
FINANCIAL STABILITY. BY PASSING
AB 2665, THE LEGISLATURE CAN
CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITH A SUSTAINABLE SOURCE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYBODY ELSE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. BRADY.
GIRTON ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. FRANCISCO MORALES,
REPRESENTING THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION SEEING SEEING
NONE. MOVE BY MISS REYES? YES.
GENERAL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
NEIMAN. OKAY. ONE MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC, MISS REYES MOVES THE
BILL. WAS THERE A SECOND BY MR.
GRAYSON? ANY MEMBERS WISH TO
ADDRESS THE BILL? I WILL NOTE
AND APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW WHAT
YOU ARE TRYING TO DO TO EXPAND
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, USING A
REVOLVING LOAN PROGRAM AS WELL,
I DO WANT TO STRESS, AS I HAD
BEFORE, IN OTHER BUDGETS, OF
COURSE, WE'RE ALL CONCERNED
ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE BUDGET
THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND
ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND THE
COSTS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE GO
INTO THOSE. WHILE THIS COULD BE
VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THE MODEL
THAT I THINK YOU WANT TO
ACHIEVE, WE'RE GOING TO BE I'M
CERTAINLY GOING TO BE, SEEING ON
THE RECORD MY, MY PRIORITY TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT, THE, THE BUDGET
NEEDS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US,
BUT WITH THAT, I KNOW IT COULD
BE SUCCESSFUL IF IT WAS A PART
OF THE MIX. AND WITH THAT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS
BILL, OF COURSE, IS CONTINGENT
ON APPROPRIATION. WE'RE CREATING
THE PROGRAM AND THE BANK
ACCOUNT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY
PUTTING THE MONEY INTO IT JUST
YET. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S CLEAR THAT IT WILL NOT ADD
TO THE MOMENT. RIGHT. THE STRESS
OF OUR BUDGETARY SITUATION. BUT
IF WE HAD HAD THIS PROGRAM TEN
YEARS AGO, NOW IN OUR BUDGET
SITUATION, WE'RE CUTTING A LOT
OF HOUSING PROGRAMS. IF WE HAD
OUR OWN INDEPENDENT REVOLVING
LOAN FUND, WE COULD HAVE BEEN
LOANING OUT MONEY TO
CONSTRUCTION. AND THE MONEY KEEP
REPLENISHING ITSELF ON ITS OWN
FOR YEARS TO COME. SO HOPEFULLY
WE CAN INCORPORATE THIS IN OUR
HOUSING TALKS. AND AS WE TALK
ABOUT BIG HOUSING BONDS OR OTHER
MEASURES, THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO
HAVE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN
THE LONG TERME. RESPECTFULLY,
ESTHER IVO, THANK YOU. AND TO
CLARIFY, YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. AFFORDABILITY
AMENDMENTS. YES. THANK YOU MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. WORD A WORD I.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LI
I LI I QUIRK-SILVA. QUIRK-SILVA
I REYES. REYES I SANCHEZ. NOT
VOTING. WILSON. OKAY ALL RIGHT,
SO THAT BILL HAS SEVEN VOTES. IT
IS OUT. WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. I'M ABOUT TO
PRESENT A BILL. TURN THE GAVEL
OVER TO OUR VICE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO,
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, AB 2353
BY OUR ESTEEMED CHAIRMAN. WELL,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I'LL BE BRIEF, AB 2353
WOULD ENSURE THAT NONPROFIT,
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
DEVELOPERS CAN ACCESS THE
EXISTING WELFARE PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION WITHOUT FLOATING
UNNECESSARY TAX PAYMENTS WHILE
THEIR APPLICATION IS UNDER
REVIEW. CURRENTLY, AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS MUST
PAY PROPERTY TAXES UP FRONT AND
SEEK REIMBURSEMENT AFTER BOTH
THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR HAVE
APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT'S
EXEMPTION. AS A RESULT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
FLOAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS IN UNNECESSARY TAX
PAYMENTS. THIS BILL WOULD REDUCE
THE COST OF DEVELOPING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY ALLOWING
NONPROFIT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT
TAX PAYMENTS WITHOUT PENALTY,
WHILE THEIR WELFARE EXEMPTION
APPLICATIONS ARE UNDER REVIEW,
AND IF THE PROPERTY IS DEED
RESTRICTED AND THE DEVELOPER
RECEIVES A CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
FROM THE BOE FOR WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT, I HAVE MARK STIVERS,
THE DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP, AND EVAN JOHNSON,
THE POLICY DIRECTOR AND ACTING
DEPUTY CONTROLLER FOR
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. SECOND,
THANKS. THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES.
I HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT THIS
ONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY THIS
MORNING. I'M EVAN JOHNSON,
DEPUTY CONTROLLER FOR
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF CONTROLLER COHEN,
PLEASED TO, CO-SPONSOR AB 2353
WITH CHAIR WARD AND OUR PARTNERS
AT THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP TO REDUCE THE COST
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION BY IMPROVING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WELFARE
TAX PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION, AS
YOU'RE AWARE, CALIFORNIA'S,
CHIEF, THE CONTROLLER IS,
CALIFORNIA'S CHIEF FISCAL
OFFICER AND IS VERY AWARE OF THE
CHALLENGES AROUND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND REDUCING THESE
DEVELOPMENT COSTS IS CRITICAL TO
, SORT OF IMPROVING THE
UTILIZATION OF STATE DOLLARS ON
THIS, I HAD A LOT OF DETAIL IN
HERE, BUT YOU COVERED MOST OF
IT, SO I THINK I'LL KEEP IT VERY
SHORT AND JUST SAY, I THINK
THESE CHANGES WILL REALLY
IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
WELFARE, TAX EXEMPTION AND
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT AND
SPONSORSHIP. MARK STIVERS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP. WE THINK THIS WILL
FREE UP ABOUT $60 MILLION OF
PRIVATE MONEY THAT WE CAN THEN
UTILIZE IN A BETTER WAY TOWARDS
BUILDING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT
WAS EXCELLENT. BOTH OF YOU GUYS,
ANY, WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? MARY
ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES. REBECCA
MARCUS, REPRESENTING LEADINGAGE
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT RALPH
SONNENFELD, OMB ACTION IN
SUPPORT FRANCISCO MORALES,
REPRESENTING HOUSING CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANY PRIMARY OPPONENTS TO THIS
MEASURE OR OPPONENTS? SORRY
NOPE. SEEING NONE ANY PEOPLE
JUST WANT TO SAY THEY'RE
OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.
SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT BILL. ANY
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
GREAT GREAT. BILL. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. IT'S A LONG DAY. EXCELLENT
JOB, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE,
ROLL, PLEASE? WHAT? DID WE HAVE
A MOTION A SECOND? YES. OKAY,
GREAT. PERFECT. THANK YOU,
MOTION TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE
ON REVENUE AND TAXATION. WARD I
PERSON I GRAYSON GRAYSON I
CHOLERA CHOLERA I LI I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ I
WILSON. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S,
EIGHT. NOTHING THAT BILLS OUT
AND, EXCELLENT WORK, MR.
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND GO BACK THROUGH THE ROLL,
AND OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. ALL
RIGHT. STOPPING IN THE TOP OF
THE ORDER FILE, ITEM NUMBER ONE.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. WILSON.
QUIRK-SILVA 1789. ITEM NUMBER.
I'M SORRY. NUMBER ONE. WILSON.
WHAT'S THE FINAL? THE FINAL IS
8080 ON THAT. OKAY THAT'S, EIGHT
ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT, ITEM
NUMBER THREE, CHOLERA, I, I, I'M
SORRY, SANCHEZ. THIS IS FOR
1820. THAT'S CORRECT. I THAT
BILL IS OUT NINE ZERO. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, AB 1886. SANCHEZ
NOT VOTING. NOT VOTING. THAT
BILL HAS 7 TO 0 WITH TWO NOT
VOTING. BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE, AB 2023. WILSON. SO THAT
WOULD BE SIX ZEROS TO NUMBER.
THAT BILL IS OUT SIX ZERO WITH
TWO MEMBERS NOT VOTING. ITEM
NUMBER SIX AB 2159. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ I. 8 TO 0. THAT BILL IS
OUT 8 TO 0 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT
VOTING. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
2240 GRAYSON Ã GRAYSON. I 7 TO
0 7 TO 0. BILL IS OUT WITH TWO
MEMBERS NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT AB 2353 OUT 920. NO, THAT
CAN'T BE. SHE DIDN'T. SHE. OH,
SHE WAS NOT RIGHT. THAT BILL IS
OUT 8 TO 0 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT
VOTING. ITEM NUMBER 11, AB 2460.
SANCHEZ NOT VOTING. NOT VOTING.
THAT BILL IS OUT 7 TO 1 WITH ONE
MEMBER NOT VOTING. OKAY ITEM
NUMBER 12, PATTERSON. NO
PATTERSON. NO. GRAYSON. NOT
NORRIS. GRAYSON. NOT VOTING.
THAT BILL IS OUT 5 TO 2 WITH TWO
MEMBERS NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER
13, AB 2560. SANCHEZ FOR ME, IT
SHOWS A CONSENT ITEM. NO ITEM 13
2566. NOT VOTING. SO THAT BILL
IS OUT 8 TO 0 WITH ONE MEMBER
NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER 14 AB
2580. PATTERSON I PERSON I
GRAYSON I GRAYSON I WILSON. 820
THAT BILL IS OUT 8 TO 0 WITH ONE
MEMBER NOT VOTING. AND THEN ITEM
NUMBER 16 AB 2665 MEMBER WILSON.
SO I HAVE SEVEN. SIX SEVEN WITH
ONE NOT VOTING. GOT IT. SO THAT,
BILL IS OUT. 7 TO 0 WITH TWO
MEMBERS NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER
17, AB 2674. SANCHEZ. NOT
VOTING. THAT BILL IS OUT 8 TO 0
WITH ONE MEMBER NOT VOTING. ITEM
NUMBER 18, AB 2728. CHOLERA
CHOLERA. I WILSON. ONE SECOND.
YES AND SO WE'RE 7 TO 0. OKAY.
WE'RE AT 7 TO 0. THE BILL IS OUT
WITH TWO MEMBERS NOT VOTING.
AND, MISS SANCHEZ, YOUR VOTE
CHANGE VOTING TO I. FOR WHICH
ONE? FOR SHABOW ON ITEM. 17
2674. THAT BILL IS OUT 9 TO 0.
AND THEN, MISS SANCHEZ, WE'RE
GOING TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. I. ITEMS 215 TO 19 ARE
ALL OUT 9 TO 0. AND WITH THAT WE
ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. THANKS, EVERYBODY. GOOD
HEARING