GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE, WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE HEARING OF APRIL 10TH,
FIRST, I'M GOING TO DO SOME
HOUSEKEEPING, LINES, I WOULD
LIKE TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT
FOR THIS AND FUTURE HEARINGS,
TESTIMONY WILL BE IN PERSON AS
WE ARE NO LONGER USING A
MODERATOR TELEPHONE SERVICE. WE
ALSO ACCEPT WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION LETTER
PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO GO OVER OUR GROUND RULES FOR
APPROPRIATE CONDUCT. THE
ASSEMBLY HAS EXPERIENCED A
NUMBER OF DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMITTEE AND FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS, OR
OTHERWISE IMPEDES THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING IS
PROHIBITED. SUCH CONDUCT MAY
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. TALKING
OR MAKING LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE. UTTERING LOUD,
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE
ALLOTTED TIME. EXTENDED
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS NOT
RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
HEARING OR THE BILL. AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO
ADDRESS. ANY DISRUPTIVE ACTS? I
WILL TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS.
IF AN INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR
HEARING PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT
THEM TO STOP AND WARN THEM. THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON THE RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED AND THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY
TEMPORARILY RESIST THE HEARING
IF THE CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP AT
REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
SERGEANTS IN ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. WE HAVE 17 ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON. FIVE
OF THESE ITEMS ARE PROPOSED TO
BE FOR CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER ONE,
AB 1782, BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TOM.
ITEM THREE AB 2213 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RUBIO. ITEM TEN AB 2634
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY. ITEM
15 AB 2812 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
KALRA. ITEM 17 AB 32 7777 BY
ASSEMBLY. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE. WE WILL HEAR OTHER
BILLS IN THE ORDER SHOWN ON OUR
AGENDA UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
WE WILL TAKE UP TO TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND UP TO
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. THESE WITNESSES WILL
HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO
PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY. ALL
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION, AND THEIR POSITION
ON THE BILL. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BILL SALI TO THE
COMMITTEE. WELCOME. HAPPY TO SEE
YOU HERE, AND WITH THAT, WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM. SO WE ARE
GOING TO BE ACTING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE UNTIL WE ARE ABLE
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. THE FIRST
ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AB 1889 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN. I
THOUGHT, I SEE HER. I SAW HER A
FEW MINUTES AGO. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
FRIEDMAN, PLEASE, WHEN YOU'RE
READY WITH YOUR BILL. AB 1889
CONSERVATION ELEMENT. WILDLIFE
AND HABITAT COMMUNITY. WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE. I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT ON PAGE FIVE, COMMENT
SEVEN OF THE ANALYSIS AB 1889
REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
CONSIDER AND MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND HABITAT
CONNECTIVITY AS PART OF THE
CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THEIR
GENERAL PLAN. IN CONSULTATION
WITH STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES.
CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THE RICHEST
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS IN THE
WORLD AND THE MOST POPULOUS
STATE IN THE NATION.
DEVELOPMENTS DEGRADE AND
FRAGMENT HABITATS, LEADING
THREATS TO SPECIES IMPERILMENT.
THEY ALSO LEAD TO COLLISIONS
BETWEEN MOTORISTS AND VEHICLES.
AND WHEN I DID WORK ON WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS IN THE PAST, WE HAD
MEMBERS FROM ACROSS THE STATE,
INCLUDING ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS,
MEMBERS GETTING UP AND SAYING
THAT COLLISIONS BETWEEN
MIGRATING BETWEEN DEER AND CARS,
BETWEEN BIG CATS AND CARS, HAS
LED TO INJURIES AND DEATHS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL
SIMPLY ASKS MUNICIPALITIES THAT
HAVE MIGRATING ANIMALS AS THEY
DO THEIR PLANNING PROCESS, TO
FIGURE OUT WAYS TO GET THOSE
ANIMALS THROUGH THEIR CITIES
WITHOUT IMPERILING DRIVERS,
WITHOUT CAUSING CONFLICTS WITH
DEVELOPMENTS, SOME POLICIES
TOUCH ON WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY,
BUT STATE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE
CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS SHOULD ADDRESS
CONNECTIVITY IN THEIR PLANNING
PROCESS. I AUTHORED 2344. IN
2022, A BIPARTISANLY SUPPORTED
BILL THAT PROVIDED A ROAD MAP
FOR CALTRANS TO ADDRESS
CONNECTIVITY ON STATE HIGHWAYS.
SOME JURISDICTIONS, LIKE VENTURA
COUNTY, HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED
WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY POLICIES,
BUT STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION IS
ESSENTIAL TO SAFEGUARD HABITAT
CONNECTIONS ACROSS THE WHOLE
STATE. AB 1889 DOES NOT CREATE
ANY NEW PROTECTIONS OR NEW
PROGRAMS OR PROVIDE FOR MORE
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT
MEANT TO STOP NEW HOUSING OR
OTHER DEVELOPMENT FROM
HAPPENING. THIS HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THAT. THIS JUST ASKS
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO IDENTIFY,
IMPORTANT WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY
VALUES AND CORRIDORS ON THEIR
LANDSCAPES SO THAT THEY'LL BE
BETTER EQUIPPED TO EXPAND NEEDED
HOUSING IN A WAY THAT WILL AVOID
DAMAGE TO THE STATE. WILDLIFE
PROJECTS AND ALSO AVOID
LAWSUITS. QUITE HONESTLY,
BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT
THE ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE WHO
ARE BUILDING HOUSING, IF THE
CITIES HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS IS
GOING TO BE OUR WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR, JUST DON'T BUILD
THERE. IT'LL ALLOW THAT
DEVELOPMENT HOPEFULLY TO PROCEED
MORE SMOOTHLY. NOW NOTHING IN AB
1889 REQUIRES LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO CONSTRUCT ANY
NEW WILDLIFE CROSSINGS OVER
ROADS OR HIGHWAYS. IT ONLY
ENCOURAGES THE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO LOOK
HOLISTICALLY AT HOW THEIR LONG
TERME LAND USE PLANNING IMPACTS
WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY, AND
CONSIDER WAYS TO LIMIT IMPACTS
ON CONNECTIVITY. AND I WILL TELL
YOU, IN MY OWN COMMUNITY, WE
HAVE NOW HAVE TO SPEND MONEY,
YOU KNOW, EXTRA MONEY TO CREATE
WILDLIFE CROSSINGS. IF THIS
PLANNING HAD BEEN DONE YEARS
AGO, IT WOULD BE SO MUCH CHEAPER
, SO MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE TO OUR
MUNICIPALITIES WHO ARE NOW
HAVING TO GO BACK AND CORRECT
THE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY. IF
THEY HAD JUST PLANNED FOR THAT
TO BEGIN WITH, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN SO EASY TO INCLUDE THAT
CONNECTIVITY IN PLANNING, AND
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE
SCRAMBLING NOW TO STOP THE
DEATHS OF BIG CATS ON HIGHWAYS,
BIG CATS STRANDED IN
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND ALL OF THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT
WE'RE SEEING HAPPENING. THIS
BILL WOULD HELP GIVE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THE TOOLS AND THE
GUIDANCE NEEDED TO PLAN FOR
HOUSING AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN
APPROPRIATE PLACES. TESTIFYING
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1889 IS FORMER
VENTURA COUNTY SUPERVISOR LINDA
PARKS AND JP ROSE. ON BEHALF OF
OUR SPONSOR, THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. THIS IS A
GOOD PLANNING BILL. IT'S GOOD
GOVERNMENT POLICY, AND I WOULD
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. GOOD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR CARILLO AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LINDA PARKS. I'M A FORMER
VENTURA COUNTY MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THERE. AND
DURING MY TIME ON THE BOARD, WE
WERE ABLE TO ADOPT THE COUNTY'S
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE.
IT'S THE FIRST IN THE STATE. AND
I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT AB
1889 IS MUCH NEEDED AND VERY
MUCH IS IT FEASIBLE, LIKE
VENTURA COUNTY'S ORDINANCE, AB
1889 PROVIDES CLEAR DIRECTION
FOR PLANNERS AND DEVELOPERS TO
CONSIDER WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY
IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
PLANNERS CAN USE RESOURCES LIKE
CDF ESSENTIAL HABITAT
CONNECTIVITY DATA THAT THEY
ALREADY HAVE, AND DEVELOPERS
WILL KNOW EARLIER IN THE PROCESS
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM. THIS
WILL MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR
PROJECT CHANGES LATER IN THE
PROCESS, AND IT WILL ALSO SAVE
MONEY AND TIME. I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT AB 1889 WON'T
PREVENT DEVELOPMENT. RATHER, IT
CALLS FOR WILDLIFE FRIENDLY
FENCING AND LIGHTING AND
LANDSCAPING, NOT PLANTING
INVASIVE SPECIES CLUSTERING,
DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF URBAN
SPRAWL. WE KNOW THAT SEQUA
ALREADY REQUIRES CONSIDERATION
AT THE PROJECT LEVEL OF IMPACTS
ON WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. HOWEVER
HAVING FOUNDATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
INFORMATION ON WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS ALL IN ONE PLACE IN
THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT WILL
FACILITATE BETTER REGIONAL
PLANNING AND AVOID THE
UNNECESSARY EXTINCTION OF SOME
OF THOSE ICONIC SPECIES LIKE
MOUNTAIN LIONS. I WANT TO THANK
LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR NEWSOM
FOR INVESTING IN WILDLIFE
CROSSINGS, INCLUDING THE WALLIS
ANNENBERG BRIDGE, THE LARGEST
WILDLIFE BRIDGE IN THE WORLD, IN
THE IT'S GOING ON BEING BUILT IN
AGOURA HILLS RIGHT NOW OVER THE
101 FREEWAY BECAUSE OF VENTURA
COUNTY'S WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
ORDINANCE, WILDLIFE CROSSING
THAT BRIDGE WILL BE CONNECTED TO
OPEN SPACE WHEN THEY REACH THE
OTHER SIDE. WHILE LIFE CORRIDORS
ARE CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF
WILDLIFE AND SOMETHING 1889 CAN
ECONOMICALLY ACCOMPLISH
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND I REALLY URGE
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR CARILLO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS JP ROSE AND I'M THE
POLICY DIRECTOR IN THE URBAN
WILDLANDS PROGRAM AT THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. AB
1889 IS COMMON SENSE LEGISLATION
DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE BETTER
LOCAL PLANNING TO PRESERVE
CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUE
BIODIVERSITY. CALIFORNIA IS ONE
OF THE RICHEST BIODIVERSITY
HOTSPOTS IN THE WORLD, AND WHILE
CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS MANY
PROTECTED LANDSCAPES, WE'RE
LEARNING THAT WILDLIFE STILL
NEED ROOM TO ROAM BETWEEN
PROTECTED AREAS TO FIND FOOD,
SHELTER AND MATES AND ADAPT TO
CLIMATE CHANGE. A LACK OF
WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY CAN
THREATEN SPECIES WITH EXTINCTION
, AND THIS IS HAPPENING NOW WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND CENTRAL
COAST MOUNTAIN LIONS. DUE TO
POOR PLANNING. CONTRARY TO FEARS
OF THE OPPOSITION, THIS BILL
WILL NOT IMPEDE HOUSING.
INSTEAD, IT WILL HELP LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TAKE A LONG VIEW AND
A BIRD'S EYE VIEW TO PLAN
HOUSING AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
IN AREAS THAT MAKE THE MOST
SENSE IN WAYS THAT BENEFIT BOTH
PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE. CURRENT
POLICIES DELAY ANY REAL
CONSIDERATION OF WILDLIFE
CONNECTIVITY UNTIL THE END OF
THE PLANNING PROCESS. THIS
UNNECESSARILY SETS UP CONFLICTS
BETWEEN DEVELOPERS, COMMUNITIES
AND CITIES, OFTEN LEADING TO
LITIGATION BY FRONTLOADING
CONSIDERATION OF WILDLIFE
CONNECTIVITY, TÊ DEVELOPERS WILL
HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHICH
AREAS ARE APPROPRIATE TO BUILD.
IT WILL ALSO GIVE CITIES TOOLS
TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT SAFER FOR
WILDLIFE WHEN THEY ARE NEAR
CORRIDORS, SUCH AS WILDLIFE
FRIENDLY FENCING, LIGHTING AND
CLUSTERING. DEVELOPMENT. AT THE
SAME TIME, AB 1889 SAFEGUARDS
TAXPAYER FUNDED INVESTMENTS IN
OUR WILDLIFE. AB 2344 OR THE
SAFE ROADS AND WILDLIFE
PROTECTION ACT, REQUIRES
CALTRANS TO INCLUDE WILDLIFE
CROSSINGS WHERE APPROPRIATE ON
NEW HIGHWAYS. AB 1889 HERE WILL
HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
COORDINATE WITH CALTRANS TO
ENSURE THAT PLANNED CROSSINGS
REMAIN FUNCTIONAL. THIS BILL
WILL ALSO GIVE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS ANOTHER TOOL TO
HELP IMPLEMENT THE STATE'S
GOALS. AROUND 30 BY 30. THANK
YOU AND PLEASE VOTE AYE. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO GO ON
THE RECORD IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, SUSAN MADDEN AT W
STRATEGIES HERE ON BEHALF OF
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU NATALIE BROWN WITH THE
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
IN SUPPORT. HI THERE, MEGAN
MEKELBURG, ON BEHALF OF THE EAST
BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT AND
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU, ADAM HARPER CALLISEMA. WE
HAVE A SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED
POSITION EVALUATING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ON BEHALF OF
WILDLANDS NETWORK, WE SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS JEFF AARON. I'M HERE AS
AN INDIVIDUAL AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. I THINK IT'S A LOGICAL
EXTENSION OF WHAT OTHER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE MEASURE? SEEING SOMEONE
COMING? YEP I WASN'T PLANNING TO
BE LEAD, BUT WE HAVE A THIS IS
ADAM RIEGLER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AND WE HAVE
A OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. WE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS SO FAR
THAT HAVE MOVED IT INTO THE
CONSERVATION ELEMENT, RATHER
THAN CREATING AN ENTIRE NEW
ELEMENT, WHICH I THINK A LOT OF
THE OPPOSITION ORIGINALLY WAS ON
OUR SURGICAL AMENDMENTS, REALLY,
I THINK REDUCE THE COST TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS UPON THE
NEXT SUBSTANTIVE UPDATE OF AN
ELEMENT RATHER THAN ANY NOMINAL
PERIOD CHANGE IN AN ELEMENT.
TRIGGERING THIS PROVISION WOULD
BE A COST SAVER TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. AND THEN THERE'S A
PROVISION IN SUBSECTION OR
SECTION TWO IN WHICH IT SAYS
AVOID, MINIMIZE FEES AND
MITIGATE. AND WE THINK IT SHOULD
BE AN OR AND SHALL CONSIDER
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
REST OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS LAUREN DE
VALENCIA, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A
POSITION ON THE BILL. AND I JUST
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE DO
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS. THEY GO A LONG WAY.
AS INTRODUCED. WE DID HAVE
CONCERNS, SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
ABOUT, INTRODUCING A NEW
STANDALONE ELEMENT. WE
APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO WORK
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE
EXISTING ELEMENTS. WE'RE STILL
HOPEFUL TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
ON THE DATE, THE IMPLEMENTATION
DATE. WE DO REALLY WANT TO SEE
ALIGNMENT WITH ALL THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATES THAT WE'RE LOOKING
TO IMPLEMENT THIS YEAR, SO THAT
IT CAN BE LOOKED AT HOLISTICALLY
WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN IS
UPDATED. BUT AGAIN, REALLY
APPRECIATE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR, THE SPONSORS AND THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC GOING ON THE RECORD
IN OPPOSITION OF THE BILL?
SEEING NONE, I DON'T THINK THE
MEMBERS. OKAY WITH THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FREEMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO TRY TO ADDRESS
ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS, AND I
APPRECIATE THEM COMING TO, TO
MAKE SUGGESTIONS. AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM. AND
YOU AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE'RE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR HELP. THANK YOU,
WITH THAT, WE'RE WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM YET, SO WE'RE STILL DOING
IT AS STAFF COMMITTEE, YOU DO
HAVE TWO OTHER BILLS? YES, THE
NEXT ONE. OKAY, I'M GOING TO BE
PRESENTING AB 2253 NEXT. I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE ONCE
AGAIN AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE. I'M
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS ON PAGE FOUR.
COMMENTS SEVEN AB 2553 CLARIFIES
WHAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MUST
IMPOSE LOWER TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
ON TRANSIT. PROXIMATE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS. IT ALSO UPDATES
THE DEFINITION OF MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP TO REFLECT THE POST-COVID
SERVICE LEVELS. THANKS. FIRST,
IF A LOCAL AGENCY HAS ADOPTED A
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, THE
MITIGATION FEE ACT REQUIRES THE
FEE TO BE SET AT A LOWER RATE
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
THAT GENERATE REDUCED VEHICLE
TRIPS, AS DETERMINED BY WHETHER
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MEETS
SEVERAL CRITERIA, INCLUDING
PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT. CURRENTLY,
THE LAW REQUIRES THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT TO BE WITHIN ONE
HALF MILE OF A TRANSIT STATION.
QUOTE UNQUOTE, WHICH IS A NARROW
DEFINITION THAT EXCLUDES MANY
PROJECTS. WELL SERVED BY
TRANSIT. MANY LOCAL AGENCIES
HAVE A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC IMPACT
FEE, POSING AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE
PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AND OVER
TRANSIT. PROXIMITY TO HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE
MINIMAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
HOWEVER, SEVERAL OTHER STATUTES,
INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND
THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW,
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
TO OCCUR. PROXIMATE TO TRANSIT
BY PROVIDING BENEFITS SUCH AS
STREAMLINED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND LOWER PARKING STANDARDS,
AMONG OTHERS. UNDER THESE
STATUTES, A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MUST BE PROXIMATE TO A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP, WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, INCLUDES THE
INTERSECTION OF TWO OR MORE
MAJOR BUS ROUTES WITH A
FREQUENCY OF 15 MINUTES OR LESS
DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON
PEAK COMMUTE PERIODS. AB 2553
REQUIRES LOCAL AGENCIES TO
CONSIDER REDUCING TRAFFIC IMPACT
FEES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP, WHICH WILL
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
DEVELOPMENTS THAT QUALIFY FOR
THE REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE
CURRENT REQUIREMENT TO BE
PROXIMATE TO A TRANSIT STATION.
SECOND, THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC
CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION
IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP, WHICH IN
MANY LOCALITIES IS PROVING TO BE
TEMPORARY, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE
STILL HAVING LINGERING EFFECTS.
SO MANY TRANSIT AGENCIES
RESPONDED BY CUTTING ROUTES AND
REDUCING SERVICE FREQUENCY. AS A
RESULT, THERE WERE FEWER
LOCATIONS THAT MEET THE
DEFINITION OF MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP. NOTWITHSTANDING SERVICE
REDUCTIONS, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
PROXIMATE TO EXISTING AND
PLANNED TRANSIT GENERATE FEWER
VEHICLE TRIPS AND HAVE MORE
TRANSIT RIDERS THAN PROJECTS
LOCATED FURTHER FROM TRANSIT,
WITH BENEFITS TO AIR QUALITY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. TO
ADDRESS THIS CONCERN, AB 2350 AB
2050 2553 AMENDS THE DEFINITION
OF MAJOR TRANSIT STOP TO
INCREASE THE HEADWAYS FOR BUS
ROUTES FROM 15 MINUTES TO 20
MINUTES, TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2005 53 IS FRANCESC MARTI,
WITH THIS WITH CALIFORNIA YIMBY
AND HOLLY FERMENTI DEJESUS. ON
BEHALF OF SPUR. THANK YOU. THANK
THANK YOU, CHAIR CARRILLO.
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE,
ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS FRANCESC
MARTI AND I AM THE DIRECTOR,
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT CALIFORNIA
YIMBY, WE ARE A GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION WITH OVER 80,000
MEMBERS DEDICATED TO ENSURING
THAT CALIFORNIA IS A PLACE OF
ABUNDANT, SECURE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR ALL. TODAY, I STAND
BEFORE YOU TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR AB 2553, AUTHORED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN
REGARDING MAJOR TRANSIT STOPS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS DETERMINED
THAT PROXIMITY TO A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP PRODUCES TRANSIT
BENEFITS AND HAS INCENTIVIZED
SUCH PROJECTS IN MANY WAYS. THE
FOLLOWING LAWS AND PROCESSES USE
PROXIMITY TO A MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP SB 2097 AB 2011 DENSITY
BONUSES. SEVERAL CEQA EXEMPTIONS
ARE ALSO BASED ON ON MAJOR
TRANSIT STOPS. THE VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED, CEQA IMPACTS AS WELL,
AND THE REASON THAT THAT ALL
THESE RECENT BILLS PROVIDE THESE
BENEFITS IS BECAUSE TRANSIT
PROXIMATE PROJECTS HAVE GREATER
TRANSIT TRANSIT RIDERSHIP,
RIGHT, AND LESS IMPACT ON
TRAFFIC RIGHT. EXISTING LAW
RECOGNIZES THAT PROJECTS THAT
ARE PROXIMATE TO TRANSIT SHOULD
PAY LOWER TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES.
HOWEVER, THE DEFINITION OF
TRANSIT STATION IS CURRENTLY
VERY NARROW AND ONLY APPLIES TO
PROJECTS IN THE MOST URBANIZED
SETTINGS. THE REALITY IS THAT
MANY PROJECTS ARE CLOSE TO HIGH
QUALITY TRANSIT AND HAVE HIGH
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP, BUT ARE NOT
CLOSE TO A TRANSIT STATION AS
CLEARLY DEFINED. AS A RESULT,
MANY TRANSIT PROXIMATE PROJECTS
ARE PAYING HIGHER FEES. AB 2553
CLARIFIES WHEN LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS MUST IMPOSE LOWER
TRUCK TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES ON
TRANSIT, PROXIMATE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS, AND ALSO UPDATES
THE DEFINITION OF MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP TO REFLECT POST-COVID
SERVICE LEVELS AND ON DEMAND
TRANSIT PROJECTS ARE CURRENTLY
NOT MOVING FORWARD DUE TO HIGH
COST, RIGHT? THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF. SO
ANYTHING THAT HELPS REDUCE COSTS
TO HELPS INCREASE HOUSING
PRODUCTION. SO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY, I URGE YOU TO
VOTE AYE ON AB 2553. LET'S WORK
TOGETHER TO CREATE A CALIFORNIA
THAT WELCOMES EVERYBODY WHERE
EVERY PERSON HAS THE CHANCE TO
LIVE IN A SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOME,
IN A THRIVING COMMUNITY AND
TODAY WITH ME IS HOLLY FROM MANY
REPRESENTING SPUR, THE SPONSOR
OF THE BILL AND SHE IS AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE ABOUT THE BILL. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO
THE SECOND WITNESS, WE ACHIEVED,
QUORUM, MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CARILLO
Ã. PRESENT. PRESENT WALDRON.
PRESENT WALDRON. PRESENT. SALLY.
HERE SALLY. PRESENT. HANEY
PRESENT. HANEY. PRESENT. CORA
CHACO. PRESENT. CHACO. PRESENT
RAMOS. HERE. RAMOS. PRESENT.
WARD WILSON. THANK YOU. A SECOND
WITNESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
SPUR. AND THAT'S THE SAN
FRANCISCO PLANNING AND URBAN
RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, WHO HAS
BEEN THE PROUD SPONSOR OVER THE
LAST FOUR YEARS OF MANY BILLS,
THAT HAVE BEEN INCREASING
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND
AVAILABILITY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS LIST INCLUDES
AB 2097, AUTHORED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER FRIEDMAN, WHICH
WAIVE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS NEAR MAJOR
TRANSIT, AND IT RIGHTFULLY DID
NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A
TRANSIT STATION OR A TRANSIT
STOP TREATING THEM EQUALLY.
BECAUSE ALL OF THESE PROJECTS
ARE KNOWN TO BE INCREASING
RIDERSHIP AND ULTIMATELY
REDUCING THOSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
SO IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT THE
MITIGATION FEE ACT CONSIDERS
THESE, PROPERTIES IN THE SAME
WAY. I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE
THAT THIS IS NOT A MANDATORY
REDUCTION IN FEES. IT'S JUST
REQUIRING THE CITIES TO
CONSIDER, THAT THEY ARE NEAR
TRANSIT. THERE'S NO MANDATORY
REDUCTION, BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL
THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE
THAT. AND THE FEES WILL BE
REDUCED BECAUSE OF THOSE
REDUCTIONS IN IMPACT. SO AGAIN,
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
ROGER DICKINSON ON BEHALF OF
CIVIC WELL, FORMERLY THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION IN SUPPORT
. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DAVID AZEVEDO, AARP
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT AARP.
SEAMUS GARRITY WITH LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF
SANDHILL PROPERTIES AND BUCKEYE
PROPERTIES. THANK YOU. PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION ARE
THERE ANY. SEEING NONE. HOW
ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
GOING ON THE RECORD IN
OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE? NOT
SEEING ANY. I'LL OPEN IT TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
OR DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED
MEASURE? NO. WITH THAT, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FREEMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
FOR WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE
ON THIS BILL AND FOR ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WITH
THOSE THAT WILL BE VOTING AYE ON
THIS. MEASURE. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION TO MOVE THE BILL? IS
THERE A SECOND MOTION? AND
SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. CARILLO. AYE.
CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON SALLY.
SALLY AYE. HANEY. AYE. HANEY.
AYE. CORA PACHECO. CHACO. AYE.
RAMOS AYE. RAMOS. AYE. WARD.
WILSON DO YOU HAVE A FIVE? THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IT IS A50. THE
BILL IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. AND WE HAVE YOUR THIRD BILL,
NEXT ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN AB
2037 12. RIGHT. ARE YOU READY?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
ANALYSIS ON THIS BILL AND FOR MY
COMMENTS. I WANT TO JUST TAKE US
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT I
DID ABOUT PARKING 2097 AND
EXPLAIN WHY WE'VE INTRODUCED
THIS BILL. THIS IS A BILL, BY
THE WAY, WITH NO OPPOSITION THAT
WE KNOW OF, NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITION. WHEN I INTRODUCED
2097, THE IDEA WAS THAT WE
WANTED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO
USE TRANSIT. WE WANTED TO CREATE
MORE HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA. WE
WANTED TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS THAT
WERE BUILDING NEAR TRANSIT TO
DECIDE HOW MUCH PARKING THEIR
DEVELOPMENTS NEEDED. 2097 WAS
SUPPORTED AND A BIPARTISAN
BASIS. WE HAD REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE
IF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
IMPLICATIONS AND THE GOAL WAS
THAT PEOPLE WOULD BUILD WITH THE
AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY
THOUGHT THEIR RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS WOULD NEED, AND IN
SOME, IN MANY CASES, THEY WERE
GOING TO BE BUILDING THESE
PROJECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEAR
TRANSIT FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE
USING TRANSIT AND PEOPLE WHO AND
PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT BE, PAYING
FOR A PARKING SPACE THAT THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO USE OR NEED TO
USE, THAT THEY WOULD SELF-SELECT
INTO THESE BUILDINGS. AND WHAT
WE TOLD NEIGHBORHOODS, EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS WAS THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE THAT THOSE IF PROJECTS ARE
BEING BUILT WITHOUT WITHOUT
PARKING OR WITHOUT THE SAME
PARKING THAT YOU'RE USED TO,
IT'S NOT GOING TO BURDEN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE'RE
PUTTING THESE BUILDINGS NEAR
TRANSIT SO THAT THEY WILL USE
TRANSIT. BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED
IN SOME PARTS OF MY DISTRICT IN
LOS ANGELES, THE VERY DENSEST
PARTS OF LOS ANGELES IS LUXURY
HOUSING DEVELOPERS. DEVELOPERS
ARE BUILDING ON THE COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS WHERE WE HAVE OUR
HIGHEST AMOUNT OF BUS. BUSSES
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. BUT
OFFERING UNITS WITHOUT PARKING,
TELLING THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY
WILL GIVE THEM THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING PASSES THAT WERE MEANT
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE
ADJACENT AND BEHIND THESE
BUILDINGS. THAT WAS NEVER
INTENDED BY OUR BILL. AND WHAT
THIS BILL IS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS
GIVE SOME LOCAL CONTROL BACK TO
OUR CITIES, TO GIVE THEM THE
DISCRETION TO SAY NO TO THOSE
DEVELOPERS CGRTS TO SAY IF
YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD HUNDREDS
OF UNITS WITHOUT PARKING, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO BURDEN
THOSE ALREADY PARKING BURDENED
NEIGHBORHOODS BEHIND YOU. RENT
TO PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO USE
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR BUILD
THE PARKING THAT YOUR PROJECT
NEEDS. WE ARE TRYING TO ALLOW
CITIES THE DISCRETION THÀNH TO
NOT IMPACT ALREADY OVERBURDENED
NEIGHBORHOODS. SO LOOKING AT THE
ANALYSIS, THE FIRST PART TALKS
ABOUT PREVENTING A LOCAL
AUTHORITY FROM ISSUING PERMITS.
BUT ACTUALLY WE ARE DOING THE
OPPOSITE. OUR BILL PREVENTS
CGRTS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
AND MANY OF YOUR MUNICIPALITIES
FROM SAYING NO TO GIVING
PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS,
EVEN TO A BUILDING THAT'S ADDING
400 OR 500 UNITS. THAT CAN BE A
HUGE BURDEN ON AN EXISTING,
ALREADY OVERCROWDED
NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE DID NOT INTEND WHEN WE
WROTE THIS BILL. WE WERE TRYING
TO ENCOURAGE MORE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION USE. WE'RE NOT
SAYING THE CITIES CAN'T GIVE THE
PARKING. WE'RE SAYING MAKE A
FINDING. WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE
THEM SOME DISCRETION BACK OVER
ISSUING THOSE PERMITS. SECONDLY,
THE BILL TALKS ABOUT WHAT ABOUT
THE HARM FOR A RESIDENT OF THOSE
BUILDINGS WHO NOW CAN'T HAVE A
PARKING SPACE? AND I WOULD SAY,
WHAT ABOUT THE HARM TO TAKING
AWAY THE PARKING NOW FROM THAT
RESIDENT WHO'S ALREADY IN THAT
OVERCROWDED PARKING
NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO IS IN AN OLD
EIGHT PLEX FROM THE 1950S THAT
ONLY HAD 3 OR 4 SPACES, THAT'S
RELYING ON THAT PERMIT PARKING
SPOT. THOSE RESIDENTS RIGHT NOW
ARE RIGHTFULLY SAYING, HOW CAN
YOU NOW GIVE 500 NEW PERMITS IN
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT WAS NOT
THE INTENT OF 2097. 2097 WAS
DONE NEAR TRANSIT SO THAT THOSE
RESIDENTS WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF TRANSIT. SO THIS BILL IS JUST
TRYING TO ALLOW THESE CITIES TO
HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
DISCRETION WHEN ABOUT
PREFERENTIAL PARKING. NOW YOU
MIGHT SAY, WHY DON'T THEY JUST
REZONE THE AREA SO THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE PREFERENTIAL PARKING?
UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, THE CITY ATTORNEY
THERE AND MY UNDERSTANDING HAS
SAID THAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
THAT NEVER HAD HOUSING ARE NOW
GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS
PREFERENTIAL PARKING SYSTEM AND
FOR CITY OF L.A, THEY'D HAVE TO
GO THROUGH A REALLY LONG PROCESS
TO HAVE PUBLIC PROCEDURES, TO
HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND TO
REZONE. MEANWHILE THESE
BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THE CITY
ATTORNEY HAS DECIDED IT ARE
GETTING JUST BY JUST BY APPLYING
ALL THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL OF THOSE
RESIDENTS, IT'S AN UNFAIR BURDEN
ON THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS
WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
ANTICIPATED IN OUR BILL. THIS
CONCERN WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO ME
OR SENATOR PORTENTINO WHEN WE
WERE WRITING THE BILL. I DON'T
THINK ANYONE EXPECTED THESE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS TO BE
DESIGNATED AS BEING A PART OF
THOSE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
ZONES, BECAUSE THEY NEVER WERE
FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING, SO THIS
REALLY IS JUST OUR ATTEMPT TO
HELP GIVE THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, IN THIS CASE, SOME
CONTROL AND TO PUT OUR BILL BACK
TO THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS MEANT
TO BE, WHICH WAS BUILD THE
HOUSING IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD
IT WITHOUT PARKING ADJACENT TO
HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT FOR TRANSIT
USERS, NOT TO JUST BRING
HUNDREDS WHAT WE'RE
ATTEMPTING TO DO. I THINK IT'S
REALLY REASONABLE. IT'S GIVING
SOME LOCAL CONTROL BACK THE
OPPOSITION THAT WE KNOW OF, NOT
BY THE SUPPORTERS OF 2097.
CERTAINLY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT
LA DOESN'T MOVE VERY FAST. I'VE
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MY
COUNCIL MEMBER WHO IS NOT JUST
ENTHUSIASTIC, SHE WANTS THIS TO
HAVE AN URGENCY ON IT BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE GIVING THESE
PARKING PASSES TO THESE NEW
LUXURY DEVELOPMENTS. THESE
AREN'T EVEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY'RE
THEY'RE OKAY WITH. THESE ARE
LUXURY HOUSING MARKET RATE
DEVELOPERS THAT ARE SAYING, OH,
NO, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD IT
WITHOUT PARKING AND GIVE EVERY
UNIT THREE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
PASSES. IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT
WHAT WE INTENDED. AND I WOULD
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE SO WE CAN
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION
MOVING FORWARD. AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOUR
COMMITTEE. IF WE CAN GET
THROUGH, WE'LL HAPPY TO ADDRESS
ANY OF YOUR CONCERNS TO MOVE
THIS SUPPORT? I SEE ONE COMING UP.
YES. THANK YOU. HI, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR CARILLO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS NATALIE BROWN WITH THE
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
LEAGUE, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO
SECOND WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN HAS SAID AND TO EXPRESS
CALIFORNIA'S NEED FOR THE SMART
AND RESPONSIBLE PARKING REFORMS
PUT FORTH IN AB 2712, AB 2712
RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO SUPPORT
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT
ENCROACHING ON AND OVERCROWDING
THE CURB PARKING THAT EXISTING
RESIDENTS RELY ON. BY EXCLUDING
LOW AND NO PARKING DEVELOPMENT
FROM PREFERENTIAL PARKING
DISTRICTS, AB 2712 WILL ONE
PREVENT INFILL DEVELOPMENT FROM
DISPLACING NEIGHBORS FROM THE
CURB PARKING THEY CURRENTLY RELY
ON? TWO IT WILL DIFFUSE
OPPOSITION TO NEW HOUSING
BUSINESSES ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THEY'LL OVERCROWD NEARBY STREET
PARKING, MAKING IT EASIER TO GET
IMPORTANT PROJECTS OFF THE
GROUND. THREE IT WILL ENSURE
THAT TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT, AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN SAID, IS ACTUALLY
TRANSIT ORIENTED. THESE PROJECTS
SHOULD SUPPORT CAR FREE TRANSIT
USING TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS, NOT
SIMPLY PARKING DEMANDS TO
ALREADY CROWDED STREETS. AB 2712
IS A WIN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR EXISTING NEIGHBORS, AND FOR
CLIMATE AND PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS.
WE KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA CANNOT
MEET ITS LONG TIME CLIMATE GOALS
WITHOUT REFORMING OUR LAND USE
PATTERNS TO CURB VMT GROWTH, WE
KNOW THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WON'T TRULY BE AFFORDABLE AS
LONG AS LOW WAGE HOUSEHOLDS ARE
DISPLACED TO THE URBAN PERIPHERY
AND PRICED OUT OF TRANSIT,
ACCESS AND PROXIMITY TO ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES. WHERE TRANSIT IS
AN OPTION, WE KNOW THAT
MANDATORY PARKING MINIMUMS
IMPOSE ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED
PRICES ON RESIDENTS THAT THEY DO
NOT NEED, AND POTENTIALLY CANNOT
AFFORD. BY ADDRESSING CONCERNS
ABOUT REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS
AND REDUCING OPPOSITION TO
NEARBY LOW INCOME HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, AB 2712 FOSTERS
INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT
COMMUNITIES AND BY CURBING URBAN
SPRAWL AND INDUCED CAR USAGE, AB
2712 CONTRIBUTES TO REDUCTIONS
IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED,
THEREBY REDUCING AIR POLLUTION,
MITIGATING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, ADVANCING
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE GOALS,
WHICH IS A WIN FOR EVERYONE. AB
2712 IS AN INCREDIBLY CREATIVE
AND INCREDIBLY PRAGMATIC
APPROACH TO OUR CLIMATE AND
HOUSING CRISES THAT SUPPORTS
BOTH EQUITY AND EXISTING
COMMUNITY NEEDS, WHILE GIVING
POWER BACK TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO ADDRESS THESE
PROBLEMS. THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT
AND THOUGHTFUL, AND I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE
A SECOND PRIMARY WITNESS IN
SUPPORT. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO GO ON
THE RECORD IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ON THE BILL. SEEING
NONE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE? NOT
SEEN ONE. HOW ABOUT MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC ON ON THE RECORD.
DON'T SEE ANYBODY. I'LL BRING
THIS BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY?
YEAH, NO. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR. I THINK THAT
YOUR PRESENTATION HELPED TO
CLARIFY FOR ME, SOME OF THE
MOTIVATION BEHIND IT. AND
DEFINITELY I APPRECIATE THE
ANALYSIS AND THE WORK OF THE
CHAIR AS WELL, YOU KNOW, I IT
DOES READ TO ME AS, AS A, A SORT
OF A CLEAN UP BILL AND ITS OWN
WAY. I MEAN, CERTAINLY THE
INTENTION OF LIMITING OR NOT
REQUIRING, THESE KIND OF PARKING
MINIMUMS AND HAVING HIGH LEVELS
OF PARKING NEAR TRANSIT, THE
INTENTION OF THAT WAS NOT THEN
TO HAVE ALL FOLKS THEN GO PARK
IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
AND, AND, AND THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY
SEEMS TO ME SOMETHING THAT THAT
DOES NEED TO BE DEALT WITH. I
GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WHO IS
THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO,
TO, TO, TO DEAL WITH IT AND
WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO
BE, EXTENDING, THESE KINDS OF,
OF, RESTRICTIONS FROM HERE OR
WHAT PREVENTS THE LOCALITIES
FROM DOING IT. AND I WONDER IF
YOU IF YOU MIGHT SPEAK TO THAT A
LITTLE BIT MORE. I MEAN, IS IT
POSSIBLE IF THERE WAS A LARGER
DEVELOPMENT? AND IT ALSO
RESONATES FOR ME, THAT PART OF
THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THIS
WILL MAKE NEIGHBORHOODS MORE
LIKELY TO OPPOSE NEW HOUSING,
BECAUSE WE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT THE
CONCERN AROUND PARKING, AND I
THINK THE PRIOR LAW THAT YOU DID
REALLY GAVE US A GREAT TOOL
THERE TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO
FLOOD YOUR STREETS IN LIMITED
PARKING AND IMPACT YOUR LIMITED
PARKING, BUT CAN THEY CURRENTLY
SORT OF CARVE OUT AN INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT ARE WHAT IS
WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS
TO THEM DOING THIS AS OPPOSED TO
US DOING THIS? THANK YOU. SO
UNDER 2097 THEY CANNOT REQUIRE
THE PARKING ON SITE. SO WE TOOK
THAT ABILITY AWAY FROM THEM WITH
2097 AND WHAT WE HAD TOLD THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS WE KNOW WE ALL
NEED NEW PARKING. WE KNOW WE
NEED MORE HOUSING. YOU DON'T
WANT THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS IS A WAY
THAT WE CAN ADD HOUSING WITHOUT
ADDING TONS OF CONGESTION,
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
PARKING, THESE ARE PEOPLE, THEN
THAT WILL USE THE HOUSING WHO
ARE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION. AND AS A WITNESS
SAID, IF YOU'RE NOW GIVING
EVERYBODY PREFERENTIAL PARKING,
NOT ONLY ARE YOU BRINGING ALL
THAT NEW CONGESTION AT THE CITY,
YOU'RE ALSO TAKING THAT CURB
PARKING AWAY FROM THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS WHO ARE REALLY
RELYING ON THE CURB PARKING. SO
IN SOME CITIES IN A SMALL CITY,
THEY MAY BE ABLE TO ACT QUICKLY
TO CHANGE THEIR PREFERENTIAL
PARKING ZONE. ALTHOUGH A
DEVELOPER COULD PROBABLY COUNTER
AND SAY THAT IT'S SOME KIND OF
SPOT ZONING TO JUST ALL OF A
SUDDEN WILLY NILLY TAKE AWAY
PARKING, YOU KNOW, FROM THIS
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, WHAT'S IN
THE CITY OF LA, THOUGH, FOR THEM
TO DO THIS FOR ALL THEIR
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WHERE THEIR
MAPS OF WHERE THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING ZONES ARE, ARE REALLY
JUST NOT THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE
KIND OF FUZZY IS WHAT'S HAPPENED
AND A LITTLE BIT FUZZY. THE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS THAT NEVER
ALLOWED HOUSING IN THE PAST
BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE
LEGISLATION WE PASSED. AND THEY
CAN ALL OF A SUDDEN BUILD
HOUSING IN THOSE PLACES. NOW,
THEIR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID,
NOPE, THAT'S IN THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING ZONE. AND FOR CITY, THE
CITY OF L.A, TO UNDO THAT.
THEY'RE THEIR PLANNING PROCESS
IS A COUPLE OF YEARS LIKE THEY
HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS.
THEY HAVE TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT. MAYBE IT HAS TO
GO INTO THEIR GENERAL PLAN. THEY
JUST CAN'T MOVE THAT FAST. AND
THEN THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE A
HEARING. AND WHO KNOWS, MAYBE
THE DEVELOPERS OR THE PROPERTY
OWNER IS GOING TO COME AND SAY
LIKE, NO, WE'VE NEVER HAD IT,
BUT WE'RE NOT THINKING OF
BUILDING SOME GIANT, YOU KNOW,
SOME GIANT DEVELOPMENT. AND WE
WANT PREFERENTIAL PARKING, YOU
KNOW, FOR ALL THAT CURB SPACE,
WE WANT TO LET THE CITIES NOW
HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A
SURGICAL APPROACH TO THOSE AREAS
IN TERMS OF GIVING THE
PREFERENTIAL PARKING PASSES. SO
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PARKING
ORDINANCES. WE'RE JUST SAYING
THE CITIES DON'T HAVE TO GIVE
THEM THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
FOR AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S BY THE WAY, BEHIND THEM.
IT'S NOT EVEN WHERE THESE
BUILDINGS ARE. IT'S LIKE THEY'RE
GOING TO WALK, YOU KNOW, A
COUPLE BLOCKS AND TAKE UP THE
PARKING IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WILL SAY FROM MY EXPERIENCE
AROUND PARKING, THIS IS A HIGHLY
FRAUGHT AREA FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. WHEN I WAS ON THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THERE WAS
ALWAYS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WANTED
THESE ADDITIONAL PERMITS OR
WANTED THEM EXTENDED IN SOME
WAYS, AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT
TO CHANGE FROM FROM FROM THAT.
IN FACT, FOR SAN FRANCISCO, IT'S
THE SAN FRANCISCO MTA THAT HAS
THAT AUTHORITY. AND SO THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS DIDN'T EVEN HAVE
THAT AUTHORITY. SO IT DOES END
UP BEING SOMETHING THAT'S HARD
TO DO QUICKLY. AND SO I THINK
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING SENSE IN
TERMS OF THEIR INABILITY TO SORT
OF DO THIS IN A, IN A MORE
SPECIFIC WAY AND FULFILL THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION.
EXACTLY. THE INTENT WAS ALWAYS
LESS CARS, MORE HOUSING, LESS
CARS. LET PEOPLE SELF-SELECT IN.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN LOS
ANGELES WHO TAKE THE BUS AND WHO
TAKE UBER AND LYFT THESE DAYS,
AND SO WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE THAT CHEAPER UNIT,
POTENTIALLY
. THESE ARE MARKET RATE
DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SAYING
WE'RE JUST GOING TO NOT SPEND
THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS, BECAUSE
WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET THEM,
YOU KNOW, TWO 300 PARKING
PASSES, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR
BUILDING AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD,
THOSE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS,
THEY CANNOT BEAR THAT. AND YOU
KNOW, THEN YOU'RE REALLY JUST
BRINGING IN ALL THOSE ADDITIONAL
CARS IT'S CAUSING REAL EFFECTS.
AND THIS WAS UNINTENDED IN OUR
BILL. AND THIS IS A CLEAN UP
BILL RESPONDING TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT
WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THE
CONCERNS OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND, ABSOLUTELY, THE KNEE JERK
RESPONSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS
TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO OPPOSE
ALL HOUSING. WE WANT NO NEW
HOUSING. WE'RE GOING TO DO
WHATEVER WE CAN TO KEEP HOUSING
OUT. NOW BECAUSE OF THIS. AND
THAT'S A TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCE OF
THIS, THIS, THIS LOOPHOLE. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS WITH MR. KELLY?
SORRY. PARKING. THIS IS WHY I
DID NOT RUN FOR LOCAL OFFICE TO
PUT THESE ISSUES SO THIS IS VERY
HARD BECAUSE ON ONE HAND, I, I'M
KIND OF A ABSOLUTIST ON LIKE
PUBLIC PROPERTY SHOULD BE
PUBLIC. I DON'T, YOU KNOW,
NECESSARILY LIKE THAT SOME
PEOPLE HAVE PREFERENTIAL ACCESS
TO SOMETHING THAT'S PUBLIC. BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO
UNDERSTAND HOW FRUSTRATING IT
IS. YOU'RE AT WORK ALL DAY,
YOU'RE EXHAUSTED AND YOU WANT TO
COME HOME, AND THE LAST THING
YOU WANT TO DO IS DRIVE AROUND
AND LOOK FOR PARKING, YOU KNOW,
AND SO IT'S A HARD ISSUE, I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE
SOMETHING IN THE LAW NOW THAT
THAT DENIES THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DISCRETION TO ISSUE THIS
PREFERENTIAL PARKING BECAUSE
YOUR BILL IS KIND OF A BAR OR IT
, IT BLOCKS, ISSUING ANY PERMITS
UNLESS THERE'S A FINDING THAT IT
WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
AREA. SO IT IS I VIEW IT AS
LIMITING, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
AUTHORITY IN THAT SENSE. SO
MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME. AM I
MISSING SOMETHING? YEAH. IT'S SO
INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THE
STRONGEST SUPPORT ARE THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, THE
COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE DISTRICT
WHERE THIS IS BECOMING A
PROBLEM. AND THEY WANT SHE WANTS
THE ABILITY TO DECIDE WON BY
CASE BY CASE, WHETHER OR NOT
THAT BUILDING SHOULD HAVE
PREFERENTIAL PARKING, WHETHER
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN ABSORB IT.
YOU KNOW, THEY WANT THAT
FLEXIBILITY AND BASICALLY THEY
DON'T HAVE IT BECAUSE THESE
DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING INTO
AREAS THAT HAVE NOT HAD HOUSING
BEFORE. SO THEY WERE SORT OF
UNINTENTIONAL PUT INTO THE
PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE
BECAUSE THESE ARE COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS THAT UNTIL THE STATE
KIND OF OVERRULED THAT LOCAL
ZONING THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, AND
SAID, OH NO, YOU CAN NOW BUILD
HOUSING ON THESE COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS THAT WERE JUST
COMMERCIAL BEFORE. THEY WERE
JUST RETAIL AND OFFICE BEFORE.
AND BECAUSE THEIR MAP WAS REALLY
INTENDED FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S
THIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
BEHIND IT, THEY JUST GOT CAUGHT
UP IN THAT. SO THEY FEEL THEY'RE
A CITY ATTORNEY. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THEIR CITY
ATTORNEY HAS BASICALLY SAID,
NOPE, WE CAN'T DENY IT. IF YOU
KNOW THEY'RE IN THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING ZONE. SO EVERY ONE OF
THEIR RESIDENTS GETS IT. JUST
JUST WHEN THEY APPLY FOR IT. SO
THEY FEEL THAT THEY THEMSELVES
CAN'T DENY IT. THEY WOULD HAVE
TO REDO THEIR GENERAL PLAN AND
TAKE THAT AREA OUT AGAIN. YEAH.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO LIKE A
CONDITIONAL USE OR I DON'T KNOW
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TERMS, BUT,
YEAH, THEY JUST SAYING IT'S JUST
TOO DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO, TO
CHANGE IT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. IT
TAKES THEM. THEY HAVE TO GO
THROUGH A LONG PLANNING PROCESS
AND A LOT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND SO THEY WOULD LIKE AND
THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT. THEY
WANT TO SORT OF STOP THIS FROM
HAPPENING NOW WHILE THEY UNDERGO
THAT PROCESS. THERE'S TOO MANY
PROJECTS COMING IN ASKING Dð
BUILDING NO PARKING AND ASKING
FOR HUNDREDS OF PREFERENTIAL
PARKING PERMITS. SO THEY WANT TO
STOP IT. THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
ASKED ME TO DO THIS ARE THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE SAYING,
LET'S STOP THIS SO WE CAN SPEND
THE TIME TO GO THROUGH AND
DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THIS AND
WHERE. I DON'T MIND KEEPING IT
FOR SMALL UNITS. IF SOMEONE'S
ADDING TEN, YOU KNOW, TEN UNITS,
FIVE UNITS. FINE THESE ARE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE ADDING 400
UNITS AND ASKING FOR LIKE 800
PREFERENTIAL PARKING PASSES. THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW, EVEN
WITH THOSE PASSES, RESIDENTS
STILL HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND TO
LOOK FOR PARKING BECAUSE THESE
ARE OLD BUILT OUT NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE MIDDLE OF
LOS ANGELES. IF YOU KNOW LA,
LIKE, THIS IS THE AREA AROUND,
YOU KNOW, THE MUSEUM, AROUND THE
LACMA, AROUND THE TAR PIT
MUSEUM. LIKE FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE
THERE, THESE ARE OLD, BUILT WHAT
THEY THOUGHT WERE BUILT OUT
NEIGHBORHOODS. NOW, I APPRECIATE
THE CONCERN. IT'S A REAL
CONCERN. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
TOO SYMPATHETIC TO GOVERNMENT.
PEOPLE WHO SAY SOMETHING IS TOO
MUCH WORK. YEAH. SO I'M A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT ONE SIZE FITS
ALL, BUT BUT I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR PASSION. YOU'RE VERY, VERY
PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS. AND I DO
THINK YOU'RE VERY GENUINE ABOUT
IT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT, SO I
THINK I'VE SORT OF EXPRESSED MY
PERSONAL CONCERNS, JUST TO BE
CLEAR, THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THE
WORK. THEY'RE PROCESS WILL TAKE
A COUPLE OF YEARS. THAT'S THAT'S
REALLY THE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE OF
ALL OF THOSE PUBLIC PROCESS
THAT'S BUILT IN AND THE REVIEWS
THEY HAVE TO DO, THEY'RE WILLING
TO DO THE WORK. THEY'RE STARTING
RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY'RE SAYING,
WE NEED YOU TO STOP WHAT WHAT WE
DID WHILE THEY'RE UNDERGOING THE
PROCESS. MAYBE WE CAN STREAMLINE
THE PROCESS FOR THEM. MAYBE
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS
WAS I WAS GOING TO ASK. IT IS
VERY MUCH BROAD APPROACH VERSUS,
YOU KNOW, THE EXAMPLE GIVEN AND
THE SPECIFIC THERE'S A SPECIFIC
THING HAPPENING IN THE STATE AS
A RESULT OF PREVIOUS BILL. SO A
LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE DO OUR
LEGISLATION AND WE FIND LIKE,
OH, IN REAL LIFE, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S AN ISSUE, I NEED TO FIX
IT, BUT IS IT IS IT A STATE WIDE
ISSUE OR IS IT A THAT SPECIFIC
ISSUE. SO IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE
TAKING A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT IS
HAPPENING AS A RESULT OF A BILL
AND APPLYING IT STATEWIDE. AND
SO I JUST WONDER WHAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE ON OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. ÓRDENES. YEAH,
AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE. AND
WE ARE WILLING TO NARROW IT.
I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OTHER
AREAS LIKE SAN FRANCISCO, LET'S
SAY, THAT HAVE THIS ISSUE,
WHETHER THIS IS POPPED UP THERE
YET AS AN ISSUE. BUT IT IF LÀ IS
ANY EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT SO. SO I'M
FINE WITH MAKING I MEAN, I CAN
GO BACK TO LÀ SEE WHO KIND OF
WANTS IN WANTS OUT. WE CAN
NARROW THIS. THAT'S NOT A YOU
KNOW, I'M FINE WITH THAT. WE'RE
TRYING TO JUST AVOID UNINTENDED
PROBLEMS AROUND PERMIT PARKING
PASSES IS DUE TO OUR BILL. AND I
JUST FEEL LIKE OTHER AREAS MIGHT
RUN INTO THE SAME THING, AND
AGAIN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY
MAY NOT. SO I'M FINE WITH
NARROWING IT TO. AND THERE'S NOT
A AND I WAS TRYING TO LOOK FOR A
WAY TO, ALLOW IT TO BE A TOOL
AND A TOOL CHEST VERSUS IT JUST
BEING BLANKET. BUT THAT WAS MY
THOUGHTS, YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY,
YOU KNOW, AFTER THE BRIEFING,
AFTER STAFF BRIEFING. AND THEN
WE HAD THE TALK. AND SO DO YOU
SEE ANY WAY TO ALLOW IT TO BE A
TOOL IN THE TOOL CHEST VERSUS
JUST AN ABSOLUTE EVERYBODY'S.
THANK YOU. THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE
AND I'LL TELL YOU THERE'S
ANOTHER BILL ON THE SENATE SIDE
THAT'S A SIMILAR BILL WITHOUT
THE, THE PROCEEDING THAT WE PUT
IN THIS TO ALLOW THEM TO GO
THROUGH FINDINGS WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO GIVE THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING PASS BECAUSE WE WERE
TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT
MORE FLEXIBLE SO THAT IF THEY
REALLY WANT TO GIVE THAT, LIKE I
WAS TRYING TO ENVISION, MAYBE
THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE
PEOPLE HAVE PERMIT PARKING
BECAUSE JUST DURING THE DAY
THERE'S SOME BIG MALL, YOU KNOW,
BUT AT NIGHT THERE'S PLENTY OF
PARKING FOR RESIDENTS. WE WANT
IT TO BE ABLE TO FOR THEM TO
MAKE THAT FINDING AND SAY, NO,
NO, WE CAN GIVE THIS NEW 300
UNIT BUILDING THE PARKING PASSES
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
IN THE BILL THE IDEA THAT THEY
COULD GO THROUGH A PROCEDURE AND
MAKE THOSE FINDINGS WHERE THAT
WAS OUR ATTEMPT TO DO EXACTLY
THAT. THE OTHER BILL ON THE
OTHER SIDE DOESN'T HAVE THAT. IT
JUST REMOVES THEIR ABILITY, YOU
KNOW, JUST FULL STOP. AND THIS
DOESN'T BUT THIS DOESN'T ALLOW
EVEN IN A LEGACY PROJECT
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY
TO REDUCE PARKING IS FAIRLY NEW
IN COMPARISON, IN OUR TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH ARE
A LOT OF TIMES ARE DOWNTOWN, YOU
KNOW, TYPE AREAS. AND SO THIS
DOESN'T ALLOW AND SO A LOT OF
THOSE THEY, THEY HAD MORE
PARKING, BUT THEY'VE SINCE
REDUCED. AND THEY DO THEY DO
THIS PREFERENTIAL PASS JUST
BECAUSE IT'S NOW DIFFICULT
BECAUSE NOW THAT, ADDITIONAL
HOUSING HAS COME UP, IT'S, IT'S,
IT'S CAUSED THIS ISSUE. AND SO
THIS DOESN'T ALLOW THOSE KIND OF
PROJECTS THEN STILL MAKE THE SAME DO THE
SAME PROCEDURE, MAKE THE SAME
FINDINGS, THEY CAN MAKE
FINDINGS. AND THAT WAS OUR
ATTEMPT TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY
TO LOOK AT A PARTICULAR PROJECT
LIKE THAT AND SAY, THIS IS
DIFFERENT. THIS IS UNIQUE. WE
NEED THIS. YOU KNOW, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD'S FINE TO GO
THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND MAKE
THOSE FINDINGS AND THEN GIVE
THEM THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING.
WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY. YOU
KNOW, THIS BILL STILL, THIS IS
ITS FIRST STOP. HOPEFULLY IT
GETS THROUGH AND WE CAN HAVE ALL
THESE CONVERSATIONS, I THINK YOU
SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE
TRYING TO STOP SOMETHING FROM
HAPPENING THAT WE NEVER
ANTICIPATED IN 2097. WE WERE
TRYING TO PROTECT THESE EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS, TRYING TO HELP
THOSE RESIDENTS THAT RIGHT NOW
ARE SO PARKING BURDENED FROM,
YOU KNOW, THIS IMPACT THAT WE
CREATED, YOU KNOW, AND I WILL
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS ONE OF
THE PEOPLE THAT DID THAT. AND WE
DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THIS ISSUE.
AND SO MORE THAN HAPPY TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO NARROW IT, HOW TO
GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW
THE PROTECTION OF THOSE EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND TO STILL HAVE
THE GOALS OF 2097, YOU KNOW,
CONTINUE TO BE FULFILLED. SO AND
THAT GOAL OF BEING ALLOWED ANG
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE MINIMUM
PARKING STANDARDS, RIGHT, IS THE
GOAL THAT YOUR YOUR OVERALL
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. YEAH. OKAY.
WITHOUT HAVING DEVELOPERS
BASICALLY SAY WE'RE STILL GOING
TO DO THE PARKING NOW, BUT WE'RE
JUST GOING TO USE THE EXISTING
CURB SPACE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE
WHAT WE WANTED. AND THAT'S WHAT
NOW THEY'RE DOING WITH THESE
PREFERENTIAL PASSES. I THINK
THERE'S THAT RECOGNITION,
OVERALL, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS
MUCH AS WE WANT PEOPLE TO USE
LESS VEHICLES, PEOPLE STILL USE
VEHICLES AND THAT AND WE HAVEN'T
EVEN WITH, CHANGING OUR HOUSING
LAWS, WE HAVEN'T YET CURBED
FULLY, PEOPLE'S USE OF VEHICLES.
AND I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT BY
GIVING PEOPLE CHOICE. AND YOU
KNOW, INCREASING THE CAPABILITY
OF BEING CHOICE, I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT, LIKE, THE CITIES AND
CHARTER CITIES. I THINK THERE'S
A LINE IN THE ANALYSIS, THAT
TALKS ABOUT THE, THE FINDING AND
DECLARING. AND I THINK THIS IS
IN SOME OTHER LANGUAGE TOO. SO
IT'S NOT JUST THIS ONE, THAT
GREENHOUSE GAS DEPENDANCE ON AND
DEPENDANCE ON CAR USE IS A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN
RATHER THAN MUNICIPAL. SO IT
APPLIES TO CITIES AND CHARTER
CITIES. SO EVEN CHARTER CITIES
WHO CHAPTER ON THEIR OWN DON'T
ARE, AREN'T EXEMPTED FROM THIS.
AND THAT'S AN INTERESTING
CONCEPT. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE
BACK AND FORTH AND I APPRECIATE
YOUR ANSWERS. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBERS PACHECO. SO
I ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS BILL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
IT'S LIKE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL OF
KIND OF qROACH
A BIG ISSUE IN, IN THE CITY
WHERE I LIVE IN DOWNEY, WHERE I
SERVED ON CITY COUNCIL. AND SO
WE ACTUALLY HAD TO HAVE HAVE
PREFERENTIAL PARKING FOR THE
RESIDENTS THAT LIVED IN CERTAIN
SPOTS BECAUSE OF APARTMENTS
NEARBY THAT WERE TAKING THE
PARKING SPACES OF THOSE STREETS.
SO WE ACTUALLY DID PREFERENTIAL
PARKING, BUT ONLY FOR THAT
STREET AND PERMITS HAD TO BE
GIVEN TO THE HOMEOWNERS, AND IT
WOULDN'T BE GIVEN TO THE, YOU
KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN
APARTMENTS, BECAUSE IDEALLY THEY
HAD TO LIVE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD
PARKING SPACES WITHIN. BUT I
THINK THE WHOLE PROBLEM IS SO
MANY PEOPLE OWN VEHICLES. SO
SOMETIMES THESE APARTMENTS AND I
BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUE AS
WELL. YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW,
APARTMENTS THAT MAYBE TWO, THREE
PEOPLE LIVE THERE AND EVERYBODY
HAS A CAR AND EVERYBODY NEEDS TO
GET TO WORK. AND IN DOWNEY, IT'S
REALLY HARD TO GET TO WORK IN A
TIMELY MANNER BECAUSE YOU HAVE
TO CATCH MAYBE THREE DIFFERENT
LIGHT RAILS JUST TO GET THERE.
WHEN DRIVING, A VEHICLE IS
SOMETIMES A LOT EASIER A PROBLEM WITH THAT
ONE SIZE FITS ALL BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, THE SUBURBS SO DIFFERENT
THAN YOU KNOW, LIKE DOWNTOWN
L.A, AND ALSO, I HAD A QUESTION
WITH RESPECT TO LIKE, I LIVE
HERE IN SACRAMENTO NOW, THERE'S
PREFERENTIAL PARKING HERE ALSO
IN SACRAMENTO. SO IF YOU LIVE IN
A CERTAIN AREA, YOU CAN GET A
PERMIT FROM THE CITY. SO SAY,
FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A NEW,
APARTMENT COMPLEX HAPPENING
BEING BUILT, WHICH A LOT OF
DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING WITHIN
THE CITY. IF A NEW, DEVELOPMENT
WAS BUILT, WITH THE CITY STILL
BE ABLE TO GIVE, PERMIT PARKING
OR PREFERENTIAL PARKING FOR
THOSE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE,
BECAUSE AT TIMES THERE'S ALSO AN
EXTRA COST TO EVEN, GET A
PARKING SPOT, WHERE SOMEONE
LIVES AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED
WITH ME, WHERE I HAD TO GET A
PERMIT SO THAT I CAN PARK MY
VEHICLE ON THE STREET, SO IS
THERE NEW DEVELOPMENT EVEN HERE
IN SACRAMENTO, FOR INSTANCE? OR
IS THE CITY GOING TO BE ABLE TO
GIVE PREFERENTIAL PARKING TO THE
RESIDENTS WITHIN THAT APARTMENT
COMPLEX? SO WHAT THE WHAT THIS
BILL WOULD SAY. SO WHAT 2097 DID
THE PREVIOUS BILL IS IT SAID
THAT IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS NEAR
HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT. SO IN
SACRAMENTO, IF YOU ARE AN AREA
THAT WAS NEAR THE LIGHT RAIL,
FOR INSTANCE, A LIGHT RAIL STOP,
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ANY
PARKING, ANY LONGER SO THEY
COULD BUILD AN APARTMENT
BUILDING WITHOUT PUTTING PARKING
INTO IT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING
IS, IF THERE'S PREFERENTIAL
PARKING ALREADY IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S PROBABLY
BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE THAT
PREFERENTIAL PARKING TO FIND A
SPACE. SO WE DON'T WANT A GIANT
BUILDING OF LIKE 400 UNITS TO
COME IN WITHOUT ANY PARKING AT
ALL, AND THEN TO AUTOMATICALLY
GET 800 PARKING PERMITS FOR THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE IT'S GOING
TO OVERWHELM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT'S ALREADY PARKING
CONSTRAINED. WHAT WE WANT TO SAY
IS, IF THE CITY BELIEVES THAT
THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING TO GIVE
THEM THE PERMITS, WE WANT THEM
TO MAKE A FINDING SO THAT THEY
ACTUALLY MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION, RATHER THAN IN
SOME CASES, THEY MIGHT FEEL THAT
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE WANTED TO
GIVE ALL THOSE PERMITS. BUT
RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE UNABLE TO SAY
NO. AT LEAST IN LOS ANGELES,
THEY DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETION
THEY BECAUSE THAT THAT BUILDING
MIGHT BE IN AN AREA THAT'S
ALREADY PREFERENTIAL PARKING.
THEY JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM ALL
THOSE PERMITS, WHETHER THEY
THINK IT'S GOING TO OVERWHELM
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT. WE WANT
TO GIVE THE CITY THE FLEXIBILITY
TO TELL THE DEVELOPER UP FRONT,
LOOK, WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU 800.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM ON THE
STREET FOR YOU TO HAVE 800. IF
YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
PARKING AND PUT SOME PARKING IN,
OR ONLY RENT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
GOING TO BE TAKING THAT LIGHT
RAIL. BUT THE IDEA IS TO PROTECT
AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY
CRITICALLY OVERBURDENED BY ON
STREET PARKING FROM HAVING TO
TRY TO ABSORB AN AMOUNT OF NEW
CARS THAT THEY CAN'T ABSORB INTO
THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S
THAT'S THE IDEA. AND WE DO HAVE
THAT THAT LOOPHOLE IN THE BILL
AS YOU NOT LOOPHOLE. BUT IT'S A,
A PROCESS WHERE A CITY COULD
MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S
FINE TO GIVE, TO GIVE ALL THOSE
PARKING OR MAYBE THEY WANT TO
GIVE HALF, MAYBE THEY'RE GOING
TO GIVE IT FOR A CERTAIN ONE PER
PER APARTMENT INSTEAD OF TWO PER
APARTMENT. BUT WE WANT THE CITY
TO, TO, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT
FINDING. BUT WE DON'T WANT THESE
CITIES THAT RIGHT NOW, MANY OF
THEM HAVE THESE ZONES FROM WAY
BEFORE OUR BILL. SO THEY DIDN'T
ANTICIPATE THAT, YOU KNOW,
BEFORE 2097, THEY WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED PARKING ON THOSE SITES.
LET'S NOT FORGET, MOST OF THEM
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PARKING SO
THEY DIDN'T RECHANGE THEIR
PERMIT PARKING IN SOME OF THESE
AREAS, BECAUSE THE PERMIT
PARKING WAS REALLY INTENDED FOR
OLDER LEGACY BUILDINGS THAT
DIDN'T HAVE PARKING. BUILDINGS
FROM THE 1930S, BUILDINGS FROM
THE 1940S THAT WERE BUILT WITH
LIMITED OR NO PARKING. SO UNTIL
2097, MOST OF THESE CITIES HAD
PARKING CODES. THEY HAD PARKING
MINIMUMS FOR THIS REASON. SO WE
BASICALLY CAUGHT THEM A LITTLE
BIT UNAWARES. AND IT'S GOING TO
TAKE THEM TIME TO GO THROUGH
THEIR PROCESS OF RE DECIDING HOW
MUCH PERMIT PARKING THEY NEEDED.
MAYBE THEY WANT TO BUILD A
MUNICIPAL LOT, MAYBE THEY'RE
GOING TO DO MANAGED PARKING WITH
UNUSED COMMERCIAL SPACES. YOU
KNOW OLD THE SHOPPING MALL THAT
DOESN'T USE THE PARKING AT
NIGHT. SOME CITIES LIKE SAN
FRANCISCO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DONE
PARKING MANAGEMENT LIKE THAT,
BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM A
LITTLE WHILE TO GET UP TO SPEED.
OKAY, LET'S SEE ANY OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. NO WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, MADAM? WELL, I THINK
YOU. I'M SORRY TO TAKE SO MUCH
TIME WITH THIS. I REALLY AM
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, FIX A
SITUATION THAT WE DIDN'T
ANTICIPATE. I THINK WE ALL HAVE
THE SAME GOALS TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING, TO NOT BURDEN
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALREADY
OVERBURDENED. WE ALL KNOW THE
PARKING, YOU KNOW, IS A BIG DEAL
IN THESE OLDER COMMUNITIES. AND
TO STILL GIVE COMMUNITIES THE
CHANCE TO MAKE THOSE MORE SPOT
DECISIONS, WE KNOW MAYBE THIS
ISN'T THERE YET, BUT I WOULD
REALLY LOVE THE ABILITY TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON IT TO GET IT
THERE, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT
RESIDENTS RIGHT NOW WHO ARE
SAYING WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT
TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST THIS NEW
HOUSING BECAUSE OF THIS IMPACT,
AND THAT'S A REALLY BAD OUTCOME.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE SO WE CAN CONTINUE
WORKING ON THIS WITH ALL OF YOU.
OKAY. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
TOO, WITH WITH THE WAY THAT THE
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION WENT,
CLEARLY YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE
ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND I THANK
YOU, YOU AND THE MEMBERS, FOR
THE LIVELY DISCUSSION ON THIS
BILL AND YOU. THERE WAS A LOT OF
REFERENCE TO THE BILL THAT YOU
AUTHORED, 2097, WHICH PROHIBITS
LOCAL AGENCIES FROM IMPOSING
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON
SPECIFIED RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED
WITHIN HALF A MILE OF A PUBLIC
TRANSIT, THIS CHANGE TO LAW MADE
IT EASIER TO BUILD HOUSING NEAR
TRANSIT. THAT IS CORRECT. BUT I
DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
INVEST MORE IN PUBLIC TRANSIT,
WE'RE NOT THERE YET, WE ARE
MAKING VERY BIG EFFORTS IN
BUILDING THE UNITS THAT THAT WE
NEED, OBVIOUSLY. BUT I BELIEVE
THAT, WITHOUT REALLY MATCHING
THAT THAT AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT
IN PUBLIC TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE
, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S FAIR
TO TELL OUR, THE RESIDENTS IN
THOSE REGIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO
GIVE UP THEIR CAR, THAT THEY
HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR FREEDOM TO
BE ABLE TO GO WHERE THEY NEED TO
GO WITHOUT PROVIDING THEM A
RELIABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM.
AND I THINK THAT YOU AND I CAN
AGREE ON THAT, BECAUSE WE JUST
HAVE NOT MADE THAT INVESTMENT,
TO HAVE THAT OPTION, TO HAVE ME
CHOOSE WHETHER I WANT TO USE
PUBLIC TRANSIT, WHERE I HAVE TO
WAIT AN HOUR, MAYBE EVEN LONGER,
AND I HAVE TO BE AT A SPECIFIC
PLACE AT A SPECIFIC TIME TO BE
ABLE TO MEET MY COMMITMENTS. AND
FOR ME TO GIVE UP THAT FREEDOM.
IT'S DIFFICULT, AND YOUR EFFORTS
AND THE LEGISLATURE'S EFFORTS TO
BUILD MORE HOUSING. I THINK
THAT, AGAIN, WE NEED TO MATCH
THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED SO
THAT WE CAN CONVINCE OUR
RESIDENTS THAT THEY HAVE A
CHOICE, A CHOICE THAT CAN BE
RELIABLE AND SAFE AND CLEAN. AND
WE'RE FAILING IN THAT EFFORT, I
BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SINCERE
ABOUT KEEPING YOU WORKING ON
WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
MOVING FORWARD, BUT I JUST DON'T
THINK THAT WE'RE THERE YET,
AGAIN, TRYING TO DICTATE TO
PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TO GIVE UP
THEIR FREEDOM TO BE WHERE THEY
NEED TO BE BECAUSE THERE IS A
BUS STOP WITHIN HALF A MILE. YOU
HAVE TO USE IT, AND THEN YOU
JUST DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE
FREEDOM TO USE YOUR OWN VEHICLES
TO GET TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE,
WHETHER IT'S SCHOOL, WORK,
WHATEVER YOU NEED TO GO, LOCAL
JURISDICTION STILL HAVE
MECHANISMS FOR THEM TO DICTATE.
AND MANAGE THEIR PARKING
REQUIREMENTS. THIS SEEMS TO ME,
SEEMS TO BE A VERY SPECIFIC
ISSUE WITH THE CITY OF LÀ, IT
MAY TRANSFER TO SAN FRANCISCO,
SAN DIEGO, OTHER VERY HIGHLY
URBANIZED AREAS, BUT AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR EFFORT IN
TRYING TO, MAKE US BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE THE HOUSING THAT WE
NEED, I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT
AGAIN, NOT UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO
PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
PUBLIC TRANSIT. I THINK THAT WE
NEED TO MATCH THOSE EFFORTS, SO
WITH THAT, MY, MY, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE STILL VERY RELIANT ON, ON
CARS AND MOBILITY AND PEOPLE'S
LIVELIHOODS. THIS COULD HAVE
DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THAT NEED
THEIR VEHICLE FOR WORK HAS TO
RELY ON INCOME FROM RIDESHARE
AND FOOD DELIVERY ECONOMIES. I
MENTIONED STUDENTS THAT NEED TO
GET TO CLASS QUICKLY, AND THESE
TYPES OF HOUSEHOLDS COULD
EXPERIENCE BARRIERS TO HOUSING
AND HIGH RESOURCE AREAS. AND
AGAIN, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALREADY
HAVE THE DISCRETION TO MAKE
THESE DECISIONS ON PARKING FOR
THEIR JURISDICTIONS. THIS BILL
WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE
DISCRETION AND ADD BURDENS TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT SEEK TO
PROVIDE PARKING, ESPECIALLY ON
AREAS THAT ARE STILL GROWING,
AREAS THAT, LIKE THE ONES THAT
MANY OF US REPRESENT THAT NEED
THE INVESTMENT AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU.
MY BOARD WILL BE. NO ON THIS
BILL, BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE
THE EFFORTS AND YOUR COMMITMENT
TO CONTINUE TO, TO WORK ON, ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE
MOTION IS, DO PASS TO HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. CARILLO NÓ CARILLO.
NO. WALDRON. NO. WALDRON. NO
EASILY. NO SLA. NO. HANEY. HANEY
AYE. CORA. CHACO. NO PACHECO.
NO. RAMOS. RAMOS AYE. WARD.
WILSON. NOT VOTING. WILSON. NOT
VOTING. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR THOSE MEMBERS THAT ARE
NOT HERE YET. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE
RECONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT. IS THERE A
SECOND? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CARILLO. IT'S ON CALL. BUT IT'S
ON CALL. I DON'T THINK THAT WE
CAN DO THAT YET. THE BILL
DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES YET. YEAH
IT'S ON CALL SO WE WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO DO THAT OKAY. RIGHT.
OKAY. OKAY, I'LL MAKE THE
MOTION. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE
IT OKAY. THANK YOU, WITH THAT,
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WE HAD A
QUORUM ESTABLISHED, YEAH, WE
KEEP A QUORUM, BUT I WAS GOING
TO ASK IF WE COULD VOTE ON THE
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
CAN WE DO THAT? BUT WE JUST LOST
. I THINK WE CAN. WE HAD WE HAD
A QUORUM. SO I'D LIKE TO, SEE IF
WE CAN GET A MOTION FOR THE
ITEMS ON CONSENT.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. PACHECO, IS
THERE A SECOND FOR THE CONSENT
ITEMS? IS THERE A SECOND FOR
CONSENT ITEMS? OH, SURE. YEAH BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO. AYE.
WALDRON. WALDRON AYE. AS I SAY,
LEE. AYE HANEY. CORA. PACHECO
PACHECO. AYE. RAMOS. WARD
WILSON. AYE. WILSON. AYE ÓRDENES
FIVE ZERO. THE. WHAT IS FIVE
ZERO? THE BILLS ARE OUT, AND
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
THOSE TO ADD ON, THE NEXT ITEM
ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, AND I SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HARRIS ON AB 2302, WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. YEAH. WHERE ARE
YOU? WELL THANK YOU, CHAIR,
STAFF, YOUR STAFF, MY STAFF AND
OUR ADVOCATE WHO'S HERE TODAY,
TODAY, I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
23. OH TWO, THE LOCAL MEETING.
ACCESSIBILITY ACT AND TO PROVIDE
SOME CONTEXT ABOUT, HOW WE GOT
HERE AND WHAT'S NEEDED IN 2020.
AS WE ALL KNOW, THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC MADE IT UNSAFE FOR
LARGE GROUPS TO MEET IN ONE
PLACE, INCLUDING LOCAL
LEGISLATIVE BODIES. IN RESPONSE,
THE GOVERNOR ISSUED A SERIES OF
EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT
TEMPORARILY RELAXED IN-PERSON
MEETING REQUIREMENTS AND EVEN
AFTER THE EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION
ENDED, LOCAL BODIES FOUND THAT
ALLOWING MEMBERS TO ATTEND
MEETINGS REMOTELY WAS HELPFUL.
WHEN THEY HAD DIFFICULTIES
ATTENDING IN PERSON. IN 2022, AB
2449 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUBIO
ALLOWED MEMBERS OF LOCAL
LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO
PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS REMOTELY
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR
A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF MEETINGS A
YEAR. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY
WHETHER MULTIPLE SESSIONS OF A
LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT HAPPEN ON
THE SAME DAY SHOULD BE
CLASSIFIED AS ONE MEETING OR TWO
SEPARATE MEETINGS. SO SOME LOCAL
AGENCIES CONSIDER OPEN AND
CLOSED SESSIONS ON THE SAME DAY
TO BE TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS,
WHILE OTHERS CONSIDER THEM TO BE
ONE MEETING. THIS CREATES AN
UNINTENDED FINAL TWO TIERED
SYSTEM WHERE LEGISLATIVE BODIES
ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER
THE LAW. CURRENT LAW ALSO FAILS
TO CLEARLY STATE HOW MANY
MEETINGS MEMBERS MAY ATTEND
REMOTELY EACH YEAR. INSTEAD IT
PROVIDES A 20% LIMIT THAT CAN
RESULT IN CONFUSING NUMBERS FOR
MEMBERS WHO ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO
COMPLY WITH THE LAW. SO THE
SOLUTION IS AB 2302. THAT WOULD
CLARIFY THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS
THAT A MEMBER THAT MEMBERS OF A
LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY CAN
PARTICIPATE IN VIA
TELECONFERENCE EACH YEAR, BASED
UPON HOW MANY TIMES THE LOCAL
BODY MEETS. THIS PRESERVES THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF AB 2449,
BECAUSE IT IS STILL ABOUT 20% OF
THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES MEETINGS
EACH YEAR. IT WILL ALSO DEFINE
THE TERME MEETING TO MEAN ANY
NUMBER OF MEETINGS OF A
LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT BEGIN ON
THE SAME CALENDAR DAY. THIS WILL
REDUCE CONFUSION AROUND EXISTING
LAW AND ENSURE THAT PUBLIC
SERVANTS WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY
UNFAIR PENALTIES WHILE
ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN
GOOD FAITH AND SERVE THEIR
COMMUNITIES. JOINING ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS ERIKA
ENDER LEAD. I'M GOING TO SAY I
GOT IT, OKAY. THE CITY CLERK FOR
A CITY VERY NEAR ME, THE CITY OF
PISMO BEACH. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR CARRILLO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY
NAME IS ERIKA ENDER, AND I'M
CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF PISMO
BEACH. AND I'M HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY TO EXPRESS MY
SUPPORT FOR AB 2302, WHICH WILL
GIVE CITIES LIKE PISMO BEACH THE
FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS AFFORDED TO
ALL OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
DURING DISCUSSIONS AROUND
CHANGES TO THE BROWN ACT IN
2022. AM I TOO QUIET? SORRY THE
CITY OF PISMO BEACH IS A COASTAL
COMMUNITY ON THE CENTRAL COAST
AND PRIDES ITSELF ON
TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION. THE CITY COUNCIL
HAS ALWAYS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM
RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY AT CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS. THIS HAS LED
THE CITY TO CONDUCT ITS OPEN AND
CLOSED SESSIONS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL AS DISCRETE, SEPARATE
MEETINGS WITH SEPARATE AGENDAS
TO PROVIDE A MORE PREDICTABLE
TIMELINE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ALLOW
FOR PARTICIPATION. THESE
MEETINGS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HELD
CONSECUTIVELY ON THE SAME
EVENING, AND THIS NUANCED
APPROACH HAS SERVED SEVERAL
CITIES WELL TO MAXIMIZE
TRANSPARENCY. AS YOU'RE AWARE,
NEW LAWS WERE ADOPTED IN 2022
THAT ADDRESS VIRTUAL
PARTICIPATION IN CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS BY LEGISLATIVE BODY
MEMBERS, CAPPING THE NUMBER OF
MEETINGS THAT MEMBERS OF THE
BODY CAN PARTICIPATE IN
VIRTUALLY. THIS LANGUAGE WAS
NEGOTIATED WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME THAT
THEY WOULD BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY
ACROSS ALL PUBLIC AGENCIES.
HOWEVER OUR LEGALLY CONSERVATIVE
INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE NEW
LAWS HAVE DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED, LIKE CITIES LIKE THE
CITY OF PISMO BEACH, WHO
AGENDIZE AND CONDUCTS SEPARATE
MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
BOTH OPEN AND CLOSED SESSIONS.
AS THIS RESULTS IN A DOUBLE
COUNTING OF MEETINGS IN WHICH
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN
PARTICIPATE IN REMOTELY. AB 2302
SEEKS TO RECTIFY THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE OF THESE
COMPREHENSIVE BILLS FROM 2022
AND RESTORE FLEXIBILITY AND
PARITY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
AFFORDED TO ALL LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL IS THE RIGHT APPROACH
TO ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AND
SIMPLY CLARIFIES THE INTENT FROM
AB 2449 FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RUBIO IN 2022, UNDER
INTERPRETATION OF THE CURRENT
LAW, OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN
PISMO BEACH CAN PARTICIPATE
REMOTELY FOR ONLY REMOTELY FOR
ONLY HALF THE TIME, COMPARED TO
WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS INTENDED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
OF AB 2302, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU. NUTS! IN A
SECOND PRIMARY WITNESS, COMING
UP, HOW ABOUT THOSE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO GO ON
THE RECORD IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME. ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
JOHNNY PINA WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO.
KELLY MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN,
GILBERT ROBESON AND SMITH ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MARCUS
DETWILER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES OR
WITNESSES SEEING OPPOSITION? I
DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING. HOW
ABOUT ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC,
IN OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE,
NOT SEEING NONE. I'LL TAKE IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? THE BILL. AND SECOND,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
SERVED IN LOCAL GOV. AND I THINK
YOU CAN RELATE TO THIS
SITUATION. SO RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR. I VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
WORKING ON THIS CLARIFYING
LEGISLATION TO HELP AVOID
CONFUSION CONFUSION FOR LOCAL
AGENCIES GOVERNING BOARDS. WHEN
THEY ATTEND MEETINGS REMOTELY. I
WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILL
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS CARILLO A CARILLO I
WALDRON. HI. WALDRON. I AND
SALLY. HI. SALLY I HANEY. CORA
PACHECO. PACHECO I RAMOS. WARD
WILSON I WILSON I IT'S FIVE. OH.
THE BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MOVING ON THE AGENDA FOR I AM
NEXT ON THE AGENDA, BUT I'M
GOING TO LET ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA, SINCE SHE IS HERE
WITH HER BILL AB 2433. WHEN ARE
YOU READY? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. FIRST, I
WANT TO THANK YOUR CONSULTANT
AND TEAM FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE ON THIS BILL, AND I
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
AB 2433 ADDRESSES THE LENGTHY
DELAYS IN THE BUILDING PERMIT
PROCESS BY INTRODUCING FLEXIBLE
INSPECTION TIMELINES AND THE
CONDITIONAL UTILIZATION OF
PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
OVER THE PAST DECADE, MANY
FACTORS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO
PROLONGING THE PROCESSING TIMES
OF BUILDING PERMITS AND
INSPECTIONS. THIS CHALLENGE HAS
ONLY BEEN EXACERBATED BY EVENTS
SUCH AS THE GREAT RECESSION AND
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC, AS WELL
AS THE RETIREMENT OF OLDER,
EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL AND THE
ONGOING DIFFICULTY OF HIRING
QUALIFIED REPLACEMENTS,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, WHICH
REQUIRE EFFICIENT USE OF
CAPITAL, ARE PARTICULARLY HARMED
BY THESE ADDED UNDUE COSTS AND
DELAYS, FURTHER HINDERING
INVESTMENT PRECISELY WHEN IT IS
NEEDED MOST. AB 2433 WILL CUT
THROUGH THE RED TAPE IN THE
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS BY
SETTING REASONABLE COMMON SENSE
DEADLINES FOR PLAN CHECKING AND
INSPECTION, AS IT IS ALL ABOUT
KEEPING PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD
SMOOTHLY AND PROVIDING RELIEF TO
OUR LOCAL AGENCIES FACING
CHALLENGES IN A TIMELY PERMIT
PROCESS. BY MAKING THE PROCESS
MORE EFFICIENT, WE CAN SUPPORT
BOTH OUR COMMUNITIES AND
BUSINESSES, CREATING AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TANGIBLY IMPROVE
THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS
CALIFORNIANS. THE SPONSORS IN MY
OFFICE HAVE BEEN WORKING
DILIGENTLY WITH THOSE WHO ARE
CONCERNED WITH THE BILL IN ORDER
TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES, AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM
AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. WITH ME
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB 2433 AND
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE IS SKYLER WONACOTT, SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION, AND PATRICK SCHULTE
HUBER, A MEMBER OF BOTH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION AND NAIOP SOCAL.
PLEASE GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M SKYLER WONACOTT
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF
OF OUR MEMBERS AND CALIFORNIA
AND BOMA, CALIFORNIA, PROUDLY
SPONSORING AB 2433 TO ENHANCE
CALIFORNIA'S BUILDING PERMIT
PROCESS EFFICIENCY. OUR LOCAL
BUILDING DEPARTMENTS ARE
CURRENTLY FACING CHALLENGES,
INCLUDING STAFFING SHORTAGES DUE
TO ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS. THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, AND RETIREMENTS
LEADING TO PERMIT PROCESSING
DELAYS THAT HINDER ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CRUCIAL FOR ADDRESSING
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS AND
DECARBONIZATION EFFORTS. AB 2433
PROPOSES CONDITIONAL USE OF
LICENSED ENGINEERS AND
ARCHITECTS FOR PLAN CHECKING AND
INSPECTIONS IF LOCAL AGENCIES
EXCEED 30 DAY REVIEW AND FIVE
DAY INSPECTION DEADLINES. THESE
PROFESSIONALS MUST SUBMIT
AFFIDAVITS AFFIRMING COMPLIANCE
WITH STATE BUILDING CODE,
ENSURING PROCESS INTEGRITY AND
QUALITY, CAREFULLY EXCLUDING
PROJECTS LIKE HEALTH FACILITIES
AND HIGH RISES. AB 2433
REINFORCES THE ULTIMATE
AUTHORITY OF LOCAL AGENCIES TO
APPROVE OR DENY PERMITS, EVEN
WHEN A PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL IS
EMPLOYED. THIS MEASURE AIMS TO
FOSTER A MORE EFFICIENT
TRANSPORT PERMITTING PROCESS
WHILE UPHOLDING OUR COMMITMENT
TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WELFARE AND
LOCAL CONTROL. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. HI, MY
NAME IS PATRICK SCHLEHUBER. I'M
CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER FOR
REXFORD INDUSTRIAL, WE'RE A
PUBLIC REIT FOCUSED ON THE
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONS OF
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I'M REALLY
HERE ON AND WE HAVE PROPERTIES,
ABOUT 50,000,000FT² ACROSS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SO WE HAVE
PROPERTIES IN MOST OF YOUR
DISTRICTS THAT REPRESENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BUT I'M
REALLY HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR
TENANTS, WE HAVE ABOUT 1800
TENANTS. OUR AVERAGE TENANT SIZE
IS ABOUT 25,000FT². AND THEY'RE
THE ONES WHO REALLY ARE THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THIS,
ACCELERATING THE PROCESS TO
OCCUPY AND GENERATE INCOME FOR
THEIR BUSINESS AND OCCUPYING
SPACES, BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY IS
A REAL PROBLEM. AND IN MANY
CASES, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO
ADD ON TO TESTIFY? PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MATTHEW
HARGROVE HERE TODAY REPRESENTING
THE INSTITUTE FOR REAL ESTATE
MANAGEMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. AFTERNOON. MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, TIM
JAMAL, CEO OF NH█P SOCAL, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, ADAM WRIGLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE FRANCO WITH THE,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, WE'RE
CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO FIND A
SOLUTION FOR OUR CONCERNS. I
JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND
VOICED THAT. THANK YOU. ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
OF THE MEASURE? YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT IF YOU LIKE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, TRACY RYAN. WITH THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, WE DO STILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL. WE DO APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE TAKEN IN
COMMITTEE, AND WE DO WANT TO SAY
, THAT THE AUTHORS, STAFF AND
THE AUTHOR HAVE WORKED WITH US
IN GOOD FAITH TO TRY TO ADDRESS
OUR ISSUES. AND WE DO APPRECIATE
THAT. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT YOUR CONSULTANTS HAVE DONE.
HOWEVER, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT
THIS STRUCTURE IN THE BILL
CREATES A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE
FOR THE THIRD PARTY PROFESSIONAL
WHO IS ACTUALLY ACTING IN THE
PLACE OF A REGULATOR TO GIVE
FAVORABLE FINDINGS TO SITE
REVIEWS, AND FOR THE
INSPECTIONS. AND WE'RE REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY, WITH THAT
STRUCTURE, WE DID SEND
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD CREATE AN
EXPEDITED, PERMITTING PROCESS
THAT'S IN PLACE THAT IS SIMILAR
TO WHAT'S IN PLACE FOR OTHER,
TYPES OF PERMITTING. AND WE
THINK THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY
GET US TO THE PLACE OF, OF
NEUTRAL ON THE BILL. AND WE JUST
CONTINUE WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK TOGETHER WITH THE AUTHOR
AND HER STAFF TO HOPEFULLY FIND
A GOOD PLACE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE A SECOND PRIMARY
WITNESS? THANK YOU. MARK
NEUBERGER, CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.
DEFINITELY ALIGN ALL OF OUR
COMMENTS WITH THOSE PROVIDED BY
TRACY AT RC. RC DEFINITELY THANK
THE COMMITTEE, THE AUTHORS,
OFFICE STAFF AND THE SPONSORS
FOR THEIR WORK AND HOPEFUL THAT
WE CAN FIND SOME AMENDMENTS THAT
WORK FOR US AS WELL. THANK YOU.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. CHRIS
LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN
COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA WITH AN
OPPOSING LAST MINUTE POSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. BRADY GUERTIN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES. ALSO IN A
RESPECTFUL OPPOSING THIS AMENDED
POSITION, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
COMMENTS ON THE MEASURE? YES.
THANK GOD I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT
THE FIRE ISSUE. AND I KNOW THE
GENTLEMAN CAME UP, IF HE WANTS
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OR NOT.
BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT?
IS IT ONLY FOR INSPECTIONS OF A
NEW DEVELOPMENT, OR IS IT,
ONGOING, THE REGULAR INSPECTIONS
THAT NORMALLY WOULD HAPPEN, LIKE
HOW WOULD THIS WOULD APPLY TO
ALL BUILDING PERMITS, WE DID
EXEMPT HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
AND HIGH RISES AND SUCH. WE ARE
WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE FIRE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. THEY HAVE
GIVEN US AMENDMENTS THAT WE WILL
PLAN ON TAKING AND LOOK FORWARD
TO, REMOVING THEIR OPPOSITION.
OKAY. SO YOU'RE WORKING CLOSELY
WITH THEM? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU
. ANYBODY ELSE? I THINK WARD WAS
FIRST. OH, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.
MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL AND
WORKING ON IT. IT'S SOMETHING I
WAS, RESEARCHING OVER THE FALL.
AND AS CAPACITY GROWS AND, YOU
KNOW, WE COULDN'T TAKE ON ANY
MORE BILLS. IT WAS SOMETHING I
WAS VERY EXCITED TO LOOK INTO.
AND SO I THINK THAT YOU'RE
APPROACHING THINGS IN A REALLY
HELPFUL WAY, AND I'M NOT SURE,
MR. CHAIR, IS THIS IS THE
MOTION. IS IT GOING OUT TO
HOUSING OR IT'S REFERRED TO
HOUSING? YES. OKAY. AT THAT
TIME, I MIGHT REQUEST TO BE
ADDED ON AS A COAUTHOR, BUT AT
THIS TIME, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO, I DO NO,
NO, NO, I DO, I JUST DIDN'T I
JUST SAW HIS HAND GO UP BEFORE
MINE. AND SO I WANTED TO DEFER,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR TO BRINGING THIS FORWARD
IN REGARD TO WHAT THE OVERALL
ISSUE IS. RIGHT, IS WE NEED,
STREAMLINING IS ANY WAY POSSIBLE
TO INCREASE HOUSING DECREASE
DEVELOPMENT OVERALL, WHETHER
IT'S RELATED TO HOUSING OR
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW,
I HAVE, SO IN MY OWN INDIVIDUAL
CITY, WE USE A THIRD PARTY TO DO
MOST PLAN CHECK. WE'RE SMALL. WE
DON'T HAVE CAPACITY TO COMPLY
WITH THE 30 DAYS, SO WE ACTUALLY
CONTRACT OUT, THE FEE IS LISTED,
SOMEONE, THEY'RE, IN ESSENCE,
THE DEVELOPER IS CONTRACTING. IS
SENDING IT TO THE CITY, AND THE
CITY IS CONTRACTING WITH THE
THIRD PARTY, TO DO THE WORK.
AND, WE HEAVILY INVOLVE OUR
PUBLIC SAFETY IN THAT, OUR
PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERS, WHICH
ARE OUR FIRE POLICE AND THAT AND
THAT, PLAN CHECK OR WHATEVER YOU
WANT TO CALL IT, PROCESS. MY
CONCERN IS, IS THAT THAT
CIRCUMVENTING OF IT'S NOT
THROUGH THE CITY OR THE LOCAL
AGENCY, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR
THE COUNTY, IT'S THAT IT'S
DIRECTLY WITH THE THIRD PARTY.
AND THEN THERE IS AN INTEREST
THERE. THEY'RE BEING PAID BY THE
DEVELOPER TO DO THAT WORK VERSUS
IT BEING JUST THE CITY OR THE
COUNTY OR WHOEVER THE AGENCY IS
CON CON BEING REQUIRED TO
CONTRACT WITH A THIRD PARTY IF
THEY DO NOT, CANNOT MEET THE 30
DAY DEADLINE. SO THAT IS
CONCERNING ME. I THINK THERE'S,
WORK TO BE DONE IN THIS SPACE. I
THINK, WHAT I'VE HEARD AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR, ALL YOUR
CONVERSATIONS ON THIS, BUT WHAT
I'VE HEARD IS THAT THERE ARE
LOTS THAT ARE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. AND SO I'LL SUPPORT
TODAY TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
AMEND, RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS
GOING TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT
I'M ON. AND SOME OF THESE ISSUES
RELATE MORE TO THAT COMMITTEE
THAN THIS ONE. AND SO I RESERVE
THE RIGHT LATER TO CHANGE MY
MIND, BUT TODAY I WILL, ALLOW
YOU TO KEEP HAVING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS, BUT I WOULD SAY
DEFINITELY LISTEN TO THE
CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION,
HAVING BEEN A LOCAL LEADER FOR
12 YEARS BEFORE COMING HERE,
THOUGH, I SHARE THOSE SAME
CONCERNS. AND, LIKE I SAID
THERE, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO THREAD THE NEEDLE
WITH THIS IN TERMS OF, REQUIRING
A CITY OR COUNTY OR WHATEVER THE
AGENCY IS TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP
EXISTING THAT IF THEY CANNOT
COMPLETE, THEN THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO USE THAT FIRM VERSUS HAVING
THAT DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST
RELATED TO A DEVELOPER. OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE
COMMITTEE? YES, PLEASE. SO I
DID, INITIALLY HAVE SOME
CONCERNS OVER THIS BILL, BUT I'M
HAPPY TO SEE THAT, THE AUTHOR IS
WORKING WITH, WITH OPPOSITION,
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO
GET TO A PLACE WHERE, THEY'RE
GOING TO BE NEUTRAL. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND
ALL THE CONVERSATIONS YOU'RE
HAVING. SO TODAY I WILL BE AN
AYE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NOT
SEEING ANYBODY ELSE, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, I WOULD, AND YES,
I WILL REAFFIRM THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ANY
OPPOSITION THAT IS OUT THERE.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW, WITH
LEGISLATION, YOU KIND OF START
IN A BIG PLACE. AND THEN
SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO NARROW AND
NARROW, I'D LIKE TO BRING IT
DOWN TO A SMALLER AREA, WHICH IS
NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, PERMITS
IN GENERAL AND BUILDINGS. BUT IF
YOU TAKE IT DOWN TO REALLY A
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, ONE OF THE
THINGS WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS
IS INDIVIDUALS GO TO A CITY. AND
I WAS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT EIGHT
YEARS, AND THEY WANT TO MAKE
SOME TYPE OF RENOVATION, AND,
AND MANY TIMES IT'S THE DELAY IN
GETTING THE PERMITS. AND AS YOU
SAID, SOME CITIES GO TO A THIRD
PARTY, WHICH ADDS TIME AS WELL.
SO WE'VE HEARD THIS OVER AND
OVER FROM THE SMALLEST
RENOVATIONS IN A SINGLE FAMILY
HOME TO, OF COURSE, MAJOR
COMMERCIAL TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND EVEN THE LEAGUE OF CITIES
HAS MANY TIMES USED THE SLOGAN
LET'S CUT THE RED TAPE. I'VE
HEARD THIS MANY, MANY TIMES, OR
WE'VE GOT ALL OF THESE
REGULATIONS. SO THIS IS ATTEMPT,
TO, LOOK AT THE DELAYS AND LOOK
AT HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN A
TIMELY MANNER. BUT OF COURSE,
SAFETY IS OF UTMOST OF
IMPORTANCE. SO WE CERTAINLY WILL
CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THAT AS WE
MOVE FORWARD. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. I CAN TELL YOU
THAT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE
WORKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS A CITY
PLANNER AND WORKING ALONGSIDE
WITH, PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING
AND SAFETY, WE ALWAYS WERE HAPPY
WHEN WE HAD ADDITIONAL HELP
CONTRACT, FOR THESE TYPE OF
SERVICES. WE REALLY APPRECIATED
THAT. AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT
THAT'S GOING TO HELP, EXPEDITE
THESE TYPE OF PERMITS THAT WE
NEED TO EXPEDITE SO THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT WE NEED,
IS THERE A MOTION? DID I MISS A
MOTION TO PASS THE BILL A
SECOND? FIRST AND A SECOND,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR
YOUR WORK ON THIS BILL AND FOR
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
OUTLINING THE ANALYSIS. I
BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING
MORE TO EASE THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS IN THAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER CONSIDERATION
BY THE LEGISLATURE. I APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. AND WILL
THE FOLLOWING, THE BILL AS IT
PROGRESSES? I WILL BE VOTING AYE
TODAY. THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
AYE. CARILLO AYE. WALDRON.
WALDRON AYE. IS SALIH SALIH NOT
VOTING? HANEY CORA. CORA. AYE.
PACHECO. JEKYLL AYE. RAMOS.
RAMOS. AYE. WARD WARD. AYE.
WILSON. AYE. WILSON. AYE THE
VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO. THE BILL IS
SOUND AND WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR OTHERS TO ADD ON. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MEMBERS THANK
YOU. YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO DO A
LITTLE BIT OF CLEANUP IF YOU
WANT TO TAKE A FIVE. WE DID NOT
HAVE A QUORUM FOR 1889, FOR
THOSE MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE NOW.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
IS THERE A MOTION ON 1889?
FRIEDMAN WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
CONNECTIVITY. WE HAVE A FIRST
AND A SECOND. 1889 ALL ITEM
NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA. YES
CARILLO Ã CARILLO. I WALDRON.
WALDRON I IS SALLY ISOLE NØ.
HANEY. CORA. CALL I PACHECO.
CHACO I RAMOS. RAMOS I WARD.
WARD I WILSON, I WILSON I 71.
THE VOTE IS SEVEN ONE. THE BILL
IS OUT AND WE'LL DO. WE NEED TO
LEAVE IT OPEN. NØ RIGHT. WE
STILL NEED TO LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN, I SEE MR. JOE PATTERSON,
ARE YOU READY TO PRESENT YOUR
BILL? AND THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 13
ON THE AGENDA. RESIDENTIAL FEES
AND CHARGES.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TODAY. IT'S GREAT TO
BE HERE. AND, IT'S THE FIRST
TIME I PRESENTED IN THIS HEARING
IN THIS COMMITTEE. SO LOOKING
FORWARD TO THAT OPPORTUNITY AND
A POSITIVE OUTCOME. OF COURSE,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS HERE TODAY TO PRESENT,
AB 2729, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REQUIRING
THE PAYMENT OF MANY IMPACT FEES
BEFORE THE HOME BUILDER HAS
RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY FOR A HOUSING PROJECT.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, I'VE SPENT SIX
YEARS ON A CITY COUNCIL DURING
MY TENURE THERE, WHILE I VOTED
AGAINST SOME PROJECTS, THE CITY
APPROVED EVERY SINGLE ONE, EVERY
SINGLE PROJECT. WHILE I WAS ON
THE CITY COUNCIL. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, WE UNDERSTOOD THE
IMPORTANCE OF DELIVERING HOUSING
TO OUR RESIDENTS AND DID WHAT WE
COULD TO KEEP COSTS DOWN WHILE
ENSURING FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
OF OUR COMMUNITY. AT TIMES IT'S
MEANT FEE DEFERRALS, BUT WE WERE
ALSO PARTIES TO VARIOUS JPAS AND
OTHER GROUPS THAT WE REALLY
COULD NOT CONTROL, SO WE WOULD
DEFER FEES ON MANY OCCASIONS.
BUT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OR JPAS,
WHICH WE WERE A PARTY WOULD NOT,
AND OUR FEES REPRESENTED ONLY
ABOUT 20% OF THE PROJECT. IN
OTHER WORDS, OUR ABILITY TO
DELIVER HOUSING, ESPECIALLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR
COMMUNITY, WAS SEVERELY LIMITED
AND IMPACTED BY OTHER PLAYERS.
I'VE READ THE OPPOSITION LETTERS
AND I'M QUITE IN TUNE TO THE
NEEDS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THEY
HAVE A LOT OF CHALLENGES
REMAINING SUSTAINABLE IN THE
LONG RUN, AND I AM SYMPATHETIC
TO THAT. AND IN NO WAY DO I WANT
TO IMPEDE THAT. BUT IF WE'RE
GOING TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE MOST
PRESSING NEEDS IN OUR STATE, ONE
THAT CONTRIBUTES TO HOMELESSNESS
AND HOUSING, UNAFFORDABILITY, WE
HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
SOME JURISDICTIONS ARE CHARGING
UPWARDS OF $70,000 PER UNIT FOR
A PARK, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, THE
PROJECTS MAY BE MANY, MANY YEARS
OUT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE PARTICIPATE
IN AGENCY TO EXPAND OUR HIGHWAY.
I'M HOPING THIS WON'T BE THE
CASE, BUT THERE'S A LEGITIMATE
CHANCE THAT I MAY NEVER SEE THAT
THING GET BUILT. BUT PEOPLE ARE
PAYING FEES AS THE BUILDING
PERMITS ARE PULLED. THE EVER
INCREASING COSTS OF HOUSING IS
IMPACTED BY THESE FEES, BUT MY
BILL DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT THE
COLLECTION OF THESE FEES.
THEY'RE IMPORTANT FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THEY NEED TO
HAPPEN, AND IT JUST NEEDS TO
HAPPEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
SO IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE
DELIVERY OF HOUSING. AND I ALSO
WANT TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND
I'VE READ ALL THE OPPOSITION
LETTERS. OF COURSE, AND I KNOW
THAT, YOU KNOW, SCHOOLS, WHICH I
HAVE FOR CHILDREN, SOMETIMES I
JOKE, I HAVE FOUR TOO MANY, AND,
AND ALSO FROM OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
SECTOR, WE DON'T WANT TO IMPEDE
THEIR ABILITY. AND SO I'M OPEN
TO SUGGESTIONS ON THIS BILL AS
WELL. I'M NOT IRONCLAD INTO
EXACTLY THIS POLICY. I'M OPEN TO
WORKING ON IT. AND THIS IS A
DOUBLE REFERRED TO ANOTHER
COMMITTEE AS WELL. AND WE CAN
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS
SHOULD THIS BILL GET OUT. BUT I
THINK WE REALLY NEED TO START
THE CONVERSATION OF WHAT FEES
ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO GET A
PROJECT THAT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE
TO THE PROJECT ITSELF, NOT, OH,
IT'S GOING TO ADD A TRAFFIC
LIGHT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW DOWN
THE STREET. THOSE AREN'T THE
FEES WE SHOULD BE COLLECTING OR
A PARK THAT MIGHT BE BUILT YEARS
FROM NOW, OR EVEN AFTER THE
DEVELOPMENT GOES IN, AND ONE
MORE POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS
THAT, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN A LOT OF
THESE COMMUNITIES, WHETHER IT'S,
IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT
ESPECIALLY IN THE SUBURBS, YOU
KNOW, WHERE I LIVE, THE
DEVELOPER OFTEN, PUTS IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THEMSELVES. AND
SO THERE MIGHT BE AN ARRANGEMENT
IN WHICH THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, IN
INSTEAD OF PAYING A FEE, YOU DO
THE, YOU KNOW, YOU DO THE PARK
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT
THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. AND
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU'RE
BUILDING YOU'RE BUILDING A PARK,
BUT YOU'RE STILL PAYING A
COMPONENT OF A COMMUNITY PARK
FEE. FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK
THAT THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC
BECAUSE UNLESS THE PROJECTS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW REALLY
DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO
BE COLLECTING THAT FEE RIGHT
NOW. SO I AM OPEN TO CONTINUING
THE CONVERSATION. I HOPE WE HAVE
THAT OPPORTUNITY, IT'S JUST, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I
REALLY SEE, BECOMING AN ISSUE
ON, ON BUILDING HOUSING,
ESPECIALLY AS THE FEES CONTINUE
TO GO UP. BY THE WAY, IN
EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNTS. AND, WITH
ME, I HAVE A REALLY GOOD FRIEND
OF MINE, I'M NOT SURE WHICH
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE REPRESENTING
TODAY, BUT. OKAY. PERFECT WE
HAVE SUCH BROAD BASED COALITION
OF FRIENDS
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, HOLLY, FOR MANY. BUT
IT'S PARTICULARLY THIS YEAR WITH
THE COST OF INTEREST RATES GOING
UP AND CONSTRUCTION.
CONSTRUCTION IS STOPPING
EVERYWHERE. PROJECTS THAT ARE
ENTITLED, PROJECTS THAT ARE EVEN TO START PAYING
INTEREST RATES ON THE
CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECTS ARE
NOW NOT JUST GETTING USED TO BE.
THEY'RE GETTING SMALLER, LIKE
OFFICE SPACE IS BEING REDUCED IN
PROJECTS. PROJECTS ARE BEING
COMPLETELY REDONE TO REDUCE
OFFICE SPACE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT
A NEED FOR THAT ANYMORE. AND
HOUSING THANK
YOU. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
THAT WANT TO ADD ON PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
HELLO. SEAMUS GARRITY FROM FROM A DEVELOPER
POINT OF VIEW, FEE DEFERRALS ARE
AMAZING, THEY REALLY DO HELP
YOU, NOT ONLY, HELP PROJECT
PENCIL BECAUSE THE CARRYING COST
IS EXTREMELY REAL AS WELL AS IT
ALLOWS YOU TO GET THE. ATTACKS.
RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT TAXING. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT FEES WHERE A AGENCY, A
JURISDICTION, WHETHER THEY'RE
CITY OR COUNTY HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS COST IS RELEVANT, AND
SO TO SAY THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE
THAT TILL THE END WHEN THEY ARE
ACTUALLY DOING THAT WORK IS VERY
MUCH A CONCERN. AND SO YOUR BILL
IS, IS, VERY MUCH BROAD, BROAD
BASED. IT'S NOT NARROW OR
NUANCED. AND EVEN IN YOUR
TESTIMONY, YOUR. REPORTS A
THING. IT'S JUST IT'S REALLY
UNSUSTAINABLE, PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE THAT PROJECTS NOT THAT
PAYMENT OF $3 MILLION FEES,
DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADD ANY
INFRASTRUCTURE TO THIS
PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. YOU
KNOW, BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS
NUANCES. THIS IS WHAT'S KIND OF
INTERESTING ABOUT WE JUST SAT ON
A COMMITTEE FOR LIKE FOUR HOURS
TODAY DISCUSSING A LOT OF THESE
ISSUES AND A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS
THAT THERE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
WE HAVE A PLANNING TEAM JUST
LIKE YOUR CITY HAD, OR EVERY
CITY HAS OR THE CHAIRMAN'S,
PARTICIPATED IN THAT PROCESS, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE HE GETS PAID
RIGHT, FOR DOING HIS JOB. WE'RE
NOT GETTING RID OF THOSE STAFF
AS WE PROCESS THE ENTITLEMENTS
OF A PROJECT, WHEN SOMETIMES IF
A PROJECT DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED
ANYWAYS. RIGHT, YOU HAVE A STAFF
THAT'S PUT ALL THIS TIME AND
EFFORT INTO A PROJECT, AND IT
NEVER HAPPENS. WE DON'T FIRE THE
STAFF. YOU KEEP WORKING THROUGH
THE PROCESS. SO I'M NOT SURE
THEY ACTUALLY PAY BECAUSE MOST
OF THE TIME YOU PAY
THOSE CAN HAPPEN AT. THE TIME OF
INSPECTION. SO I THINK THERE'S
SOME THERE'S SOME. WAS REFERRING
TO SINGLE HOUSING EARLIER BUT IT
COULD BE ALL IN ONE PROJECT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S NO I
DON'T YET HEAR YOU TALKING
ABOUT. AND AS WE WERE NOTING, WE
WERE IN HOUSING EARLIER, THERE'S
NO FLEXIBILITY. IT'S AN ALL OR
NOTHING. AND YOU KNEW THAT GOING
INTO TODAY. AND SO THAT'S WHERE
I'M CONCERNED IS THAT THERE
HASN'T BEEN ANY THOUGHT PROCESS
RELATED TO OR AND NOT TO SAY YOU
HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT. LET ME
CLARIFY. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LANGUAGE,
RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT NEEDS AT DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS. AND SO THE CITIES
OR COUNTIES HAVE NO CONTROL. YOU
SAID AT THE END AND THAT'S IT,
AND SO AND, AND THAT'S WHAT
CONCERNED ME. AND I HAVEN'T
HEARD THAT YET. AND I DON'T WANT
TO TAKE UP ALL THE TIME BECAUSE
I'M GOOD FOR DOING THAT. SO
SAME, SAME OPPORTUNITY. CAN I
SAY ONE MORE THING ON THAT, MR.
CHAIR? IS THAT ALL RIGHT, YOU'RE
RIGHT. AND I THINK, LOOK, IF WE
WENT THROUGH POLICIES IN THIS
BUILDING AND WE CONSIDERED THE
IMPACTS IN EVERY LITTLE, IN
EVERY LITTLE NUANCE, AND WE
WOULD NEVER PASS A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WHICH COULD BE A
GOOD THING AT THE END OF THE
DAY. BUT, MAYBE I'LL PREFER
THAT, BUT, BUT REALLY, THIS FROM
A STATE POLICY PERSPECTIVE,
WE'RE CHARGING FEES BEFORE THE
DEVELOPMENT GOES IN. AND I JUST
I DON'T PHILOSOPHICALLY AGREE
WITH THAT. AND I GET WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IN TERMS OF, OH, IT'S A
REPAYMENT RATE OF, YOU KNOW, A
BOND. WE HAVE THOSE IN IN
ROCKLAND AS WELL, WHERE WE'VE
ALREADY BUILT THE OVERPASS, BUT
IT DOESN'T HINGE ON THAT
PARTICULAR PROJECT BEING BUILT.
WE'VE OUR REPAYMENT MECHANISM IS
FOR WHEN DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS
SOMEDAY AT THAT PARTICULAR
FACILITY. SO BUT THAT'S A NUANCE
IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF NUANCES. AND
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS A
STATE POLICY, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, WE SHOULD NOT BE
COLLECTING THESE FEES UP FRONT
BEFORE A PROJECT HAPPENS. AND
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, IF YOUR
BILL EVEN JUST HAD SIMPLE
LANGUAGE THAT, THAT THE THAT THE
JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
A FINDING OF WHEN THEY ACCEPTING
A FEE WHICH IS NOT IN THERE.
CORRECT CORRECT. YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW WHEN THE FINDING OF WHEN
THAT SO NOT JUST ESTABLISHING A
FEE BUT A FINDING OF WHEN IT IS
APPROPRIATE AND THERE'S A NEXUS
TO IT, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO,
BUT IT DOESN'T. AND THE REASON
WHY I'M NOT INCLINED TO JUST
SUPPORT IT TODAY IS BECAUSE I
KNOW, YOU KNOW, AND SO, AND
BECAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I JUST
CONCERNED WITH IT BEING LIKE
THIS WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENT. BUT
I PROMISED I WOULD NOT TALK
ANYMORE, SO I WON'T.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORD. GREAT.
THANK YOU, I THINK, WITHOUT
WITHOUT REPEATING TOO MUCH, I
GUESS I JUST SEE THE OPPORTUNITY
HERE, MAYBE IN A LITTLE BIT OF A
DIFFERENT LIGHT, I THINK, YOU
KNOW, LIKE YOU HAD HAVING SERVED
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE
UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, VERY,
DISTINCTLY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN, LIKE, A DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE AND MAYBE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THAT IS
NECESSARY FOR STAFF TIME TO DO
WHAT RESPONSIBLY NEEDS TO DO TO
BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH
PERMITTING REVIEW AND TO BE ABLE
TO GET THINGS UP TO COUNCIL. AND
SO I AM VERY I KNOW THIS IS
MAYBE PART OF A BIGGER
CONVERSATION THAT YOU AND OTHERS
WOULD BE HAVING HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE
US BE ABLE TO FURTHER THOSE
CONVERSATIONS, I YOU KNOW, THERE
IS I KNOW, EXISTING LAW THAT IS
ABLE TO EXEMPT, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM CERTAIN
OPPORTUNITIES LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE'S ALREADY A BOND ISSUE,
THERE'S ALREADY ACCOUNT
ESTABLISHED, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR
ME, JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FROM
A COMMON SENSE LANE, YOU KNOW,
THE IMPACT FEE OFTEN IF YOU'RE
DOING AN IMPACT FEE FOR A FIRE
STATION OR FOR A NEW PARK OR FOR
A PARK FACILITY, WHATEVER THOSE
FEES ARE, WHICH ARE CALCULATED.
AND I'VE ALSO HAD TO APPROVE
THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
UPDATING OUR FEES. AND IT'S
DIFFICULT TO DO. BUT, YOU KNOW,
THE MATH IS THERE. THE NEXUS IS
THERE. BUT YOU KNOW THAT THAT
FACILITY IS NOT COMING FOR 10 OR
20 YEARS. HOPEFULLY, IF IT COMES
AT ALL AND YOU'RE JUST DOING
YOUR KIND OF PRO RATA SHARE INTO
THAT, INTO A BANK ACCOUNT
SOMEWHERE. AND SO WHEN THE
PERSON THE NEW PERSON IS GOING
INTO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND
ACTUALLY STARTING TO CREATE AN
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, I MEAN,
I DON'T SEE WHY YOU WOULD NEED
TO PAY THAT IMPACT IMPACT FEE
YEARS PRIOR AT THE START OF OR
HOPEFULLY YEARS PRIOR, EVEN A
YEAR PRIOR, AT THE START OF A
PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS, BECAUSE
THE THING THAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR
MAY NOT EVEN BE THERE EVEN AT
THE TIME OF OCCUPANCY. SO I DO
LIKE WHERE IT'S GOING. I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL HERE TODAY
BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO STOKE
THIS CONVERSATION, AND JUST
APPRECIATE SOME OF THE THOUGHT
THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS. AND
THEN, YOU KNOW, IF THIS, LIVES
TO SEE ANOTHER DAY OR YOU
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE,
ANOTHER ANOTHER WAY, YOU KNOW,
THERE THERE ARE ISSUES RAISED
HERE AND EVERYTHING THAT I THINK
ARE SOLVABLE. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FOLLOW
UP ON WHAT SENATOR WILSON WAS
TALKING ABOUT. I MEAN, THIS
ISN'T I THINK YOUR COMMENTS AND
YOUR CONVERSATION ON THIS HAS
BEEN NUANCED, BUT THIS BILL
REMOVES AUTHORIZATION. I THINK
IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT THEY DIDN'T
HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
COLLECT FEES OUTRIGHT, IN ANY
CASE, WITHOUT ANY FLEXIBILITY, I
LIKE YOU. I SERVED ON THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR EIGHT YEARS ON
SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THAT, ON
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A
BIG CITY THAT'S MORE SUBURBS
THAN IT IS CITY. AND THE
ABILITY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IT
TAKES FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS
DESIGN AND TO PLAN FOR A
PROJECT. AND I HAVE AN EXAMPLE
THAT WAS IN MY DISTRICT WHERE
THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD PARKS.
THEY BUILT A FIRE STATION, THEY
BUILT THE ROADS OUT. AND THEN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF OVER 3000
PEOPLE WAS BUILT. SO YOU NEED TO
HAVE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IN
PLACE AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT
WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING
RESOURCES TO DO IT. OR IF YOU
HAVE PARK IN LIEU FEES, WELL,
NOW YOU CAN COBBLE TOGETHER IN
LIEU FEES, AND NOW YOU CAN
ACTUALLY PLAN FOR AND BUILD A
PARK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT
DEVELOPMENT COMES IN OR NOT. I
MEAN, THIS IS A THIS IS A
DEVELOPERS ARE GIVEN AN
ENTITLEMENT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD.
AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY SHOULD
EXPECT SOMETHING FROM THAT. AND
ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN
SITUATIONS WHERE IT TOOK TEN
YEARS FOR THE FOR THE ACTUAL
DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUILT, BUT IN
THE MEANTIME, INFRASTRUCTURE WAS
PUT IN PLACE, PARKS WERE PUT IN
THERE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CENTER WAS BUILT FOR
THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT HELPED
TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE ULTIMATE
PROJECT THAT MUCH MORE
SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT
BEING PUT INTO A VACUUM. IT WAS
ACTUALLY BEING PUT INTO A
COMMUNITY THAT WAS HELPED TO BE
BUILT BY, BY THOSE ADVANCED
FEES, AND I THINK THE ABILITY TO
ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO SIMPLY WALK
AWAY AND HAVE THE TAXPAYERS HOLD
THE BILL FOR THEM, HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF ENGINEERING COSTS AND OTHER
COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO
DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY'RE
ANTICIPATING ARE GOING TO BE
COMING DOWN THE ROAD, I THINK
WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. SO I
APPRECIATE I KNOW HOW THOUGHTFUL
YOU ARE WHEN IT COMES TO
LEGISLATION. AND THE SPONSORS
YOU HAVE IS SUMMER, WILSON SAID,
THOUGHTFUL SPONSORS. SO I DON'T
I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE GOING
WITH IT, BUT BUT I JUST CAN'T
SUPPORT IT. SO THANK YOU, THOUGH
FOR THE DIALOG. VICE CHAIR
WALTON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
JUST WANTED TO KIND OF TAG ALONG
WITH WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES ARE
SAYING. I KNOW WE HAD A
CONVERSATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO
HEAR THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO, YOU
KNOW, CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT AND
MASSAGE IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S
AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. I KNOW WHEN
I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL, WE
WOULD DEFER CERTAIN FEES. GALGIANI, YOU KNOW, WHICH
COULD BE DONE. BUT I WOULD
SUGGEST KIND OF DELINEATING
WHICH FEES WE'RE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT THAT WOULD
OKAY, SO WE. I KNOW, EVERYBODY
HAS SAID IT BEFORE. I ALSO
SERVED ON THE, LOCAL CITY
COUNCIL, SO I HAVE SOME OF THE
SAME CONCERNS, BUT THEY WERE
ALREADY VOICED. I WAS JUST
WONDERING, PRIOR TO TODAY, HAVE
YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
OPPOSITION TO TRY TO FINE TUNE
THIS BILL BEFORE GETTING TO US,
SO MY STAFF DID REACH OUT TO ONE
OF THE OPPONENTS, YOU KNOW,
WON'T MENTION THAT, I WASN'T
SURPRISED TO SEE THE OPPOSITION,
FRANKLY, AND WE WERE HOPING TO
GET THOSE CONCERNS IN ADVANCE
AND DIDN'T RECEIVE THEM UNTIL
THE LETTER WAS WAS ISSUED. SO IT
WAS KIND OF HARD TO, YOU KNOW,
WE DID PROACTIVELY ASK FOR THEM
AND DIDN'T GET THEM UNTIL THE
LETTER CAME IN. AND, I'M JUST
CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM FROM
OPPOSITION. I DON'T KNOW WHO WHO
WANTS TO SPEAK, BUT, IS THERE A
WAY TO MAKE THIS BILL BETTER? I
THINK IF IT GOES IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE, IT'S DEFINITELY GOING
TO GET BETTER. I'LL BE AGAIN.
THANK YOU. MARK ZUCKERBERG,
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, AS YOUR, DISCUSSION
AND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL
IS KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED, THERE'S
A LOT OF COMPLEXITY TO WHAT FEE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHEN IT
SHOULD BE, WHEN'S THE
APPROPRIATE TIME TO BE
COMPLETED, WHEN ARE THE SERVICES
GOING IN? WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
TO MAKE WHATEVER LAND OR
DEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HAVE THE ADEQUATE WATER, SEWER,
YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER
UTILITIES IN THERE. SO FOR SURE,
IT'S A VERY COMPLEX CONVERSATION
. THÀNH, TO BE HAD, WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATED REACHING
OUT TO THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
ARTICULATED KIND OF THE BROAD
SKETCHES OF WHAT HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED HERE ABOUT WHEN THINGS
GO IN THAT THERE IS A TIME WHEN
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE PUTTING
KIND OF THOSE COSTS IN, WHEN
THEY NEED TO DELIVER, TO PUT IN
THOSE SERVICES, BUT DEFINITELY
WANT TO STRESS IT'S A VERY
COMPLEX CONVERSATIONS, AS MANY
OF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH. YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. APPRECIATE
IT, I JUST HAVE A QUICK COMMENT
AND THEN I'LL ADDRESS YOUR BILL.
ONE, I'VE NEVER BEEN ON THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE. I'VE NEVER
BEEN ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I DO
NOT BELIEVE IN DEVELOPMENT FEES.
I THINK IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP
INFRASTRUCTURE, PASSING THOSE
FEES ALONG TO DEVELOPERS WHO
JUST PASS IT ON TO THE
HOMEOWNER. I JUST THINK IT'S
UNFAIR AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
AND PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT HAS
LOOKED AT DEVELOPERS AND
HOMEOWNERS AS A CASH COW. SO I'M
PHILOSOPHICALLY AGAINST THIS.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THAT'S NOT
RELATED TO YOUR BILL. YOU'RE FOR
THE BILL AGAINST THE FEES. YES,
I'M AGAINST THE FEES. NOW, I
THINK SOME I THINK SOME PEOPLE,
THE OPPOSITION IS NOT LOOKING AT
THE BIGGER PICTURE, BECAUSE IF
WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE THESE
PROJECTS MORE FINANCIALLY,
ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE AND THAT WE
CAN BUILD MORE PROJECTS, WHICH
IS THE STATED INTENT OF THE
STATE IS TO BUILD MORE HOUSING.
SO IF WE'RE ABLE TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING OVERALL, THE GOVERNMENT
WILL COLLECT MORE OF THESE FEES.
SO I ACTUALLY THINK YOUR BILL
WILL GENERATE MORE REVENUE FOR
THE GOVERNMENT, NOT LESS
REVENUE. SO BUT SOME OF THE
CONCERNS I'VE HEARD FROM MY
COLLEAGUES IS THEY'RE WORRIED
ABOUT THAT SHORT TURN, YOU KNOW,
IF THERE'S SHORT TERME ISSUES
THERE. SO, I'D LIKE TO MAYBE ASK
MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE IF YOU
COMMIT TO, DELINEATING BETWEEN
WHICH FEES COULD BE DEFERRED,
ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT? YES.
HALF THIS COMMITTEE IS ON THE
NEXT COMMITTEE. IT'S GOING TO.
SO, WHICH I'LL ASK MY COLLEAGUE
IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO
RECONSIDER AT LEAST GIVING HIM
THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND IT
BEFORE IT GETS TO HOUSING. AND I
KNOW THAT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS
OR MORE ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE,
AND THEY COULD PROPERLY DISPOSE
OF YOUR BILL IF IT'S, FALLS
SHORT. SO I JUST PUT THAT
REQUEST OUT, AND I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. MR. CHAIR, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON, YOU HAD A FOLLOW UP
QUESTION. JUST JUST ONE FOLLOW
UP COMMENT, BECAUSE I HAD,
GEARED MY REMARKS MORE RELATED
TO CITY, COUNTY, LOCAL
JURISDICTION. SO I JUST WANTED
TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS
EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT ENTITY,
AS, VICE CHAIR WALDRON NOTED, IT
IS THE WATER AGENCY. IT IS THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT. IT IS ALL OF
THE THIS IS A BLANKET FOR ALL OF
THOSE AGENCIES WHO DON'T YET
NECESSARILY HAVE THAT
FLEXIBILITY. SO I WOULD JUST
LIKE EVERYBODY TO KEEP THAT IN
MIND. WE I STARTED THE WHOLE
CITY COUNTY THING AND PEOPLE
KEPT GOING WITH IT. AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY
KNOWS IT'S EVERY AGENCY,
INCLUDING THE SMALLEST DISTRICT,
AND SO, IT'S ABOUT CARRYING NOT
JUST CARRYING COST FOR THE
DEVELOPER, BUT CARRYING COST FOR
OUR TAXPAYERS, WHICH IS OUR
AGENCIES. THANK YOU. YES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO, A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IS THE
AUTHOR WILLING TO NARROW THIS
BILL? IT JUST SEEMS, AS YOU CAN
TELL, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN
HERE, ARE YOU WILLING TO NARROW
IT? YEAH, DEFINITELY. I MEAN, I
DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY HAD MANY
OPTIONS ANYWAYS, BUT, BUT, LIKE
I SAID, IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE,
IF THIS ISN'T ADDRESSED GOING
INTO THE NEXT COMMITTEE, WHICH
MR. WARD. JOHN, I'M THE VICE
CHAIR, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T
PRESENT IT. I CAN'T SAY IT'S
GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY.
RIGHT. BUT WE'LL GET TO A PLACE
WHERE, IT'S ACCEPTABLE, I THINK
SO, LIKE I SAID, HALF THESE,
HALF OF YOU ARE ON THE NEXT
COMMITTEE ANYWAYS, AND IT WILL
DIE. THERE A SLOW, PAINFUL DEATH
IF I DON'T DO THAT. SO I DO
COMMIT TO DOING THAT. OH THANK
YOU. BECAUSE OF THE I USED TO
SIT ON THE AS A BOARD MEMBER ON
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
AND AS A LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL,
AT ONE TIME, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT SOME OF THESE CONCERNS
THAT WERE MENTIONED HERE, BUT
ALSO BY OPPOSITION, THAT THEY'RE
ADDRESSED, AND I WILL BE I WILL
BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL JUST TO
GET OUT OF COMMITTEE, BUT YOU
HAVE TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT
THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH
EVERYONE. THAT'S WHY I ASKED
THAT QUESTION. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
I'LL DO THAT. OKAY WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETERSON, I DON'T WANT TO DIG A
DEEPER HOLE. SO I JUST ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY SO
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND,
YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING YOUR BILL TODAY. AND
I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER ALL THE
DISCUSSION THAT ALREADY HAPPENED
WITH THE CONCERNS, I APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO FACILITATING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING AS
YOU HEARD, THERE'S A LOT OF
CONCERNS, AND I CAN THINK OF
OTHERS, BUT THE SAKE OF TIME AND
NOT TO REITERATE WHAT'S BEEN
ALREADY SAID, BUT WHEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT,
THEY OFTENTIMES LOOK AT, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENTS, FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CITY, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE COST IS NOT GOING
TO BE BEAR BY ONE DEVELOPMENT,
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, AS
A SEWER LINE COST MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
OF 100 UNITS OR LESS IS NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THE
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PLANNED FOR
THE FUTURE ALSO BRINGS IN A LOT
OF COST. THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE
BURIED WITH ONE DEVELOPER ONLY.
IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE,
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, WANT TO BE ABLE TO
COLLECT THOSE DEVELOPMENT FEES
AS THE DEVELOPMENT GETS
PROPOSED. SO THE ULTIMATE GOAL,
THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FOR BIGGER
DEVELOPMENTS, SO AB 2729 WOULD
REMOVE A LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ABILITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES OR
FEES FOR RELATED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS OR FACILITIES
BEFORE THE FINAL INSPECTION OR
THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY. EXISTING LAW ALLOWS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DEFER
PAYMENT OF THOSE FEES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
EXISTING LAW ALSO ALLOWS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO COLLECT FEES OR
CHARGE ON DEVELOPMENTS WITH MORE
THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT ON A PRO
RATA BASIS, SO BASED ON THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS
THAT ARE PROPOSED, THERE ARE
ALREADY SOME MECHANISMS THAT
WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPERS NOT TO
PAY THE ENTIRE FEE UP FRONT AS
AS I MENTIONED HERE WITH,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THOSE TYPE
OF THINGS THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN
OUR COMMUNITIES. ALSO THERE ARE
ALSO OPTIONS IN EXISTING OTHER
LOCAL AGENCIES TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO
PAY IMPACT FEES AS A CONDITION
OF RECEIVING THE BUILDING PERMIT
. SO THAT'S ALSO ALREADY A
MECHANISM THAT IS AVAILABLE.
EXISTING LAW HAS OPTIONS FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO FACILITATE
DEVELOPMENT, AND ENSURE THAT
LOCAL AGENCIES ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO AFFIRM THE COST OF
INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WILL VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL, THE MOTION IS DO PASS. WE
HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND, TO
PASS TO HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CARILLO NØ CARILLO NØ WALDRON.
WALDRON. AYE. SALIH Ã CðC. AYE.
HANEY. AYE. HANEY. AYE. CARRA
YES. COLORADO. PACHECO. HI.
CHACO AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS. NO.
WARD WARD. AYE. WILSON. WILSON.
NO THE BILL IS OUT.
CONGRATULATIONS. IT'S ON. SO, IN
THE INTEREST OF, RESPECTING MY
PRIMARY WITNESSES, ON THE BILL
THAT I HAVE, BILL AB 2371, I'M
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT
THAT BILL, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE
AGENDA, WHICH IS, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PETRIE-NORRIS. BUT I WILL
GO AHEAD AND PRESENT MY BILL.
OKAY. THE VICE CHAIR LEFT. I WAS
GOING TO HANDLE THE GAVEL TO
HER, BUT SHE LEFT, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO. OH. SHE'S HERE.
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU HERE.
I WILL HANDLE THE GAVEL TO YOU.
THANK YOU.
GOOD DOING. NUMBER FIVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I THANK YOU
FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2371,
WHICH BUILDS ON THE TRACK RECORD
OF EXISTING LAW TO ADDRESS THE
ESCALATING INCIDENCE OF PROPERTY
THEFT AND DAMAGE AGAINST
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND
BUSINESSES THAT STORE HEAVY
INVENTORY. THIS INCLUDES
LOCATIONS SUCH AS OUR PORTS,
AUTOMOTIVE AND CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT, DEALERSHIPS, VEHICLE
REPAIR CENTERS, AND NUMEROUS
OTHER KINDS OF SITES THAT DO NOT
HAVE THE OPTION OF SECURING
THEIR INVENTORY INDOORS. IN
2015, SB 582 WAS THE RESULT OF
EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION WITH
LEADING ACADEMICS AND PUBLIC
SAFETY EXPERTS TO ENSURE THE
SAFE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF ELECTRIFIED SECURITY, FENCE
ALARM TECHNOLOGY. SLASH SECURITY
ALARM SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED BY
THE STATUTE THAT AB 2371
PROPOSES TO AMEND, AND ALSO BY
LICENSING UNDER THE BUREAU OF
SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICES UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS. FOR THE PAST
EIGHT YEARS, AND AT MORE THAN
1000 PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, INCLUDING PUBLIC AGENCIES
SUCH AS CAL FIRE AND CITY PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENTS, ELECTRIFIED
SECURITY FENCING BASICALLY A
FENCE INSIDE A FENCE, HAVING
SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY SECURING
PROPERTIES AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
INCIDENT. SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
EMBRACE CALIFORNIA LAW THAT
GOVERNS THE INSTALLATION AND
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE
SECURITY ALARM SYSTEMS, AND WORK
QUICKLY WITH BUSINESSES AND
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO PROTECT
THEIR WORKERS AND SECURE THEIR
PROPERTY IN A TIMELY MANNER.
HOWEVER, SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING DELAYS
WHEN ISSUING PERMITS TO INSTALL
SUCH SECURITY SYSTEMS.
CURRENTLY, THERE ARE ALMOST 400
BUSINESSES WAITING FOR THEIR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE
APPROVAL, AND MOST CONCERNING
THESE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN
WAITING ON AVERAGE FOR MORE THAN
ONE YEAR AND STILL DON'T HAVE
APPROVAL YET. AB 2371 ADDRESSES
THIS BY REQUIRING THAT THE LOCAL
PERMITTING PROCESS IS CONSISTENT
WITH THAT OF OTHER SECURITY
ALARM SYSTEMS. UNDER OUR BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALSO RETAIN
THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO MAKE LOCAL
ZONING DECISIONS THAT DICTATE
WHERE THESE TYPE OF SYSTEMS CAN
BE USED. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CANNOT
PUT AN ELECTRIFIED SECURITY
FENCE ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
YOU NEED ME TO TESTIFY IN.
SUPPORT IS AT LEAST AUGUSTINE
WITH A FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND
LARGE FIREWORK, A HARD WORKING
LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDENT,
CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO ASK KEITH
KENNARD, WITH AMALKA TO COME UP
AND BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, IF THAT'S
OKAY FOR THE WITNESS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS,
ANTHONY AUGUSTINE, ON BEHALF OF
THE FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA, A NONPROFIT
DEDICATED TO HELPING
CALIFORNIA'S 1.4 MILLION FAMILY
OWNED BUSINESSES AND COMMITTED
TO THE 7 MILLION EMPLOYEES OF
FAMILY BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA,
MANY OF OUR MEMBERS CURRENTLY
USE THIS ELECTRIFIED SECURITY
FENCE. TECHNOLOGY AND CREDIT IT
FOR THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE A
SAFE WORKPLACE FOR THEIR
EMPLOYEES AND PROTECT THEIR LONG
TERME INVESTMENTS SUCH AS
VEHICLES, CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT, TRACTORS AND OTHER
FORMS OF LARGE INVENTORY AND
MACHINERY. THIS PROPERTY IS WHAT
BUSINESSES RELY ON FOR THEIR
OPERATIONS, AND OFTEN IT IS SO
EXPENSIVE THAT A REPLACEMENT OR
REPAIR MIGHT NOT BE AN AVAILABLE
OPTION FOR THEM. MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE SAFETY OF
EMPLOYEES IS OF CRITICAL CONCERN
TO FAMILY OWNED ASSOCIATION
MEMBERS AS THE RISK OF TRESPASS
AND DAMAGE CREATES UNSAFE
WORKING CONDITIONS. WITH THE
POTENTIAL USE OF DAMAGED
EQUIPMENT OR UNKNOWN PEOPLE
BEING ABLE TO ENTER THEIR
ESTABLISHMENTS. ELECTRIC WIDE
SECURITY FENCE TECHNOLOGY HAS
BEEN PROVEN THROUGH TIME AND
APPLICATION TO BE NEAR 100%
EFFECTIVE AT DETERRING CRIME AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, IS A PROVEN
SAFE SECURITY SOLUTION. THIS
BILL IS A WAY TO COMBAT
COMMERCIAL THEFT WITH A SAFE AND
UNIQUE APPROACH. IN THE
PRIORITIZED FIGHT AGAINST THEFT
AND CRIME, STOPPING IT BEFORE IT
EVEN OCCURS AND WITHOUT CHANGES
TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PROCEDURES, WE APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION AND ARE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. NEXT CHAIRMAN CARRILLO.
CHAIR. MADAM. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS LARS FRIEBURG. I AM THE OWNER
OF SALINAS VALLEY FORD CENTRAL
COAST. I HAVE WORKED AT MY
FAMILY OWNED DEALERSHIPS SINCE
1981. I STARTED WASHING CARS
THERE, WORKED MY WAY THROUGH ALL
JOB FUNCTIONS OF THE BUSINESS
UNTIL FINALLY BUYING OUT MY
FATHER AND NOW OWNING AND
OPERATING THE BUSINESS. WE HAD
TWO FACILITIES IN SALINAS, ONE
SELLING AND SERVICING CARS AND
LIGHT TRUCKS IN NORTH SALINAS,
AND ONE SELLING AND SERVICING
LARGE COMMERCIAL TRUCKS, SEMIS
AND MOTORHOMES IN THE SOUTH PART
OF TOWN. IN THE SUMMER OF 2020,
AFTER YEARS OF INCREASING
PROPERTY CRIMES AT OUR FIVE ACRE
TRUCK FACILITY IN INCLUDING
THEFT AND BURGLARY OF CUSTOMERS
VEHICLES WAITING FOR SERVICE,
REPAIRS, I SUBMITTED A CITY
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AN
ELECTRONIC SECURITY FENCE THAT
OTHER BUSINESSES IN MY AREA WERE
UTILIZING WITH GREAT SUCCESS.
DURING THE FIFTH MONTH OF
WAITING FOR THE CITY TO APPROVE
THE PERMIT, TRAGEDY STRUCK MY
BUSINESS AND EARLY IN THE EARLY
MORNING OF JANUARY 13TH, 2021,
MY PROPERTY'S PERIMETER FENCE, A
CYCLONE FENCE WAS BREACHED AGAIN
BY A CRIMINAL AND HE BROKE INTO
OUR SERVICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING,
STARTED A CUSTOMER'S MOTORHOME
ON FIRE INSIDE THE SERVICE
DEPARTMENT, WHICH QUICKLY
CONSUMED THE ENTIRE BUILDING
20,000 SQUARE FOOT, INCLUDING 11
CUSTOMERS VEHICLES, $1 MILLION
OF PARTS INVENTORY. EVERYTHING
WAS A TOTAL LOSS IN THE BUILDING
WAS DEMOLISHED. 21 PEOPLE WERE
OUT OF WORK AND THE PROPERTY
SITS EMPTY TO THIS DAY. PRIME
REAL ESTATE ON HIGHWAY 101 IN
SALINAS. THIS TRAGIC INCIDENT
WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF MY
BUSINESS WAS ALLOWED TO INSTALL
ELECTRONIC SECURITY FENCE IN A
TIMELY MANNER. CITY STAFF NEVER
APOLOGIZED TO ME FOR THE
INEXPLICABLE DELAY IN PROCESSING
MY PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN
FACT, STILL PROCESSED THE PERMIT
ASSOCIATED FEES WITH THE
APPLICATION REVIEW AT AB 2371
BÀN LAW IN JANUARY OF 21, MY
DEALERSHIP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED BY ARSON. I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE
THIS CRIME PREVENTION SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY TO PROTECT OUR
BUSINESS, EMPLOYEES AND
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT, NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ONLY? MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS RANDY PERRY WITH AARON
REED AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF
PERAK. CAL FIRE FIREFIGHTERS WHO
USE ONE OF THESE SYSTEMS AND THE
TAXICAB PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA. RYAN, ELAINE. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. BRENDA BASS, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. IN SUPPORT MICHAEL
CAPRIO ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES HERE IN SUPPORT. JACK
YANEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FUELS AND CONVENIENCE
ALLIANCE, IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SHERRY MCCUE,
REPRESENTING THE SELF STORAGE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
CATHERINE CHARLES HERE ON BEHALF
OF BAY AREA COUNCIL IN SUPPORT
DEAN TALLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. STRONG SUPPORT.
ANNALEE AUGUSTINE, ALSO HERE ON
BEHALF OF COPART IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. BRADY GARNER,
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN A
RESPECTFUL OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE'VE BEEN TALKING
WITH THE SPONSORS AND AUTHORS
OFFICE ABOUT THAT AND I'M TRYING
TO FIND SOME OR DEAL WITH OUR
COMMON CONCERNS WITH THAT. THE
MAIN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE
MEASURE IS, AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, THE LAW ALLOWS
ELECTRIFIED FENCES IN AREAS
DESIGNATED REGARDLESS OF ZONING,
EXCEPT FOR IT HAS A CLARITY
ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USES AND
HOSPITALITY USES, WHICH WE
APPRECIATE. WE THINK THE
LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE FINE TUNED
BECAUSE OF THE PUSH FROM THE
STATE TO DEVELOP HOUSING AND
COMMERCIAL ZONES AND EXTEND THAT
OUTWARDS, THAT THIS IS A SAFETY
ISSUE FOR THE FOREFRONT, WHERE
WE HAVE AN ADJACENT HOUSING UNIT
NEAR IT AND WE DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO GO BACK OR SET
STANDARDS NECESSARILY FOR HEALTH
AND SAFETY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IF
A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING COMES
THROUGH. SO WE'RE WORKING ON
SOME AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THAT,
THE MAIN CONCERN BEING THE
FUTURE PUSH FOR HOUSING PROJECTS
TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT
SAFELY, AND THAT LOCALS HAVE THE
ABILITY AT AT THEIR OWN
DISCRETION, TO DO THE NECESSARY
STANDARDS. AND AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, THIS BILL WOULD NOT DO
THAT. SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
CHAIR AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONTINUED CONVERSATION WITH THE
SPONSORS. AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR
THE TIME. APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHER OPPOSITION,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
FOR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. MR.
WARD? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE THIS IS
INTENDED TO BE, NARROW OR
LIMITED TOWARD COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND FACILITIES.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS
CORRECT. OKAY AND I THINK
OPPOSITION POINT, IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT
GOING FORWARD TO TRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT EITHER LOCAL, GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE CATEGORIES OR
ZONING IS CONFORMING? THAT IS
CORRECT. YEAH. AND JUST TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERN OF HAVING A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
NEXT DOOR, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ARE REALLY ALREADY HAVE THOSE
WITHIN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. WHEN
YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT
TO RESIDENTIAL, PART OF THAT IS
TO BUILD AN ATTENUATION WALL, A
BLOCK WALL, WHETHER IT'S 6FT OR
8FT, NOT ONLY FOR THE SEPARATION
OF USES, BUT ALSO FOR MITIGATION
REASONS. NOISE IS ONE OF THEM,
SIX FOOT WALL OR AN EIGHT FOOT
WALL WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON
THE NOISE STUDY THAT IS
PRESENTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH AN
ELECTRIFYING FENCE. AND IF IT IS
NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN THE FUTURE, THE SEQUA PROCESS
FOR NOISE ATTENUATION AND NOISE
STUDY, AND AGAIN, BASED ON THE
PROJECTION OF THE NOISE OF THE
ADJACENT USE, THE MITIGATION
MEASURE CAN BE A SIX OR AN EIGHT
FOOT WALL. SO THAT'S ONE WAY
THAT THIS CAN BE MITIGATED. AND
WE'LL BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AS
WELL. THANK YOU. SECOND, ANY
OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE?
WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, MR.
CHAIR? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO,
CLOSE, CHAIRS BY SAYING THAT, TO
POINT OUT ON THE BILL THAT WOULD
GIVE OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES THE
ABILITY TO MORE EASILY ACCESS A
TOOL TO COMBAT THREATS TO THEIR
LIVELIHOODS. THAT'S JUST ONE
MECHANISM THAT WILL ADDRESS
THOSE CONCERNS FOR THESE
REASONS, THIS BILL IS SUPPORTED
BY OVER 100 BUSINESSES AND
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL.
AS YOU HEARD IN SOME OF THE
COMMENTS, AS WELL AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND FIRST
RESPONDERS. AGAIN I'M COMMITTED
TO CONTINUING CONVERSATION WITH
THE OPPOSITION TO SEE HOW WE CAN
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT THEY
HAVE PRESENTED. THANK YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED. CARILLO. HI.
MORRELL I WALDRON. HI, WALDRON,
I IS SALLY. HI, SALLY, I. HANEY
CORA PACHECO. PACHECO I. RAMOS
RAMOS I. WARD. WARD I WILSON. I.
WILSON. I THANK YOU. SEVEN ZERO.
YOUR BILL IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR MEMBERS TO ADD
ON.
THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR,
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO, AB
2684 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRYANT.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. WISEMAN
MEMBER. THANK YOU. CAN YOU SEE
MY. GOOD TO SEE YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. IT'S GOOD TO BE
BEFORE YOU. FIRST TIME, MR.
CHAIR, AND THE ONLY TIME THIS
YEAR. WELCOME. I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2684, A BILL THAT
WILL REQUIRE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTREME
HEAT IN THEIR LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLANS OR SAFETY
ELEMENTS. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING AS
INCREDIBLY HARD AS THEY ALWAYS
DO, AND OF COURSE, I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS.
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND RESPONSE
TO EXTREME HEAT WILL ALLOW OUR
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO BE AS
PREPARED AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT
OUR RESIDENTS FROM EXTREME HEAT.
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2050, OVER 200
CALIFORNIA CITIES WILL
EXPERIENCE AVERAGE TEMPERATURES
SURPASSING 90°F. THE HEIGHT OF
THIS IS GOING TO BE FELT, DEEP
SOUTHERN INLAND EMPIRE IN THE
CITY OF COACHELLA, TEMPERATURES
ARE EXPECTED TO SOAR TO 116
DEGREES. MEANWHILE, IN L.A.
COUNTY, THE CITY THAT I'M
INCREDIBLY FOND OF, PALMDALE IS
SET TO GRAPPLE WITH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES OF 102 DEGREES,
WHILE LOS ANGELES ITSELF WILL
HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 98 DEGREES.
AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE IS
FACING A DEFICIT, WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT ALL THE WAYS WE CAN
SET OUR COMMUNITIES UP FOR
SUCCESS BY REQUIRING THE
INCLUSION OF EXTREME HEAT
CONSIDERATIONS IN OUR LOCAL
MITIGATION PLANS, WE LAY THE
GROUNDWORK FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO ACCESS CRUCIAL FEDERAL FEMA
FUNDING. CALIFORNIA HAS MADE
CONSIDERABLE STRIDES IN
FACTORING EXTREME HEAT INTO ITS
STATE PLAN, WITH OVER HALF OF
OUR CITIES ENCOUNTERING COUNTIES
FOLLOWING SUIT. HOWEVER, THERE
WERE THERE ARE REMAINING
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING
AND WILL SOON CONFRONT THE
URGENCY OF ADDRESSING EXTREME
HEAT. IT'S UNWISE TO LEAVE
FEDERAL DOLLARS ON THE TABLE
WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN
UTILIZE THESE FUNDS BY SIMPLY
INCLUDING EXTREME HEAT IN THEIR
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS. JOINING
ME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY TODAY
ARE MICHAEL JARRETT, ON BEHALF
OF CLIMATE RESOLVE AND FORMER
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ROGER DICKERSON,
REPRESENTING CIVIC WELL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
MICHAEL JARED, AND I'M HERE
TALKING ON BEHALF OF CLIMATE
RESOLVE. CLIMATE RESOLVE IS A
NONPROFIT BASED IN LOS ANGELES
THAT BUILDS A COLLABORATION TO
CHAMPION EQUITABLE CLIMATE
SOLUTIONS. A CLIMATE RESOLVE
CONNECTS COMMUNITIES,
ORGANIZATIONS AND POLICYMAKERS
TO ADDRESS A GLOBAL PROBLEM WITH
LOCAL ACTION. CLIMATE RESOLVE IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR AB 2684, WHICH
SUPPORTS LOCAL PLANNING EFFORTS
ON EXTREME HEAT. ONE OF CLIMATE
RESOLVES AREAS OF FOCUS IS
EXTREME HEAT BECAUSE IT IS A
SILENT KILLER THAT
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS THE
ELDERLY, CHILDREN, LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS AND THOSE WITH
PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
EXTREME HEAT IS GROWING IN
INTENSITY, FREQUENCY, AND
DURATION, AND OUR COMMUNITIES
ARE NOT PREPARED. THE STATE
LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZES THE
IMPACT THAT EXTREME HEAT IS
HAVING, AND THAT IS WHY IT
ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESOURCES, EXTREME
HEAT AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
PROGRAM, FIRST OF ITS KIND GRANT
PROGRAM TO COMBAT EXTREME HEAT
IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT NEED IT
THE MOST, AND ALSO BY CODIFYING
THE EXTREME HEAT ACTION PLAN. AB
2684 LOOKS TO SUPPORT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BY MAKING MORE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA
PRE HAZARD MITIGATION FUNDS.
EXTREME HEAT IMPACTS SOME
COMMUNITIES EVERY YEAR AND
OTHERS CAN BE IMPACTED IN RARE
OR EXTREME WEATHER. HEAT DOMES,
CLIMATE RESOLVE BELIEVES IT IS
GOOD GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO PLAN FOR EXTREME
HEAT. AB 2684 WOULD OPEN UP NEW
FUNDING CHANNELS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO PLAN FOR AND
IMPLEMENT TRANSFORMATIVE AND
RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE ADAPTED
TO RISING TEMPERATURES. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE ON AB 2684. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I'M ROGER DICKINSON,
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR CIVIC. WELL,
PREVIOUSLY, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMISSION, ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRIAN
HAS DESCRIBED THE BILL. WELL AND
WE WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP. EXTREME HEAT IS
INCREASINGLY A MAJOR ISSUE FOR
COMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA AS
THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
MANIFEST THEMSELVES. WE NOT ONLY
SEE CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AND SOUTHEAST
CALIFORNIA ENDURING GROWING
NUMBERS OF EPISODES OF EXTREME
HEAT. BUT CITIES AND COUNTIES
ELSEWHERE THROUGHOUT THE STATE
ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME
PATTERN. EXTREME HEAT CAN CAUSE
PROFOUND, HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH,
LOCAL, EXTREME CONSEQUENCES.
EXCUSE ME? FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES,
PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, THOSE WHO ARE MOST
VULNERABLE AMONG US, OLDER
POPULATIONS, CHILDREN AND THOSE
WITH HEALTH CONDITIONS FACE THE
GREATEST RISK. HOWEVER, THERE
ARE STEPS WE CAN TAKE TO REDUCE
THE IMPACTS OF EXTREME HEAT,
INCLUDING APPLYING COOL SURFACES
AND CREATING GREEN SPACES. WE
CAN IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND INCREASE CLEAN ENERGY TO
REDUCE HEAT. ISLAND EFFECTS AB
2684 WILL ALLOW LOCAL
COMMUNITIES TO BUILD ON THE
STATE'S EXTREME HEAT ACTION PLAN
AND EXTREME HEAT AND COMMUNITIES
RESILIENCE PROGRAM THROUGH THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH.
BY INCORPORATING AN EXTREME HEAT
COMPONENT IN THE SAFETY ELEMENT
OF THEIR GENERAL PLANS AND SO
DOING, COMMUNITIES CAN USE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING AND
FUNDING TO ADDRESS EXTREME HEAT
CONDITIONS. AB 2684 ALSO
PROVIDES A COMPLEMENT TO SB 852
BY SENATOR DODD. IN 2022, WHICH
CIVIC WELL CO-SPONSORED THAT
AUTHORIZES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
CREATE CLIMATE RESILIENCE
DISTRICTS. AB 2684 ADDRESSES A
MAJOR THREAT TO OUR CITIES AND
COUNTIES THROUGHOUT OUR STATE. I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO ADD
ON TO THE SUPPORT ON THE BILL,
YEP. SOMEBODY GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN, MISTER CHAIR. LAUREN DE
VALENCIA AGAIN REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
WITH KIND OF AN IN-BETWEEN
POSITION. WE AGAIN REALLY
APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS AND THE
COMMITTEE. WE AGREE. ABSOLUTELY.
ADDRESSING EXTREME HEAT AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL IS JUST AS IMPORTANT
AS WE'RE LOOKING AT FIRES AND
FLOOD AND THE LIKE. WE JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
LANGUAGE WAS SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. SO MOVING THAT
LANGUAGE UP INTO THE CORE,
SECTION OF THE SAFETY ELEMENT,
AND THEN AGAIN, THE TIMELINE TO
IMPLEMENT. SO THANKS FOR ALL THE
WORK ON THAT. AND WE ARE GOING
TO MOVE TO A NEUTRAL POSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IN A
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE.
SEEING NONE I'LL OPEN IT TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
ON NØ. YES, MISS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALIH, WITH ALL RESPECT,
I DON'T SUPPORT PUTTING MANDATES
IN GENERAL ON THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK THAT FOR
HEAT, WE SHOULD FOCUS ON HAVING
CHEAP AND RELIABLE ELECTRICITY
BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED AIR
CONDITIONING. SO THAT'S WHAT I
WOULD FOCUS ON. BUT THE REASON
I'M SPEAKING IS BECAUSE MY GREAT
COLLEAGUE, MISS WILSON, ASKED ME
TO EXPRESS HER COMMENTS AND
SUPPORT BECAUSE SHE HAD TO STEP
OUT. SO MISS WILSON WANTED TO
CONVEY THAT SHE THINKS THIS IS A
GREAT IDEA, NOT ONLY FOR CITIES
THAT TRADITIONALLY, EXPERIENCE
HIGH HEAT, BUT THERE ARE CITIES
THAT AREN'T USED TO HAVING HIGH
HEAT BUT WILL ON OCCASION HAVE
SOME REALLY HOT DAYS, INCLUDING,
SHE MENTIONED, A COMMUNITY IN
HERE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD TWO
REALLY HIGH PEAK HEAT DAYS. SO
SHE THINKS IT'S GOOD FOR THOSE
COMMUNITIES TO BE PREPARED FOR
IT AS WELL, OR COMMUNITIES TO BE
PREPARED AS WELL. SO MISS WILSON
SUPPORTS YOUR BILL. VICE CHAIR
WALDEN. THANK YOU, YOUR BILL
MADE ME THINK ABOUT THINGS WHEN
I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL. I
MEAN, IN ESCONDIDO, WHERE I
SERVED. IT'S AN INLAND CITY.
IT'S AN OLDER CITY. IT'S LOTS OF
CONCRETE, YOU KNOW, THE BASIC,
IN INFILL AREA HAS PRETTY MUCH
BEEN DEVELOPED. SO WHEN THAT
HEAT CAME, THERE WAS NO RECOURSE
FOR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TO GO
ANYWHERE. SO WE WERE ABLE TO
KIND OF OPEN UP LIBRARIES.
PEOPLE WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE
HEAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY
WANT TO GO ABOUT THEIR DAY TO
DAY BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, WALKING
ON PATHWAYS OR SITTING, YOU
KNOW, ON A PARK BENCH OR A BUS
BENCH, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S THE
BUSSES ARE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT. BUT,
YOU KNOW, WHERE DO PEOPLE GO IF
THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO OR ARE
JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GO TO
THE STORE OR THINGS LIKE THAT?
IT'S NO COVER. SO I SUPPORT THE
BILL. I THINK IT'S A WAY TO GET
COMMUNITIES AND THEIR PLANNING
TO THINK AHEAD ABOUT THESE
THINGS. SO ANY OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBER SEEING NONE, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRYANT ABSOLUTELY, THANK YOU,
MADAM VICE CHAIR, FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. AND, YOU KNOW,
DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE
PERSPECTIVE OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM
CORONA. THERE ARE MANY
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
MANDATED TO PROVIDE AIR
CONDITIONING FOR EVERYBODY AND
HAVE BUILT HOMES THAT DON'T HAVE
AIR CONDITIONING. ALL ACROSS LOS
ANGELES. IF YOU'RE WITHIN A
PROXIMITY OF THE OCEAN, YOU
DON'T HAVE IT, FOR EXAMPLE. SO
I'M CERTAINLY NOT REQUIRING AND
YOU MAY, IF YOU WANT, AT SOME
POINT TO REQUIRE THAT AIR
CONDITIONING IS GOING ALL HOMES.
BUT WHAT I DO THINK WE SHOULD DO
IS NOT, FAIL TO PREPARE FOR
EVERY SINGLE YEAR BEING THE
HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD AND WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
TREMENDOUS WORK THAT'S HAPPENING
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, COOLING
CENTERS ARE NOT AN ANSWER. WE
NEED TO PLAN FOR THIS, WE NEED
TO BUILD UP THE RESILIENCY. WE
NEED TO DO IT WITH COMMUNITY.
AND BY DOING SO, WE ARE SAVING
THE TAXPAYER DISASTER MONEY HERE
LOCALLY BY DRAWING DOWN ON
FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT WE
CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.
AND SO THIS IS A SMART,
THOUGHTFUL FUTURE LOOKING BUT
IMPORTANT. NOW TYPE MEASURE. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A
MOTION TO THERE'S A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO, A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN, FOR WORKING ON THIS BILL
AND REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
CONSIDER THE HAZARDS OF EXTREME
HEAT. YOU REFERENCED THE CITY OF
COACHELLA. I WORK FOR THE CITY
OF COACHELLA FOR SIX YEARS, AND
IT IS VERY COMMON TO SEE AT
LEAST THREE DAYS OF OVER 120
DEGREES IN AUGUST, SO THANK YOU
FOR WORKING ON THIS, AND YOU
ALSO REFERENCED THE CITY OF
PALMDALE COMING FROM THE HIGH
DESERT. I KNOW HOW EXTREME IT
CAN BE IMPACTFUL IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, WITH YOUR
ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, I'LL BE VOTING AYE
ON YOUR BILL TODAY. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO. AYE.
WALDRON WALDRON AYE. AND SALIH
NO SALIH. NO. HANEY. CARRA
PACHECO. CHECO AYE. RAMOS RAMOS.
AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE. WILSON
THANK YOU. 5 TO 1. THE BILL IS
OUT. CONGRATULATIONS. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR THE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTHY, BUT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PETRIE-NORRIS IS
HERE. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AB 2559. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL 2559, WHICH WILL STREAMLINE
THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR EV
CHARGERS. TODAY. THERE ARE A
LITTLE UNDER 100,000 EV CHARGING
STATIONS ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IN ORDER TO HIT OUR
GOALS, WE NEED TO HAVE 1 MILLION
CHARGING STATIONS BY 2030 AND
MORE THAN 2 MILLION BY 2035.
THOSE ARE VERY BIG NUMBERS, AND
THE REALITY IS, FOR US TO
ACTUALLY HIT THAT, WE NEED TO
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE WAY IN
WHICH WE'RE PERMITTING THIS EV
INFRASTRUCTURE, BECAUSE RIGHT
NOW, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS,
WE ARE FACED WITH DELAYS OF TWO
OR SOMETIMES THREE YEARS, AND SO
AB 255 NINE DOES TWO THINGS TO
STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS, NUMBER
ONE, IT WILL CREATE A PERMIT
STREAMLINING SPECIALIST AT
GO-BIZ WHO WILL BE TASKED WITH
EXPEDITING, PERMITTING AND
IDENTIFYING PERMIT STREAMLINING
BARRIERS. AND NUMBER TWO, THE
BILL WILL REQUIRE GO-BIZ TO
DEVELOP A REPORTING PLATFORM
WHERE EV SERVICE PROVIDERS CAN
LOG ON ANY ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE
WITH A LOCAL JURISDICTION. THE
GOAL IS THAT THIS TOOL WILL GIVE
GO-BIZ THE INFORMATION THAT THEY
NEED TO IDENTIFY OBSTACLES AND
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THESE
CHARGING STATIONS. GET DOWN TO
THE ROOT OF THAT DELAY AND BE
ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS SO
THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER
MORE THAN 2 MILLION CHARGING
STATIONS BY 2035, PLEASE BE
JOINED TODAY BY MEGAN
MICKELBERG, WHO'S HERE ON BEHALF
OF CALSTART, TO SHARE HER
PERSPECTIVE AND EXPERIENCE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
MEGAN MICKELBERG HERE ON BEHALF
ON BEHALF OF CALSTART. THEY ARE
A GLOBAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
DEDICATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE HERE, WE'RE
GRATEFUL TO THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FOR HER COMMITMENT TO EXPEDITING
INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD OUT AND FOR
AUTHORING AB 2559, AS SHE
DESCRIBED, THIS BILL INTENDS TO
HELP EXPEDITE PERMITTING FOR EV
CHARGING STATIONS AND SHED LIGHT
ON THE CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS
ASSOCIATED WITH PERMITTING
EXISTING LAW REQUIRES
JURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT A
STREAMLINING ORDINANCE AND
COMPLY WITH MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
OF EV CHARGERS. HOWEVER, EV
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE STILL
ENCOUNTERING DELAYS RECEIVING
THEIR PERMITS WHEN THESE DELAYS
OCCUR. GO-BIZ IN THEIR ROLE AS
THE ZEV MARKET DEVELOPMENT LEAD
DOES GREAT WORK TO HELP BRIDGE
THAT COMMUNICATION OAN BETWEEN
EV SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE
PERMITTING AUTHORITY TO HELP
RESOLVE DELAYS. THIS BILL SIMPLY
FORMALIZES EXISTING PRACTICES
AND TAKES IT A STEP FURTHER
THROUGH THE CREATION OF A
WORKING GROUP AND THEN A
SUBSEQUENT SUPPORT OR A REPORT
TO EXPLORE THE OBSTACLES AND
CHALLENGES WITH PERMITTING AS EV
ADOPTION GROWS, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE MUST KEEP PACE,
SO UNDERSTANDING THE ROOT CAUSES
OF THESE PERMIT DELAYS IS REALLY
ESSENTIAL TO MAKING THAT HAPPEN.
SO WITH THAT, WE ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
ADD ON TO THE RECORD IN SUPPORT,
SEEING NONE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, SEEING
SOMEBODY COMING. YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT IF YOU LIKE. IT'S UP TO
YOU. HI, DAIMON CONKLIN, WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
WE'RE NOT IN OPPOSITION, OAN.
WE'RE KIND OF A TWEENER, IF YOU
WILL. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL, AS WELL AS
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, HAVING SOME
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS. OUR
MAIN CONCERNS, ARE NOT WITH THE
INTENT OF THE BILL, CITIES,
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND
PERMITTING AUTHORITIES ARE EAGER
TO SEE FULL DEPLOYMENT OF EV
CHARGING THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
OUR ISSUE IS JUST WITH SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE IN THE LANGUAGE IN THE
BILL. THAT ISN'T SPECIFICALLY
CLEAR, THAT IT'S NOT PUBLIC
FACING. WE DON'T WANT A, ANY
ALLEGED DELAYS OR COMPLAINTS TO
BE PUBLIC FACING AND USE AS A
SCARLET LETTER FOR CERTAIN
PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. WE'VE
ALREADY HAD CHALLENGES WITH
GO-BIZ WHO HAVE INACCURATELY
IDENTIFIED CITIES AS THE
PERMITTING AUTHORITY ON THEIR
DASHBOARD, AND COMPLIANCE WITH
EITHER 1236 OR 970, WHEN IT'S
ACTUALLY THE COUNTY THAT'S THE
PERMITTING AUTHORITY. SO WE JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THIS
IS AN INTERNAL DATABASE, AND NOT
PUBLIC FACING. THAT'S ALL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE
ELSE, I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED BILL
SEEING NOBODY IS THERE A MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL? IS THERE A
SECOND? WE HAVE A FIRST AND A
SECOND, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, YOUR
WORK TO HELP THE STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IDENTIFY AND REDUCE
BARRIERS TO THE PERMITTING OF EV
CHARGING STATIONS. AS WE KNOW,
THE FASTER WE BUILD
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EVS, THE MORE
WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INVEST IN
EVS. AND THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU
MENTIONED, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET
THERE AS SOON AS WE CAN, THE
FASTER THAT HAPPENS, THE SOONER
WE REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS SAMPLES
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL, THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
THE ECONOMY. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL CARILLO. AYE
CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON.
AYE. ASSALY ASSALY. AYE. HANEY.
CORA. PACHECO PACHECO. AYE.
RAMOS. RAMOS AYE. WARD. WILSON.
FIVE ZERO. FIVE ZERO. THE BILL
IS OUT. CONGRATULATIONS WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. WE MOVE ON TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTHY ON AB
2427. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE, THIS IS A
MEASURE THAT SOME OF YOU MAY
KNOW FROM PRIOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HEARINGS RELATED TO EV
INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU KNOW, IN
ORDER TO REACH OUR CLIMATE GOALS
AND GET, YOU KNOW, A MILLION
PLUS, ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON THE
ROAD, WE NEED TO DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVE OUR CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WITH THAT
COMES OPPORTUNITIES IN PEOPLE'S
RESIDENCES. A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVE
IN APARTMENTS OR LIVE IN HOMES.
WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE A GARAGE.
AND SO HAVING THESE CURBSIDE
MOBILE CHARGING OPTIONS ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO THIS. AND
SO THIS BILL WOULD FOCUS ON
EXPANDING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
AND HAVING ADOPTION MORE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. AND RIGHT NOW, ABOUT
A THIRD OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS
HAVE DON'T HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY
TO ACCESS THEIR CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE. THESE ARE
ESPECIALLY FOCUSED ON OUR LOWER
INCOME RESIDENTS AND WITH
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, SO WITH
US, WE'VE WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT GROUPS AND
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE THE
BILL BETTER FROM LAST YEAR, WITH
ME TODAY ARE TWO WITNESSES AND
I'D LIKE THEM TO PRESENT AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
CORY BULLIS, ON BEHALF OF FELLOW
EV CHARGING, HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, FLOW IS A
CHARGING STATION MANUFACTURER
AND A NETWORK OPERATOR WITH OVER
100,000 CHARGING STATIONS
DEPLOYED ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. I
WOULD ALSO NOTE MY FELLOW
CO-SPONSOR IS A COMPANY CALLED
IT'S ELECTRIC COULD NOT BE HERE
TODAY. THEY SPECIALIZE IN
CURBSIDE CHARGING AS WELL AND
ARE ALSO IN STRONG SUPPORT. ONE
OF FLO'S SPECIALTIES IS
DEPLOYING CURBSIDE CHARGERS. WE
ACTUALLY HAVE THE LARGEST
DEPLOYMENTS ON THE CONTINENT. WE
HAVE 1000 CURBSIDE CHARGERS IN
MONTREAL, 500 WITH THE CITY OF
LA AND 100 WITH NEW YORK CITY.
WE CAN SHARE FIRSTHAND THE
BENEFITS OF DEPLOYING CURBSIDE
CHARGERS. THERE'S THREE IN
PARTICULAR I'LL NOTE. THE FIRST
IS WE ARE ABLE TO STRATEGICALLY
SITE THESE CHARGERS IN LOCATIONS
FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT WOULD
NOT OTHERWISE HAVE ACCESS TO
CHARGING. SO WE'RE INCREASING
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO
INFRASTRUCTURE. TWO, WE HAVE
SEEN ONCE WE'VE DEPLOYED THE
CHARGER OVER TIME, ONCE THE
COMMUNITY GETS USED TO IT AND
EMBRACES IT, WE SEE UTILIZATION
STEADILY TICK UP ON THE CHARGER.
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.
IN FACT, WE HAVE ALSO LEARNED
AND SEEN FROM OUR DATA ON OUR
NETWORK THAT OUR CURBSIDE
CHARGERS HAVE SOME OF THE
HIGHEST UTILIZATION ACROSS ALL
OF THOSE CHARGERS, IN NORTH
AMERICA. AND THIRD, IF YOU ARE
REDUCING THE NEED FOR THESE
DRIVERS TO RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON
DC FAST CHARGING, YOU'RE
REDUCING COST IMPACTS FOR THEM.
DC FAST CHARGING COSTS ON A PER
SESSION BASIS FOR A DRIVER ARE
TYPICALLY HIGHER THAN A LEVEL
TWO CHARGING STATION, SO YOU'RE
REDUCING COSTS FOR THE DRIVER.
YOU'RE REDUCING DISPARITIES IN
THOSE IN THOSE IMPACTS. WE
REALLY WANT TO MAXIMIZE BRINGING
THESE BENEFITS TO CALIFORNIA AS
WELL PERMITS IS A KEY ASPECT OF
THAT. CREATING TRANSPARENT AC AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL ON WHERE AND HOW
AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO
DEPLOY THESE CHARGERS. THERE'S
CERTAINLY A LOT OF UNIQUE
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE RIGHT OF
WAY THAT DON'T THAT HAVE BEEN
TRADITIONALLY DIFFERENT THAN
WHEN YOU DEPLOY OFF STREET
CHARGING, SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS
BILL WILL HELP PROVIDE THAT
NEEDED TRANSPARENCY SO THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE DO
BEST, BRINGING MORE CHARGERS TO
THE STATE. THANK YOU, CHAIR
CARRILLO, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS TED LAM, AND
I'M SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW AT
THE UC BERKELEY CENTER FOR LAW,
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
WHERE I LEAD THE CENTER'S EV
EQUITY INITIATIVE, A MULTI YEAR
EFFORT FOCUSED ON PROVIDING
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE TOOLS
THEY NEED TO ENSURE THAT ALL
RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO ZERO
EMISSIONS, MOBILITY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WE JUST
HEARD, THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION HAS ESTIMATED THAT
CALIFORNIA WILL NEED OVER 2
MILLION PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
CHARGERS TO SUPPORT ELECTRIC
VEHICLE DRIVERS IN THE STATE BY
2035. AND CURRENTLY, WE HAVE
JUST OVER 100,000. THE ENERGY
COMMISSION AND INDEPENDENT
RESEARCHERS HAVE FOUND THAT
LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ARE THE
LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE ACCESS TO
PUBLIC CHARGING, AND THE MOST IN
RELIANT ON IT. MY TEAM'S
RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
STAKEHOLDERS HAS IDENTIFIED THE
CURBSIDE AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
CHARGING, THE SUBJECT OF THIS
BILL AS A CORE STRATEGY TO MEET
THAT NEED. THIS CHARGING WILL BE
CRUCIAL FOR CALIFORNIANS WHO
LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS,
LACK OFF STREET PARKING, OR LACK
THE CAPITAL TO INSTALL THEIR OWN
CHARGERS. WITHOUT IT, RESIDENTS
OF UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND
DENSE CITIES WILL FACE BARRIERS
TO EV ADOPTION. BUT CURBSIDE AND
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CHARGING
ALSO PRESENT A NOVEL BUSINESS
CASE, COMPLEX PERMITTING AND
CONTRACTING QUESTIONS, AND A
LIMITED SET OF APPROPRIATE HIGH
PRIORITY ZONES IN ANY
JURISDICTION. CALIFORNIA CITIES,
INCLUDING LOS ANGELES AND
SACRAMENTO, HAVE DEVELOPED
SUCCESSFUL PILOT PROGRAMS FOR
CURBSIDE CHARGING, BUT NONE HAS
YET TAKEN A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH TO PERMITTING,
CONTRACTING AND SITE SELECTION.
PURE WEST COAST CITIES LIKE
PORTLAND AND SEATTLE ARE ALREADY
DOING SO BY REQUIRING LOCAL
AGENCIES TO DEVELOP, PERMITTING
CHECKLISTS AND IDENTIFY APPROVED
SITES, AND REQUIRING STATE
AGENCIES TO DEVELOP BEST
PRACTICES AND CONDUCT A NEEDS
ASSESSMENT, AB 2427 CAN ENHANCE
LOCAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC
AND CURBSIDE CHARGING AND
MAXIMIZE UTILIZATION OF CRUCIAL
INVESTMENTS. MY TEAM AT UC
BERKELEY IS WORKING TO SUPPORT
THIS EFFORT BY DEVELOPING A
MODEL EQUITY ACT OF EQUITY
FOCUSED EV ACTION PLAN FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND A FREE, MAP
BASED DECISION TOOL FOR THOSE
GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS TO
IDENTIFY PRIORITY SITES FOR
CHARGING. WE HOPE TO HAVE THESE
TOOLS AVAILABLE AT THE END OF
THIS YEAR OR NEXT. I BELIEVE THE
LOCAL AND STATE EFFORTS OUTLINED
IN AB 2427 CAN BE A KEY STEP TO
MAKE SURE THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
TRANSITION OVER THE COMING
DECADE HAPPENS EFFECTIVELY,
EFFECTIVELY AND EQUITABLY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
MEASURE, PLEASE COME UP. STATE
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. OBED FRANCO, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC
TRANSPORTATION COALITION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, ROGER DICKINSON, ON
BEHALF OF CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANDREW MENDOZA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING OFFICIALS AND SUPPORT.
MICHELLE KANELLIS, ON BEHALF OF
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND SUPPORT. MARGIE LEE SAMSON,
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. MEGAN
MICKELBERG, ON BEHALF OF
CALSTART, THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING ASSOCIATION AND VALLEY
CLEAN AIR, NOW IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE?
SEEING NONE, ANY MEMBERS OF. OH,
HERE THEY COME. YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT IF YOU LIKE. OR MICROPHONE
WAS FINE. IT'S NOT THAT SERIOUS.
OKAY. IT'S NOT THAT SERIOUS.
TRACY RYAN, RURAL COUNTY,
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
WE DO NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL
OPPOSE POSITION ON THE BILL, BUT
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR, STAFF AND THE SPONSORS
FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS, ON THE
BILL AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL AND WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
US IN GOOD FAITH. WE DO HAVE
SOME CONCERNS AROUND SOME OF THE
PROCESSES THAT THE BILL I THINK,
PUT IN PLACE THAT WEREN'T
NECESSARILY THE INTENT, OF THE,
OF THE SPONSORS AND THE AUTHOR.
SO WE JUST WANT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK THAT OUT AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DAMON CONKLIN WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES ECHO THE SAME
SENTIMENTS. MY COLLEAGUE FROM
CÁC. WE'VE HAD SOME VERY
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE SPONSORS. WE APPRECIATE THE
PRODUCTIVE DIALOG, WE AGREE THAT
THERE'S SOME, I THINK SOME
DRAFTING ISSUES THAT WE CAN WE
CAN IRON OUT, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE?
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SEEING
NONE. I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON WHAT'S IN
FRONT OF US SEEING NOBODY. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCCARTHY? NO. THANK YOU.
I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW THAT WE NEED
TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE OUR
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE
THE EASY STUFF'S BEEN DONE. SO
NOW IT'S THE MORE COMPLICATED
THINGS ON BUSY STREETS,
APARTMENT COMPLEXES. AND THIS
WILL ALLOW US TO EXPAND
AVAILABILITY. BUT MAKE SURE WE
RESPECT AND WORK WITH
GOVERNMENTS ALONG THE WAY. AND
YEAH, WE'RE COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT GROUPS
THAT ARE CONCERNED TODAY AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'LL JUST
SAY THAT IT'S EXCITING TO SEE
THAT THIS COULD BRING THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS, FOR THOSE THAT
DON'T HAVE THE FACILITY TO BE
ABLE TO INSTALL AN ELECTRIC
CHARGING ON THEIR PARKING LOT
BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY
AND OTHER OTHER REASONS WHY. AND
I DO HOPE THAT THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THIS RESOURCE GOES ACROSS THE
STATE TO EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD,
AGAIN, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT
LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS. THAT MAKES IT VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO
CHARGE THE ELECTRIC VEHICLES IF
THEY'RE INTERESTED IN GETTING
ONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. TO
HELP PREPARE THE STATE FOR ITS
FUTURE EV DEPLOYMENT PLANNING
FOR EVS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY IS TIME AND EFFORT WELL
SPENT, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE LITTLE OR
NO ACCESS TO CHARGING WHERE THEY
LIVE. I'M PLEASED TO SUPPORT
YOUR BILL, DID WE GET A MOTION?
SO MOVED. SECOND, WE DO HAVE A
MOTION. AND A SECOND, THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. CARILLO Ã.
CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON
AYE. IS SALLY A SALLY? AYE.
HANEY. CORA PACHECO. PACHECO.
AYE RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE. WARD
WILSON. FIVE. STEPHENS BY. FIVE
ZERO. THE BILL IS STARTLING.
REVELATIONS LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. WE
HAVE TWO MORE MEASURES ON THE
AGENDA AND ONE OF THOSE IS AB
2783 ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ FOR
STAFF. IF YOU SEE HIM, LET HIM
KNOW WE'RE READY FOR HIM, THE
OTHER ONE IS SB 2922.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GARCIA, THE SAME
GOES TO STAFF. PLEASE LET THEM
KNOW THAT WE'RE READY FOR THEM.
I THOUGHT I SAW ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GARCIA. I DON'T SEE HIM. BUT
ANYWAY, HE'S OUTSIDE. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA, WHEN
YOU'RE READY ON AB 22, 29, 22.
EXCUSE ME. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB
2922, WHICH WILL EXTEND THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CAPITAL
INVESTMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 2035. WE HAVE
INCLUDED AN URGENCY CLAUSE WHICH
WILL ENABLE THE CIP PROGRAM TO
GO BACK INTO GO INTO EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY. WHAT'S INSIDE BY
THE GOVERNOR, THIS PROGRAM IS A
PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES INCENTIVES
THAT ALREADY HAS, CREATED A
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THAT ATTRACTS
MANY, CORPORATIONS TO INVEST IN
THE UNDERSERVED AREAS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING,
AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN, TO PAY OFF
DIVIDENDS AND THE IMPERIAL
COUNTY, WHERE IN IMPERIAL COUNTY
, FOR MANY DECADES, WE'VE SEEN
HIGH, NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYMENT,
WITH ME HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL IS REBECCA BAXTER,
ASSISTANT COUNTY CEO FOR THE
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, TO TESTIFY.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOUR STAFF
FOR THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, AND,
WE'LL BE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS REBECCA
BAXTER. I AM THE ASSISTANT CEO
FOR THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. THE
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL IS THE PROUD
SPONSOR OF AB 2922, A BILL THAT
WOULD PROVIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
LIKE OURS WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO
ATTRACT LARGE MANUFACTURING
FACILITIES TO INVEST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND TO ENCOURAGE
EMERGING INDUSTRIES TO LOCATE
AND INVEST IN THOSE FACILITIES
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, SPECIFICALLY
FOR IMPERIAL COUNTY, AB 2922
WILL HELP US AS WE MOVE FORWARD
WITH OUR LITHIUM VALLEY ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN. THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF AB 2922, THE
CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCENTIVE
PROGRAM, WAS EXTENDED IN 2018,
AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, AND HAS
BEEN A CRITICAL TOOL THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS USE TO BRING PAYING
JOBS, HIGH PAYING JOBS TO OUR
REGIONS, ALONG WITH OTHER
POSITIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS,
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROGRAM WAS
ALLOWED TO EXPIRE ON JANUARY
1ST, 2024, AND IMPERIAL COUNTY
IS IN DIRE NEED OF REINSTATEMENT
OF THE PROGRAM. WITH THE GROWING
DEMAND OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC
DEVICES AND STATE MANDATES
AROUND THE INCREASED PRODUCTION
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES, WHICH ARE
POWERED BY LITHIUM, THE IMPERIAL
COUNTY HAS BECOME A CENTRAL
COMPONENT TO THE STATE'S EFFORTS
TO EXTRACT AND RECOVER LOCAL
RESOURCES OF LITHIUM, ACCORDING
TO THE LAWRENCE BERKELEY
NATIONAL LAB REPORT THAT WAS
RELEASED IN NOVEMBER, IT IS
ESTIMATED THAT IMPERIAL COUNTY
MAY HOLD AS MUCH AS 18 MILLION
METRIC TONS OF LITHIUM. THAT'S
ENOUGH TO SUPPORT 375 MILLION EV
BATTERIES. IMPERIAL COUNTY HAS A
POPULATION OF 180,000 PEOPLE,
WITH A MEDIAN AGE OF 32, AND A
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF LESS
THAN 50,000 A YEAR. OUR
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAS ALWAYS
HOVERED IN THE DOUBLE DIGITS.
IT'S CURRENTLY AT 17. THE
POTENTIAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
THAT COMES WITH THE EXTRACTION
OF LITHIUM FROM IMPERIAL COUNTY
CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED. HOWEVER,
WE NEED PROGRAMS LIKE THIS, LIKE
THE CIP, TO ENCOURAGE COMPANIES
TO COME TO IMPERIAL COUNTY AND
HIRE OUR LOCAL POPULATION AND
PARTNER WITH OUR COMMUNITIES TO
MAKE MUCH NEEDED INVESTMENTS IN
OUR REGION. AB 2922 IS A
CRITICAL STEP ON THAT PATH. WE
ARE SO GRATEFUL TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GARCIA FOR BEING
A PASSIONATE AND DEDICATED
ADVOCATE FOR OUR COUNTY.
THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE OF AB 2922. WE
HAVE A MOTION. THANK YOU. FIRST
AND SECOND. THANK YOU, ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
ADD ON TO THE MEASURE, PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION,
AND DECISION, MEMBERS, MIKE
MONAHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES IN THE STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. BRADY
GARDNER, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MURATSUCHI
GONZALEZ, ON BEHALF OF
CONTROLLED THERMAL RESOURCES,
WE'RE A GEOTHERMAL AND LITHIUM
RECOVERY PLATFORM IN THE HEART
OF THE LITHIUM VALLEY IN STRONG
SUPPORT. ALEJANDRO SOLIS, ON
BEHALF OF LOS AMIGOS DE LA
COMUNIDAD LITHIUM VALLEY AND
SUPPORT. DEAN TALLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE OF OUR MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE, TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE, TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
? COMMENTS ON THE MEASURE,
SEEING NONE, WE GOT A MOTION AND
A SECOND. RIGHT? YEAH WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? ASSEMBLYMEMBERS.
THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
AUTHORING THIS, BILL. I SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ATTRACT LARGE
MANUFACTURING INVESTMENTS. AND I
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A
REASONABLE PROGRAM TO DO JUST
THAT. I WILL BE VOTING AYE ON
YOUR BILL. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AS AMENDED. YOU DO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS? YES, SIR. YOU DO,
AND IT IS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. AS
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO. AYE.
WALDRON SALLY. HI, SALLY. AYE
HANEY. CORA. PACHECO. CORA. AYE
CHACO. PACHECO. AYE. RAMOS
RAMOS. AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
WILSON HI. WILSON. AYE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SEVEN ZERO. THE
BILL IS. I WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE OUR
LAST BILL. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ALVAREZ, WHEN YOU ARE READY. AND
THAT'S, AB 2783. PLEASE, WHEN
YOU'RE READY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. TRY TO SAVE THE BEST
FOR LAST. FOR ALL OF YOU.
HOPEFULLY YOU'VE HAD A VERY
PRODUCTIVE COMMITTEE, AND I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THIS BILL BEFORE ALL OF
YOU, I WANTED TO FIRST START OFF
BY THANKING STAFF AND THE CHAIR.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY ON, THE BILL.
AND, AND I THINK THE ANALYSIS
YOU HAD A CHANCE. AND IF YOU
HAVEN'T, IT'S WORTHWHILE A
SECOND READ. I THINK IT'S VERY
WELL WRITTEN AND VALID ANALYSIS,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW,
OFTENTIMES WE HAVE BILLS THAT WE
HAVE SPONSORS. YOU ALL KNOW THE
PROCESS, BUT MANY TIMES YOU
DON'T HAVE A SPONSOR OF A BILL.
IF IT'S A BILL THAT'S IMPACTING,
MAINLY A COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN
UNDERREPRESENTED FOR A VERY LONG
TIME, PART OF THIS BILL IS ABOUT
THAT. IT'S ABOUT COMMUNITIES
THAT WHILE SOME OF YOU MIGHT
HAVE A VISION OF WHAT THE PORT
IS BECAUSE YOU FLY INTO SAN
DIEGO IN THE SKYLINE IS AMAZING,
OR YOU KNOW, ABOUT CORONADO, AND
THE HOTEL CORONADO SKYLINE IS
ALSO BEAUTIFUL, THERE ARE OTHER
PARTS OF THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO
AND THOSE OTHER PARTS OF THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO ARE WHO I GET
TO REPRESENT. AND I HAVE THE
HONOR OF REPRESENTING HERE
TODAY. AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM TWO,
WITNESSES WHO ARE HERE ON THEIR
OWN ACCORD, WHO ARE LIVE IN THE
PORT AND HAVE LIVED EXPERIENCES
OF A LONG TIME OF BEING PORT,
RESIDENTS AND LEADERS. AND
YOU'LL HEAR FROM THEM. ASSEMBLY
BILL 2783 IMPLEMENTS KEY REFORMS
AIMED AT IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT
AT THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO. THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO IS UNIQUE. THE
PORT IS CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE
MEMBER CITIES, FIVE MEMBER
CITIES, TO WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS
OR CITY COUNCILS FROM EACH OF
THOSE CITIES APPOINT THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES, AND IT WAS
CREATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE
IN 1962 BY ESTABLISHING CLEAR
GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL
STANDARDS. THIS BILL WILL
ENHANCE THE PORT'S PARTICIPATION
AS A COMMUNITY PARTNER AND
ENSURE THAT PORT DECISIONS ARE
MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC. I PERSONALLY RECOGNIZE
THE VALUE OF THE PORT IN SAN
DIEGO'S ECONOMY AND THE
WORKFORCE, SINCE I HAVE PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS, BROTHERS WHO WORK
AT THE PORT, AT THE WORKING
WATERFRONT AS WELDERS, TWO OF
THEM AS WELDERS, ONE AS A
PLUMBER AT THE PORT, AND LIKE
THEM, LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY
WHERE ALL MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS
ARE EITHER USED TO WORK FOR THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO, FOR AN ENTITY
AT THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO, OR
STILL DO TODAY. THE REFORMS OF
THIS BILL RECOMMENDATIONS WERE
OUTLINED IN THE GRAND JURY
REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY LAST YEAR. AND
THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS THAT I
WANT TO FOCUS ON THAT THE BILL
FOCUSES ON THAT. I WANT TO FOCUS
YOUR ATTENTION ON THE FIRST WAS
THE GRAND JURY REPORT'S FINDING
THAT THERE IS A LACK OF
OVERSIGHT, TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR AN
ORGANIZATION WITH SUCH FAR
REACHING POWER AND JURISDICTION.
THAT'S A QUOTE FROM THE GRAND
JURY'S REPORT. IT ALSO REVEALED
CONCERNS AMONG PORT DISTRICT
STAKEHOLDERS, WHERE SMALLER
CITIES REPORTED A LACK, QUOTE, A
LACK OF FOLLOW THROUGH AND
INVESTMENT IN THEIR CITIES
DISPROPORTIONAL TO THE REVENUE
GENERATED AT THE PORT DISTRICT
WITHIN THEIR MUNICIPAL
BOUNDARIES. SO TWO FINDINGS OF
WHICH, CAME FROM THE GRAND JURY
OF WHICH THIS BILL HAS BEEN
CENTERED AROUND AND DRAFTED
AROUND AB 2783 RESPONSE TO THIS
REPORT BY PROPOSING A FEW THINGS
TERME LIMITS IDENTICAL TO THAT
OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE OF 12
YEARS AND OTHER PORTS IN
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING THE LONG
THE PORT OF LONG BEACH. IT ALSO
REQUIRES THAT 1% OF OPERATING
REVENUE AND 1% OF LEASE RENTS AS
IDENTIFIED AS DEFINED, TO
RESPOND TO THE LACK OF FOLLOW
THROUGH ON THOSE INVESTMENTS IN
THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
IMPACTED BY PORT ACTIVITY. THESE
PROVISIONS MIMIC IMPACT FUNDS
FOUND IN OTHER PORT DISTRICTS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND WE HAVE A
SHEET OF WHAT OTHER PORT
DISTRICTS DO IN THEIR OWN
COMMUNITIES AS, THESE FUNDS
WOULD HAVE HELPED MITIGATE
HEALTH IMPACTS FOR RESIDENTS
THAT LIVE CLOSE TO MARITIME
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. ACCORDING
TO CAL, EPA'S CALENVIROSCREEN
4.0 TOOL, CENSUS TRACKS THAT ARE
ADJACENT TO THE PORT OF SAN
DIEGO SCORE 100TH AND 99TH
PERCENTILE IN EXPOSURE TO DIESEL
PARTICULATE MATTER AND 95TH
PERCENTILE IN ASTHMA AND POVERTY
RATES. THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE I
AM RAISING MY FAMILY, WHERE I
WAS RAISED, ARE RED SHADED AS,
GETS TO THE SEVERITY OF THE
SCALE. IT GOES FROM LIGHTER
COLORS TO RED. 15 YEARS AGO,
LEGISLATION, IT WAS ALSO
OUTLINED IN YOUR IN YOUR,
ANALYSIS WAS ATTEMPTED, BUT IT
DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. BUT
LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED TO
CREATE A, IMPACT FUND TO SUPPORT
THESE COMMUNITIES. WHILE THE
LEGISLATION DID NOT GO FORWARD,
WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PORT,
REALIZED THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO
BETTER AND THEY CREATED THE
MARINE INDUSTRIAL IMPACT FUND IN
AN EFFORT TO HELP OFFSET THE
IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE MARITIME
ACTIVITY. SINCE THE FUND WAS
ESTABLISHED, A TOTAL ALLOCATION
HAS BEEN ABOUT $2.5 MILLION IN
OVER 15 YEARS. AB 2783 WOULD
RENAME THAT FUND AND SET THE
ALLOCATION TO APPROXIMATELY.
FROM THE PROJECTIONS WE'VE SEEN
FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE
PORT'S BUDGET SET, THE
ALLOCATION TO 1.5 TO 2 MILLION
PER YEAR, ACCORDING AGAIN TO
BUDGET PROJECTIONS. THIS IS IN
COMPARISON TO THE PORT OF LONG
BEACH, WHICH HAS AN ANNUAL
ALLOCATION OF 3 TO $4 MILLION
FOR THESE SAME PURPOSES, AND THE
PORT OF LA, WHICH AVERAGES $1.8
MILLION EVERY YEAR FOR THE SAME
PURPOSES, I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE OPPOSITION ON
THIS BILL. YOU'VE RECEIVED SOME
LETTERS AND THERE ARE SOME
LETTERS THAT RAISE SOME, POINTS
THAT ARE LEGITIMATE. AND I WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM, I WANT TO
BE VERY CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT THIS
BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PORT
TO REDUCE OR HALT MARITIME
ACTIVITY OR, FUTURE PROJECTS. IT
IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS BILL
TO DIMINISH THE PORT'S ONGOING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, SUCH AS
THE CHULA VISTA, BAYFRONT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE GAYLORD
PROJECT, AND IT IS NOT THE
INTENT TO RISK THEIR ABILITY TO
FINANCE FUTURE PROJECTS. AGAIN,
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE HAS
BEEN SOME INPUT, WE RECEIVED
AMENDMENTS FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN
WORKERS UNION THAT CLARIFIES THE
USE FOR ONE OF THE FUNDS, AND WE
WILL ACCEPT THOSE AMENDMENTS AND
WE ARE OPEN TO MORE AMENDMENTS
THAT EXCLUDE ANY DEBT SERVICE
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. EXCUSE ME.
AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THESE
CONCERNS. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THIS. WE HAVE ASKED WE HAVE HAD
WELL OVER 45 MEETINGS WITH
INDIVIDUALS. WE HAVE ASKED IN
PARTICULAR THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, WHERE THIS PROJECT IS
LOCATED, THAT YOU'LL HEAR SOME
OPPOSITION AROUND STATING THAT
THAT PROJECT IS JEOPARDIZED.
WE'VE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US THE
LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT THIS
PROJECT IS NOT JEOPARDIZED. WE
HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT, BUT WE
ARE STILL COMMITTED AND WILL BE
DRAFTING LANGUAGE OURSELVES TO
ENSURE THAT THAT HAPPENS. THIS
IS A PROJECT THAT IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT IN MY DISTRICT. THERE
IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT I
WOULD WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO
JEOPARDIZE THAT PROJECT. IT
CREATES GOOD JOBS, NOT ONLY
CONSTRUCTION JOBS, BUT THEN LONG
TUM JOBS AS WELL. AND THIS
AGAIN, THIS PROJECT IS SOMETHING
I'VE TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S
SUCCESSFUL. AND SO YOU'LL HEAR
OPPOSITION THAT THIS PROJECT IS
JEOPARDIZED. WE WANT TO ADDRESS
THAT. WE'VE ASKED THEM FOR
LANGUAGE. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED
IT, BUT WE WILL BE DRAFTING THAT
LANGUAGE OURSELVES. AB 27.27 83
IS A COMPREHENSIVE BILL THAT
IMPLEMENTS TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS FOUND
AT OTHER PORTS AND IN PUBLIC
AGENCIES. AGAIN, VERY OPEN TO
CHANGES. BUT THE STATUS QUO
CANNOT CONTINUE. THE PUBLIC
NEEDS TO REGAIN TRUST IN THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO BY ADOPTING
FINDINGS FROM LAST YEAR'S GRAND
JURY REPORT, WHICH WAS WHAT AB
2783 INTENDS TO DO, I NOW ASK,
NATIONAL CITY COUNCIL MEMBER,
ONE OF THE PORT MEMBER CITIES,
LUIS MOLINA, TO SPEAK. SHE'LL BE
FOLLOWED BY MISS LAURA WILKINSON
TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. HELLO, CHAIR
CARRILLO AND DISTINGUISHED
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LUZ MOLINA, A NATIONAL CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE DISTRICT
THAT I REPRESENT INCLUDES OUR
CITY'S PORT LANDS. TODAY, I AM
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ON MY OWN
BEHALF. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR
ASSEMBLY BILL 2783, WHICH IS
VITAL FOR REFORMING THE PORT OF
SAN DIEGO AND PROVIDING
TRANSPORT AGENCY ON THE WORK OF
THIS IMPORTANT AND POWERFUL
AGENCY. AB 2783 PROPOSES
CRITICAL REFORMS TO INCREASE
ACCOUNTABILITY. THANK YOU. AB
2783 PROPOSES CRITICAL REFORMS
TO INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
OPENNESS FROM THE PORT. IT
INCLUDES ESTABLISHING AN
INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMITTEE
CRUCIAL FOR OVERSIGHT. IT WOULD
ALSO PROMOTE A MORE BALANCED
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PORT
AND ITS MEMBER CITIES WITHOUT
INFRINGING ON THE PORT'S MANDATE
TO SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST. THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
RELEASED A REPORT THAT RAISED
MULTIPLE ISSUES REGARDING THE
PORT'S GOVERNANCE OF OUR TITLE,
LANDS AND REGIONS, ONE FINDING
STATED, QUOTE, THE PORT DISTRICT
IS INCENTIVIZED TO MAXIMIZE
REVENUE TO FUND ITS OPERATIONS,
A GOAL THAT MAY CREATE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST IN THE PRIORITIES,
ALLOCATIONS OF RESOURCES, AND
OTHER DECISIONS MADE BY THE PORT
COMMISSION. END QUOTE. OUR CITY
COUNCIL SUPPORTED THIS FINDING
AND SEVERAL OTHERS PUBLICLY AND
UNANIMOUSLY. THE PORT'S RESPONSE
WAS, IN SUMMARY, THAT IT IS
BEHOLDEN TO THE GREATER GOOD
BEYOND OUR CITIES, AS STATED IN
THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.
NGUYEN. THIS RESPONSE IS
INSUFFICIENT. IT DISMISSES
GENUINE CONCERNS AND PAST
INJUSTICES FACED BY NATIONAL,
CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS. THE PORT
HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE
1962. IT IS A PRODUCT OF ITS ERA
, DURING WHICH OUR SOUTH BAY SAN
DIEGO COMMUNITY, MOSTLY LOW
INCOME AND DIVERSE, TOOK THE
NEGATIVE BRUNT OF DECISIONS MADE
BY AGENCIES IN POWER IN THE NAME
OF GREATER GOOD, THE PORT HAS
INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY
PERPETUATED LONG STANDING
PATTERNS OF DISENFRANCHIZING
NATIONAL CITY AND ITS PEOPLE.
AFTER THE GRAND JURY REPORT, THE
PORT HAS HAS BEEN MIRED IN
ADDITIONAL CONTROVERSIES THAT
MAKE THE CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
OVERSIGHT EVEN MORE TIMELY. THE
CENSURE OF OUR PORT
COMMISSIONER, THE RESIGNATIONS
OF THE CEO AND THE IMMEDIATE
PAST COMMISSION CHAIRMAN,
INVESTIGATIONS INTO A PRIVATE
CITIZEN. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF
THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT
DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS
LEGISLATION IS ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY. IF NOT NOW THAN WHEN,
TO TRULY RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN
THE PORT, EVEN IF THESE ISSUES
ARE UNRELATED, THE SOLUTION MUST
COME FROM OUTSIDE IN THE FORM OF
AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMITTEE,
NOT FROM WITHIN. THE STATE HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE
ANSWERS THAT OUR CITY DESERVES.
TRUE COOPERATION HAPPENS BETWEEN
EQUALS AND IN THE LACK OF
EQUALITY, THEN A COMMITMENT TO
HONESTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS
REQUIRED TO BALANCE THAT
RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE CLOSE UP.
THE NEXT IS A STEP IN THAT
DIRECTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
PERFECT. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF
I CAN DO THIS, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I'M A COMMUNITY MEMBER, CITIZEN
ADVOCATE. I LIVE IN CORONADO AND
THE CORONADO CAYS IN SOUTH SAN
DIEGO. IN THE BAY. MY NAME IS
LAURA WILKINSON, AND I'VE LIVED
FROM RED BLUFF TO CORONADO. I
GREW UP IN LA. I LOVE THIS
GOLDEN STATE. THIS IS MY FIRST
TIME IN FRONT OF A SEMI, SO
FORGIVE MY NERVES, THE SAN DIEGO
PORT HAS BEEN MIRED IN LAWSUITS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
ISSUES FOR A WHILE NOW. THIS IS
WHAT AB 2783 WILL ADDRESS.
IMPORTANTLY, THE PORT OF SAN
DIEGO HAS COME OUT IN STATED
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. BUT YET
I'LL BRING UP THE FACT THAT THE
PORT COMMISSION HAS NOT
AGENDIZED. THIS BILL HAS NOT
DISCUSSED THIS BILL PUBLICLY,
NOR HAS IT VOTED ON THIS BILL IN
OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR OF THIS
BILL. SO ARE THEY IN VIOLATION
OF THE BROWN ACT, WHICH THEY'RE
KIND OF FAMOUS FOR DOING IN SAN
DIEGO, OR ARE THEY LETTING A
VICE PRESIDENT SET PUBLIC POLICY
FOR THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO? THIS
IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH AND HAVE BEEN
DEALING WITH FOR SOME TIME. THE
PORT COMMISSION WAS SUBJECT TO
THE GRAND JURY REPORT AS YOU
KNOW, IT'S THE THIRD GRAND JURY
REPORT THAT HAS COME OUT AND
MADE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH THIS
SAME PORT DIRECTOR RIGHTLY
REJECTED OUT OF HAND. ALL OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.
THE PORT IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT.
IT'S SUBJECT TO LAFCO OVERSIGHT,
YET IT'S THREATENING AND SABER
RATTLING ABOUT LITIGATION. WHEN
THE SAN DIEGO LAFCO VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY TO ASSERT ITS STATE
AUTHORIZED OVERSIGHT OVER THE
PORT JUST LAST MONTH, THE CHAIR
OF THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION,
CHAIR MALIA COHEN, HAS INDICATED
THAT SHE IS AGENDIZING
DISCUSSION OF THIS BILL AT THE
NEXT STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MEETING. IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL
MOVE FOR THE SLC, BUT SHOWS YOU
WHAT WE NEED HERE. THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS AND OTHER GOOD
GOVERNANCE GROUPS ARE
CONSIDERING THIS BILL AS WELL TO
ENDORSE IT BECAUSE IT'S SO
NEEDED. THE PORT IS CLAIMING
WITH ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THIS
BILL WILL KILL JOBS ALL OVER SAN
DIEGO COUNTY. AND I QUOTE, THEY
ALSO SAID IT WOULD CEASE TO
EXIST AS A COMMERCIAL MARITIME
ENTITY. THAT'S AN ABSURD
ALLEGATION. WE HAVE A $350
MILLION PUBLIC ENTITY USING OUR
MONEY AND BEHAVING LIKE A
PRIVATE COMPANY. THERE'S NO
TRANSPARENCY. THERE'S NO
ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY'RE FIGHTING
THIS BILL AND THEY'VE BEEN
DUMPING THEIR POLLUTING MARITIME
ACTIVITIES INTO NATIONAL CITY
AND OTHER POOR COMMUNITIES FOR
DECADES. AND THEY'VE DENIED
NATIONAL CITY WATERFRONT ACCESS
AS WELL. ALL OF THIS TIME, THIS
BILL IS ABOUT EQUITY, AND THIS
BILL IS ABOUT INTEGRITY OF THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO. IT WILL ALLOW
REPRESENTATION FROM COMMUNITIES
WHO DON'T REALLY CURRENTLY HAVE
A VOICE ON THE COMMISSION. AND
IT WOULD CODIFY ETHICS, WHICH
SADLY NEED TO BE CODIFIED FOR
THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO. IT'S NOT
A BEST PRACTICE WHEN YOU HAVE AN
AUDIT COMMITTEE. THAT IS ALL
EMPLOYED BY THE PORT. SO THE
PORT NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT
COMMITTEE AS WELL, EXTERNAL
AUDITORS TO REGAIN TRUST WITH
THE PUBLIC ON HOW THEY'RE
SPENDING THEIR MONEY. THEY'VE
SPENT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS ON
TWO INVESTIGATIONS OF A CEO AND
A PORT COMMISSIONER, AND THEY
HAVEN'T DISCLOSED THIS
INFORMATION. AND THEY'RE IN
FIGHTS AND LAWSUITS ABOUT PRA AS
WELL. PUBLIC RECORDS, ACTS. THE
PORT IS USING OUR MONEY TO
DEDICATE FULL TIME STAFF.
THEY'VE HIRED LOBBYISTS AND
COMMUNICATION FIRMS AND HAVE NOT
DISCLOSED THIS. WE ONLY KNOW
THIS FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE
THEY'VE HAD WITH YOU. WE ARE
JUST COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN SAN
DIEGO, SOUTH BAY. WE'RE HERE ON
OUR OWN DIME. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO
HAVE LOBBYISTS LINE UP TO THIS
MICROPHONE BEHIND US. SO WE
REALLY DEPEND ON YOU TO BE OUR
VOICE HERE FOR EQUITY AND FOR
INTEGRITY. FOR THE PORT OF SAN
DIEGO. WE DON'T WANT OUR VOICES
TO GET DROWNED OUT BY THESE
ENTRENCHED PORT STAFF AND PORT
COMMISSIONERS. THEY ENJOY THIS
CONTROL OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS AND
THE REVENUES THEY GENERATE
WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT
COMES WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
AND WE APPRECIATE YOU HEARING US
OUT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE? PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MICHELLE
RUBALCAVA WITH NIELSEN MERKSAMER
. AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA. WE ARE IN A
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED POSITION. WE
DO APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO HAVE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS ON SOME OF THE
CONCERNS WE HAVE WITH THIS BILL.
WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TRYING
TO DO, AND WE'RE WILLING TO
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO
HELP HIM GET THERE. THANK YOU.
NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE COMING
UP, PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
COME UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR CARRILLO,
MY NAME IS DANIELLE AND THE
OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS DANIELLE MOORE, AND
I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD
OF THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO. AND I
AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PORT TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2783.
THE PORT VALUES A CLOSE WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGENCIES,
INCLUDING THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION. WE ARE A STRONG
PARTNER WITH THE STATE IN
DELIVERING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF MANAGING 34 MILES OF
REMARKABLE, DIVERSE STATE LANDS.
IT IS A MULTIFACETED JOB, AND WE
EMBRACE OUR ROLE AS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA'S PRIMARY STEWARD FOR
STATE LANDS IN THE REGION. ON
THE STATE'S BEHALF, WE SUPPORT
$21 BILLION IN ECONOMIC BENEFITS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
MORE THAN 114,000 JOBS AND $64
MILLION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT VIA
THE MARITIME TRADE AND CARGO
HANDLING INDUSTRY. THERE ARE
THREE PRIMARY ISSUES THAT WE SEE
WITH THIS BILL, AND ONE IS THAT
IT SEEKS A STATE SOLUTION FOR
WHAT CAN BE WHAT CAN EASILY BE
DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. IT ALSO
CODIFIES WHAT IS ALREADY A
POLICY AT THE PORT, AND THEN IT
ELIMINATES JOBS. THE PORT IS
COMMITTED TO HOLDING ITS MEMBERS
TO HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS. THIS
BILL SEEKS TO REQUIRE THE
ADOPTION OF A CODE OF ETHICS. WE
HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS. IT WAS
ENACTED IN JANUARY 4TH, 2002. WE
ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A
COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS TO REVIEW
OUR CODE OF ETHICS, AND I AM A
PART OF THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE,
AND WE EXPECT IT TO BE UPDATED
AT THE END OF THIS YEAR, WHERE
THERE IS EXISTING LAW, THE STATE
SHOULD THE STATE LAW SHOULD
PREVAIL. IT RESTRICTS LOBBYING
EFFORTS, BUT AND LIMITS IT FROM
ONE YEAR, LIMITS IT TO, FROM THE
ONE YEAR REQUIREMENT TO TWO
YEARS. AND IT SHOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FPPC FPPC
RULES AND THE GOVERNMENT CODE
THAT THIS BODY IS ALSO HELD TO.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PORT
VALUES, GOOD GOVERNANCE. AND
CURRENTLY WE HAVE A STRUCTURE
WHERE THERE ARE SEVEN
COMMISSIONERS WITH THE PROPOSAL
THAT WE HAVE, THAT THIS BILL,
WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES IS, IS
TO BASICALLY TAKE FROM ONE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY AND
CREATE SEATS FOR THEM, IGNORING
OTHER COMMUNITIES. AND WHILE
CHULA VISTA HAS SAID THAT THEY
COME OUT IN SUPPORT, IF AMENDED,
LAST NIGHT AT THEIR CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER, THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW
THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT,
AND THERE'S RUMORS THAT OTHERS
WILL. AND SO THIS DISRUPTS AND
CREATES DIVISION FOR A UNIFIED
PORT SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN
TRY AND SECURE SEATS. AND RIGHT
NOW, THERE IS WE HAVE
REPRESENTATION FOR OUR FOR THE
MEMBER CITIES. THE OTHER
CHALLENGE IS THAT THE PORT IS
COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING GOOD
LOCAL JOBS ON THE WATERFRONT AND
ESSENTIAL MARITIME AND
INDUSTRIAL USES. IT SAID THAT
THIS BILL WILL NOT ELIMINATE
JOBS, BUT IF YOU TAKE MARITIME
AND INDUSTRIAL USES AND MAKE IT
OPEN, SPACES THAT ARE CURRENTLY
USED FOR MARITIME AND INDUSTRIAL
PURPOSES, THEN THERE'S NOTHING
THAT CAN BE DONE EXCEPT FOR TO
ELIMINATE THOSE JOBS. AND
CURRENTLY WE HAVE JOBS FOR THE
SUM OF 39,500. IN THOSE SPACES
THAT WOULD BE CREATED AS OPEN
SPACES. AND THOSE JOBS ARE GOOD
PAYING JOBS THAT ARE REPRESENTED
BY ILWU, TEAMSTERS AND THE
HARBOR POLICE OFFICERS. THE PORT
VALUES BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO
OUR PORT SIDE COMMUNITIES, WE
HAVE INVESTED OVER 60 MILLION
SINCE 2022 TO PROMOTE CLEAN AIR
HEALTH, COMMUNITIES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. THE PORT
OF SAN DIEGO IS A PORT OF.
FIRST, WE ARE SO PROUD OF THE
WORK THAT WE ARE DOING TO
ELIMINATE DIESEL PARTICULATE
MATTER IN OUR NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES. WE ARE THE FIRST
PORT TO HAVE ALL ELECTRIC MOBILE
HARBOR CRANES. THE FIRST ALL
ELECTRIC TUG. WHEN WE LOOK AT
OUR OPERATIONS FROM SHIP TO
SHORE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE NOT POLLUTING OUR
COMMUNITIES. YOU CAN'T CLOSE IN
FIVE SECONDS. YES. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. SO THIS BILL IS AN
OVERREACH. IT SINGLES OUT THE
PORT OF SAN DIEGO WITH MANDATES
THAT APPLY IN NONE OF THE OTHER
TEN PORTS IN CALIFORNIA, AND CAN
BE EASILY ADDRESSED WITHOUT
STATE LEGISLATION. AND WE ASK
THAT YOU VOTE NO IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 273. THANK YOU. EIGHT
THREE. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, SHANE GUZMAN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COUNCIL, WE ARE UNFORTUNATELY
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL, WE ARE
REPRESENTING OUR MEMBERS THAT
WORK IN AND AROUND THE PORT OF
SAN DIEGO, SPECIFICALLY LOCAL
911, WHO HAS THE EMPLOYEES THERE
, AS WELL AS OUR OUR MEMBERS WHO
DRIVE IN AND OUT OF THAT PORT
EVERY DAY. WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL ON
JOBS. I KNOW THAT ISN'T THE
INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, BUT IF YOU
LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO
CONCERN OURSELVES WITH, IT DOES
DIVERT MONEY AWAY FROM THOSE
MARITIME USES. AND MITIGATION IS
GREAT. BUT AS THE PREVIOUS
WITNESS STATED, OPEN SPACES
DON'T PROVIDE A LOT OF JOBS AND
WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO BALANCE
BOTH. AND THIS BILL IS A HAMMER
WHEN WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A
SORT OF A SOLUTION THAT WORKS
FOR EVERYONE IN TERMS OF THE
ETHICS PIECES OF THIS BILL, WE
HAVE NO ISSUES WITH IT. THEY'RE
FINE. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH
IS THE FUND TRANSFER, AND THEN
ALSO THE TIME LIMITS FOR THOSE
MEMBERS, THOSE COMMISSION
MEMBERS. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
TIME LIMITS HAS WORKED WELL IN
EVERY INSTANCE. AND WE THINK
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITIES WHO
APPOINT THOSE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION, THEY CAN DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT TO REAPPOINT OR
HAVE TIME LIMITS ON THEIR
MEMBERS THEMSELVES. BUT WE THINK
THE LEGISLATURE STEPPING IN
HERE, IS NOT THE BEST POLICY. SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE OPPOSE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. ANY MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WISHING TO COME UP ON
THE RECORD IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS.
MIKE MONAHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES, APOLOGIZE TO THE
COMMITTEE AND TO AUTHOR OUR
OPPOSITION IS LATE, BUT WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING WITH MR. ALVAREZ.
THANK YOU. JONATHAN CLAY, I'VE
BEEN ASKED TO CHIME IN FOR A
COLLEAGUE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PORT
AUTHORITIES, WHO ALSO HAVE AN
OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION.
ELMER LOZADA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
ALSO WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR LATE
SUBMISSION OF OUR LETTER. AND WE
WANT TO, SEE HOW THE
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE. SO THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR BEING
WILLING TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MARVIN
PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNIONS, LOCALS 94 AND
46, WE DON'T HAVE A POSITION ON
THE BILL, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING
TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER ABOUT
AMENDMENTS FOR THE BILL. WE ARE
LOADING AND UNLOADING EVERY SHIP
THAT COMES TO THE PORT. WE WANT
TO PROTECT JOBS, BUT WE ARE
GOING TO ASK THAT YOU MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD, WITH THE
COMMITMENT THAT OUR CONCERNS ARE
ADDRESSED, INCLUDING A MEMBER ON
THE BOARD. THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, THANK YOU, SUMMER ALVAREZ
FOR, THE OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU
KNOW, KIND OF DIG IN A LITTLE
BIT AND, LOOK AT OUR, OUR PORT
DISTRICT AND SEE WHAT WE SHOULD
BE DOING AND WHAT WE COULD BE
DOING, THROUGH STATE
LEGISLATION. YOU KNOW, YOU
MENTIONED YOU HAD A NUMBER OF
MEETINGS OF INDIVIDUALS I, YOU
KNOW, WOULD RESPECTFULLY JUST
ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE
RECORD, THE FIRST THAT WE HAD
TALKED ABOUT THIS WAS TWO DAYS
AGO, AND WE SHARE THE PORT
DISTRICT, AND WE HAVE A THIRD
COLLEAGUE THAT SHARES THE PORT
DISTRICT AND TWO SENATORS. AND
SO I WOULD JUST HAVE LOVED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED
A LITTLE BIT MORE, BECAUSE
THERE'S A LOT OF SUBSTANCE HERE
THAT IS BOTH GOOD, TROUBLESOME,
WORKABLE, AND, AND A LOT THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO PACKAGE HERE
TOGETHER THAT, THAT, THAT I'M
NERVOUS ABOUT, LIKE SORT OF IN
THE STATUS THAT IT IS HERE
TODAY. WE'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW,
SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN OAN, ONE OFFERED
BY COMMITTEE STAFF AS WELL TO
CONFORM TO GOVERNMENT CODE AND,
YOU KNOW, WORK ON A LOBBYING
RESTRICTION FOR, FOR ONE YEAR
AND THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING,
THE, ETHICS PACKAGE THAT IS,
BEING PROPOSED UNDER HERE AS
WELL, CERTAINLY WANT TO COMMEND
THE PORT FOR YOUR INTERNAL WORK
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO TO
UPHOLD, BETTER CODES OF ETHICS
AS WELL, AND TO EXTEND ANY
EXTENT THAT THAT IS GELLING WELL
TOGETHER, THAT THAT'S A GOOD,
THAT, THAT THAT COULD BE A GOOD
THING. THAT COULD BE AN
ACCEPTABLE THING, THE, BILL
WANTS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT FOR ONE. OKAY. SO
FOR EVERYONE'S, KNOWLEDGE, IF
THIS WASN'T COVERED ALREADY,
SEVEN PORT MEMBERS ON THE BOARD,
THREE OF THOSE ARE APPOINTED BY
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. ONE OF
EACH FOR THE OTHER, MEMBER
CITIES AS WELL, AROUND THE BAY.
SO FOR THOSE THREE MEMBERS FROM
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, HAVING AT
LEAST ONE OF THOSE FIVE, A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT, I THINK, IS A
SMART THING AS WELL, TO, TO BE
FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS,
THAT IS PORT ADJACENT, I DO HAVE
CONCERN AROUND THE TIME LIMITS.
WHILE THERE MIGHT BE CONSISTENCY
WITH LONG BEACH, I MEAN, EVEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
THEIR CITY COUNCIL DIGEST FROM
THE MEETING, JUST LAST NIGHT,
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEIR
AMENDMENTS. I KNOW THEY SAID
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED, BUT THEY'RE
REQUESTING TO MOVE TIME LIMITS
ALL TOGETHER. AND TO BE HONEST,
THE GAYLORD WATERFRONT PROJECT,
SOME ARE SUBSCRIBING, YOU KNOW,
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY THAT
IT MAY NOT HAVE EVER GOTTEN
DONE. WE'RE NOT FOR AND MORE,
WHO HAD BEEN THERE FOR FIVE
TERMS. I THINK POSSIBLY FOR
TERMS LONGER THAN THREE. YEAH.
BUT IT WAS THAT INSTITUTIONAL
KNOWLEDGE FROM A SMALLER CITY
THAT GAVE SOMEBODY THE LEG UP TO
BE ABLE TO FIGHT AND NAVIGATE
FOR THEIR CITY AND TO DEVELOP
AND TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE A
SIGNIFICANT PROJECT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN, WHEN WE KNOW SORT OF THE
BALANCE OF POWER CAN BE AGAINST
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO PLUS ONE
OTHER CITY, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE
GOING TO SOMEHOW DIRECT WHO CAN
BE A CHAIR, I THINK THAT ON ANY
GOVERNMENTAL BODY, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS THE PURVIEW OF
THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THAT
BOARD THEMSELVES, FOR THEM TO
DECIDE AMONGST THEMSELVES WHO A
CHAIR SHOULD BE AND NOT SAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO
BE A STATE REQUIREMENT ON WHO
GETS TO GO NEXT OR HOW THAT KIND
OF ROTATES, SO THAT THAT'S A
PROBLEMATIC AREA FOR ME, ANOTHER
MAJOR CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT
IS SORT OF, I GUESS, A CENTRAL
THREAD IN THE PORT'S LETTER AND
OTHERS LETTERS AS WELL, ABOUT
THE FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS FUND,
THAT SOMEHOW THIS WAS GOING TO
BE SETTING ASIDE LAND
MITIGATION. AND WHILE THAT'S A
GOOD THING, WHEN THAT CAN BE
COMPENSATED AND BALANCED FOR,
FOR, OTHER ACTIVITIES, SHARED
BENEFITS THAT WE GET OUT OF THE
PORT, WHICH DO INCLUDE GREEN
BENEFITS. CESAR CHAVEZ PARK, ONE
OF MY FAVORITE PARKS AS WELL,
THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I
THINK IS THE, WE WOULDN'T WANT
TO. SO, PRESCRIPTIVE LEE PUT
FORWARD THAT IS GOING TO
COMPROMISE THEIR ABILITY TO
BALANCE THEIR GOALS. RIGHT AND
YOUR BILL AS WELL, I THINK, IS
REQUIRING THE BOARD, TO DRAFT A
MASTER PLAN FOR HARBOR AND PORT
IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THEY DO THAT
ANYWAY. WE HAVE THE PORT MASTER
PLAN UPDATES REGULARLY, AND WE
RECEIVE THOSE AT CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH THROUGH INFORMATION
HEARINGS. SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE
TODAY, YOU KNOW, REALLY TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT. AND YOU HAD
MENTIONED TWO, THAT YOU'RE
WILLING TO TAKE SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS. CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HAS GOT SOME FROM, YOU KNOW,
THAT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING
FORWARD WHICH OF THESE AREAS
MIGHT THIS ACTUALLY MIGHT YOU
ACTUALLY ADDRESS. AND IN WHAT
WAYS WOULD YOU ADDRESS IT. THANK
YOU. APPRECIATE THE QUESTION,
AND BEING VERY SPECIFIC, THAT IS
THE TYPE OF FEEDBACK WE'VE BEEN
REQUESTING FROM STAKEHOLDERS FOR
SOME TIME. LET ME START WITH THE
PUBLIC ACCESS FUND, SO, IT WAS
MENTIONED IN THE TESTIMONY THAT,
THERE'S AN INTENT TO ELIMINATE
CURRENT USE OF, MARITIME
ACTIVITY AND CONVERT IT TO PARKS
, I WOULD ARGUE THERE ARE SOME
PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE
UNFORTUNATELY, THE MOST BURDENED
COMMUNITIES, THE MOST THE POOR
COMMUNITIES, ARE THE ONES THAT
HAVE THE LEAST ACCESS TO THE
WATERFRONT. THERE HAD TO BE A
LAWSUIT IN ORDER FOR THE PARK
THAT YOU DESCRIBED. THE PORT HAD
TO BE SUED IN ORDER FOR THAT ONE
ACRE PARK FOR THE PEOPLE OF
BARRIO LOGAN TO HAVE ACCESS TO
THE WATERFRONT. SO, WHILE MAYBE
THAT WOULD BE A GOOD POLICY, I
WANT TO APPRECIATE THE ILWU IN
PARTICULAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE
PROVIDED SPECIFIC FEEDBACK AND
THEY RAISED THAT ISSUE. AND I
WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERN
AND THEIR CONCERN THAT THE WAY
THAT IT IS STATED, IT COULD BE
MISREPRESENTED, THAT IT WOULD
DIRECT THE PORT TO CONVERT THAT
LAND INTO PUBLIC SPACE, SO WE
HAVE RECEIVED SOME LANGUAGE FROM
THE ILWU, WHICH WE APPRECIATE,
THAT WE THINK WE CAN, WILL CLEAR
UP THAT ALL OF THIS WILL BE LEFT
TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
THE DECISION WHETHER TO SPEND
MONEY FROM THAT FUND TO CONVERT
ANY LAND IS NOT REQUIRED, NOT
THE INTENT TO BE REQUIRED BY
THIS LEGISLATION. AND WE WILL
CLEAR THAT UP AGAIN, THANKS TO
THE ILWU. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
THEM. YOU TALKED ABOUT A
SPECIFIC SEAT, FROM SOMEONE WITH
A BACKGROUND IN ILWU RAISED
ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT POINT
WHERE ARE OUR WORKERS WHO
ACTUALLY WORK AT THE PORT IN
TERMS OF REPRESENTATION ON THE
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS?
THAT'S NEVER EXISTED. IT HAPPENS
IN LONG BEACH. IT HAPPENS IN
OTHER PORTS. AND IT'S SOMETHING
THAT PERHAPS SHOULD HAPPEN IN
THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO. AND
AGAIN, THAT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE
FEEDBACK THAT THEY GAVE THAT WE
ARE TAKING A LOOK AT NOW, ON THE
ISSUE OF THE, ROTATION OF THE
CHAIR, THIS ONE'S BEEN A LITTLE
BIT MORE CHALLENGING. THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE VERY
DIFFERENT THINGS. THE GRAND JURY
REPORT DID CALL FOR TIME LIMITS.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN THEIR
RESPONSE TO THE TO THE ISSUE OF
TIME LIMITS, AGREED. LAST NIGHT,
THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND, AND SO
YOU CAN PROBABLY GET A SENSE OF
PEOPLE HAVING DIFFERENT OPINIONS
AT DIFFERENT TIMES ONTO WHAT
THAT SHOULD BE. I WILL
ACKNOWLEDGE ALSO, TEAMSTERS,
THIS IS A CONCERN TO THEM, I'M
HOPING THAT WE COULD FIGURE OUT
WHAT TO DO ON THAT FRONT, BUT I
DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER FOR
YOU TONIGHT ON THAT SPECIFIC
ISSUE ON THE CHAIR ROTATION.
AGAIN, WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW
DO WE NOT PRESCRIBE, BUT ALSO
MAKE SURE THAT SMALL CITIES
BECAUSE REMEMBER SAN DIEGO GETS
2.3 PEOPLE IN THE SMALL CITIES.
CHULA VISTA IS NOT SO SMALL
ANYMORE. THERE ARE 250,000
PEOPLE, BUT THE OTHER TWO, THE
OTHER THREE, EXCUSE ME, ARE VERY
SMALL. WE DON'T WANT THE SMALL
CITIES TO NOT HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN LEADERSHIP.
AND SO ORIGINALLY THIS BILL, WE
HAD IT WHERE WE FORCED ROTATION.
THERE WAS A LOT OF PUSHBACK ON
THAT. AND I UNDERSTOOD AND SO
WE'VE CHANGED IT TO THE
LANGUAGE. NOW, IT MIGHT STILL
NOT BE SATISFACTORY. AND WE'RE
WILLING TO LISTEN TO IDEAS ON
HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT
AS PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT THAT IT
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, ONE CITY
SHOULDN'T HAVE ONGOING CONTROL
AS IT HAS BEEN THE CASE, BY THE
WAY. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW,
THEY'VE ROTATED, BUT MAKING SURE
THAT THAT HAPPENS INTO THE
FUTURE AND THAT WE DON'T GET IN
A SITUATION WHERE A CITY GETS
JUMPED OVER AND SMALL CITIES
DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
CHAIR. SO THAT'S THE RESPONSE, I
THINK, TO THE THREE ISSUES THAT
YOU'VE RAISED. SO, I MEAN, WE'VE
HAD, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTATIVES
FROM CITY OF CORONADO, IMPERIAL
BEACH AND NATIONAL CITY, EXCUSE
ME. AND, CHULA VISTA RECENTLY
BEEN CHAIR THAT'S 3 OR 4 NON
CITY SAN DIEGO CITIES, SO YOU
KNOW THAT AGAIN THAT THAT THERE
ARE I THINK ARE VERY SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES WE WON'T GET INTO
TODAY. WHY THE BOARD DECIDED TO
MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT DID ON
THAT CHAIR ROTATION. I DON'T
WANT TO SEE US INTERVENE ON ON
SOMETHING. I'LL TAKE A LITTLE
BIT CLOSER. LOOK, I GUESS ON ON
THE SORT OF EVOLUTION OF THAT
POINT YOU'D MENTIONED AS WELL
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NEEDING TO SEE
MORE REPRESENTATION FROM THE
AREAS THE PORT WORKERS ACTUALLY
WORK OR ACTUALLY ARE FROM NOW,
OF COURSE, THESE ARE ALL
APPOINTED POSITIONS FROM THE
RESPECTIVE CITIES. THREE PLUS
ONE PLUS ONE PLUS ONE, RIGHT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ADDITIONAL
REPRESENTATION THOUGH? LIKE
THAT. THAT THAT SEVEN SEAT BOARD
IS ACTUALLY ALREADY. ARE YOU
INTENDING ON AGAIN NOT HERE, NOT
IN FRONT OF US TODAY, ADDING
LIKE AN EX-OFFICIO THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA LAST NIGHT, THEY
WANT A SECOND SEAT. THEY'VE
BECAUSE THEY'VE GROWN
EXPONENTIALLY SINCE THE PORT WAS
CREATED IN 1962 FROM. I'M GOING
TO USE THE WRONG FIGURE SO I
WON'T GIVE YOU THE FIGURE. I'LL
FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. BUT THEY
BELIEVE THAT AS A LARGER PLAYER
IN THE PORT, THAT THAT THEIR
PRESENCE MAYBE REQUIRES AN
ADDITIONAL SEAT. THAT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY
, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, BUT
IT'S A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED AND IDEAS HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED. WE'RE BRINGING
FORWARD TO YOU TODAY WHAT WE
THINK AT THE MOMENT HAS RECEIVED
MORE SUPPORT, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEED TO
FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW TO. SO
WHEN I SAID ADDITIONAL
REPRESENTATION, I MEANT ACTUAL
REPRESENTATION, MAYBE NOT
ADDITIONAL FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE
IMPACTED BY WHAT HAPPENS AT THE
PORT. PORT WORKERS IN PARTICULAR
, ILWU, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
DO THE WORK ON THE TIDELANDS OR,
EXCUSE ME, ON THE MARITIME, OR
AS YOU MENTIONED, PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN THE VICINITY BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM
ANYBODY WHO LIVES NEAR THE PORT.
IN THE CASE OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO. SO ARE YOU SAYING ADDING
A SEAT FOR A WORKERS
REPRESENTATIVE? RIGHT. WELL,
THAT'S INTERESTING, WOULD THAT
BE A VOTING MEMBER SEAT? THAT IS
WHAT THE, THE INPUT SO FAR HAS
BEEN FROM THE ILWU. AND OF
COURSE, THEN YOU'D HAVE AN EIGHT
MEMBER BODY. YOU DON'T WANT TIES
. SO WHERE WOULD THE NINTH SEAT
COME FROM? SO THERE WOULD HAVE
TO BE, A NINTH SEAT. AND ALSO
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GET VERY
CLOSELY AND POSSIBLY GET SOME
LEGAL MINDS INTO THIS TOO, THAT
YOU'D BE CREATING SOMEBODY WITH
A VOTING POWER WHICH IS, HAS AN
IDENTICAL WEIGHT OF A VOTE TO AN
APPOINTED MEMBER THROUGH A CITY,
AN ELECTED CITY COUNCIL, WHO IS
ENTITLED, WITH THE POWERS THAT
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE THE
STEWARDS FOR, THAT THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY WOULD
REMAIN THE SAME. IT'D BE THE
CITY WOULD BE THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY. IN THE CASE OF SAN
DIEGO, THE CITY COUNCIL, IN CASE
IF CHULA VISTA HAD A SECOND
SEAT. BUT YOU'RE SAYING WHAT?
ALSO, YEAH, THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA WOULD BE THE APPOINTING
CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE IF YOU HAD
A WORKERS REPRESENTATIVE. RIGHT.
SO TO THE SAME APPROACH, AGAIN,
THAT YOU DESCRIBED THAT YOU HAD
INTEREST IN AND YOUR COMMENTS
NOW OF MAKING ONE OUT OF THE
THREE SAN DIEGO REPRESENTATIVES
TO BE SOMEONE WHO HAS A LIVED
EXPERIENCE IN ONE OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS NEARBY. SURE MAYBE
THE LIVED EXPERIENCE IS NOT
THAT, BUT IT'S SOMEONE WHO
ACTUALLY WORKS AT THE PORT. AND
THAT'S THE PRIORITIZATION. IF
YOU WILL. OKAY, WELL, THANK YOU
FOR THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. I
WON'T DRAG ON THIS, YOU KNOW,
VERY INVOLVED MEETING HERE TODAY
AS WELL, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE,
I'VE GOT A LOT OF INTEREST AS TO
YOU, IN THE OUTCOMES OF THIS, WE
CERTAINLY WANT YOU KNOW, THE
SUCCESS ACROSS MULTIPLE GOALS
FOR OUR SHARED PORT, I WANT TO
LISTEN TO MORE TESTIMONY FROM
FROM COLLEAGUES AS WELL. I'M NOT
SURE. LIKE, WHERE BECAUSE THERE
IS SO MUCH IN FLUX HERE RIGHT
NOW AND WHERE THIS TO GO
FORWARD. YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T
KNOW WHICH WAY IT'S GOING TO GO
AND WHAT GETS ADDED AND WHAT'S.
BUT IF IT DOES GO FORWARD, YOU
KNOW, I CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO
BE, AT THE TABLE, I GUESS, LIKE
SORT OF SEEING HOW THINGS EVOLVE
. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAMOS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND, I
JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO THE
WORKABILITY ON THIS BILL. AND
KNOWING NOW THAT THE GRAND JURY
REPORTS HAVE BEEN HAVE CAME OUT
ON THIS TOPIC, SHOWS HOW DEEP
THIS ISSUE TRULY IS AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL, BUT GETTING BACK TO THE
WORKABILITY AND LANGUAGE THAT
YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR, AND YOU
MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE
NOT RECEIVED THAT LANGUAGE FROM
OPPOSITION AND SO DOES
OPPOSITION. HAS THERE BEEN
LANGUAGE? IS THERE LANGUAGE THAT
CAN BE OFFERED TO START TO BRING
AT LEAST DISCUSSION WISE FORWARD
THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY,
JUST SPEAKING FOR THE TEAMSTERS,
WE I DON'T KNOW IF THE AUTHOR
WAS REFERRING TO US OR OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS, BUT WE'VE BEEN
MEETING WITH HIS STAFF FOR
MONTHS, AND WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO
CHANGES TO THE BILL. I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU CALL IT LANGUAGE,
IT'S REALLY DELETIONS OF TWO
PROVISIONS, WHICH IS THE TIME
LIMITS PROVISION AND THE FUNDING
PROVISION, WHICH ALSO I THINK
MIRRORS CHULA VISTA SUPPORT. IF
AMENDED, POSITION FOR US, THAT
WOULD DO THE TRICK. THANK YOU.
AND HAVE THOSE ISSUES, YEAH.
THAT WHAT WHAT WAS STATED IS
ACCURATE. ABSOLUTELY. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. THERE ACTUALLY
HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH
TEAMSTERS. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY
CLEAR ABOUT THE TIME LIMIT
SITUATION, I, I'M BEING VERY
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT. THERE ARE
OTHERS WHO FEEL VERY STRONGLY
ABOUT TIME LIMITS. THE GRAND
JURY REPORT REPORT CALLED TO
THAT. BUT CERTAINLY I THINK
WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO
ENGAGE IN THAT CONVERSATION ON
THAT FRONT. ON THE ISSUE OF THE
FUND. AND I WAS NOT REFERRING
SPECIFICALLY TO TEAMSTERS. IT'S
THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN GIVING
THEM AN ILWU HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN
GIVING, VERY CONCRETE EXAMPLES
OF WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE, ON
THE ISSUE OF THE FUND, I
RECOGNIZE IT. AND IT'S YOU HAVE
A LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUILDING
TRADES OF THE CONCERN OVER A
SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT WOULD
POTENTIALLY END THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ALSO, THAT THEY
CLAIM COULD BE JEOPARDIZED WITH
THIS FUND I HAVE THAT'S WHERE
I'VE ASKED NOT TEAMSTERS, BUT
PARTICULARLY THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, TO HELP US DRAFT THAT
LANGUAGE, TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T
JEOPARDIZE THE FINANCING OF THAT
PROJECT. THEY, DISCUSS THAT
AGAIN LAST NIGHT, AT THEIR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING. I HAVE BEEN
VERY OPEN THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE
IT, TO FIX IT, AND WE WILL DO
THAT, AND THIS BILL CANNOT MOVE
FORWARD UNLESS THAT ISSUE IS
ADDRESSED. SO THE WILLINGNESS TO
HAVE THE VOICE FORWARD AND SOME
OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, THAT
HAVE BEEN POSED, AT LEAST HERE
WITHIN THIS, DIALOG TODAY,
YOU'RE OPEN TO CONTINUING TO
WORK TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF
THOSE YES AREAS. YES AND I WOULD
ASK FOR, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC
CONCRETE, AGAIN, IDEAS, AGAIN,
I'LL JUST POINT OUT, I KEEP
SOUNDING LIKE A BROKEN RECORD.
THE ILWU PROVIDED VERY SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE AND IDEAS. THAT WAS
VERY HELPFUL TO, FOR ME TO BE
ABLE TO BRING FORWARD SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY
BEFORE YOU. WE NEED THAT KIND OF
INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS. OKAY.
APPRECIATE IT. IN
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS CHIRLA JUST A
FOLLOW UP. OH, SURE. I'M SORRY.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR,
WITH, JONATHAN CLAY, ON BEHALF
OF THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WE
HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH SOME
MEMBER VERSUS STAFF GOING
THROUGH OFFERING LANGUAGE ON
SOME OF THESE FUNDS AND
SUGGESTIONS. SO AND WE STAND
READY TO OFFER LANGUAGE IF WE'RE
GIVEN, SORT OF A SIGNAL AS
RELATES TO TRYING TO ADDRESS THE
MARITIME INVESTMENT FUND. SO BUT
THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN
ONGOING, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
BECAUSE, THE STATEMENT WAS SAID
THAT THAT YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING
FOR LANGUAGE, BUT NOW WE FIND
THAT SOME LANGUAGE HAS COME
FORWARD. SO I'M LOOKING FOR THAT
WORKABILITY. SURE, TO BE ABLE TO
FURTHER THIS BILL FOR DISCUSSION
, BUT MAKING SURE THAT THAT DOES
HAPPEN, IF IT SO REACHES THE
FLOOR. SO THE TESTIMONY IS
ACCURATE AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN
CONVERSATIONS. THERE HAS BEEN NO
LANGUAGE THAT IS IN WRITING IN
BLACK AND WHITE FROM THE PORT
THAT YOU JUST HEARD FROM. BUT
THERE IS CONVERSATIONS, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. ESPECIALLY MR.
CLAY HAS WE'VE NOW ENGAGED IN
CONVERSATIONS FOR REAL, LIKE IN
THE LAST WEEK OR SO. AND THAT'S
THE TYPE THAT'S THE FIRST, FIRST
START, A GOOD START. THE NEXT
STEP IS LET'S GET THE SPECIFICS.
AND IN WRITING SO WE KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. SO
THANK THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
SO, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
IS, TO HAVE IT REFERRED NEXT TO
JUDICIARY. THERE'S A NUMBER OF
US THAT ARE ON THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, I KNOW SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION FORMALLY CAME IN LATE
, BUT THERE'S STILL THERE'S BEEN
CONVERSATION EVEN PRIOR TO THAT.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE TIME LIMITS
IS ONE ISSUE. THIS PARTICULAR
PROJECT THAT YOU INDICATED THAT
YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF
DISRUPTING. RIGHT? I JUST
FIGURING OUT WHAT KIND OF
LANGUAGE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THAT AND OTHER ISSUES AS
YOUR NEIGHBORING COLLEAGUE,
NAMED A FEW AND I THINK HE MIGHT
HAVE SOME OTHERS. AND SO I THINK
THAT THE I THINK WHAT THE SENSE
I'M GETTING IS THAT THERE THAT,
THE DESIRE TO KIND OF TRY TO
COME TO COMPROMISE ON SOME OF
THESE ISSUES OF, OF CONFLICT OR
AT LEAST TENSION OR DISAGREEMENT
OR OR OR LACK OF CLARITY. AND SO
YOU'RE COMMITTED TO WORKING ON
THOSE ISSUES, INCLUDING WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE WHO NAMED SOME, YOU
KNOW, WHO'S A NEIGHBORING
COLLEAGUE CLEARLY HAS SOME
QUESTIONS THERE. AND THE PORT
YOU'RE WORKING WITH AND,
TEAMSTERS, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT
OF PLAYERS HERE BECAUSE IT'S A
VERY IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR
REGION. AND OBVIOUSLY I DON'T
NEED TO TELL YOU THAT OR SOME
REWARD THAT YOU LIVE THERE. YOU
ALL KNOW THAT, THE MAIN THING,
ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO BE
COMING, GOING, IF IT'S GOING TO
BE GOING FORWARD, IS THE ABILITY
TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT THERE'S
ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CONCRETE
CHANGES THAT WILL SATISFY.
AGAIN, I DON'T PRESUME THAT
EVERYONE GETS SATISFIED EVERY
TIME, BUT AT LEAST ON SOME OF
THE CORE ISSUES THAT, THERE WILL
BE SOME RESOLUTION THERE,
PROTECTING SOME OF THE
DEVELOPMENT THAT THE FINANCING
ON SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT
THAT'S PURPORTEDLY MOVING
FORWARD, SOME OF THE ISSUES
REGARDING USE OF FUNDS THAT IT'S
NOT GOING TO HAMSTRING THE PORT
NECESSARILY IN CERTAIN
DIRECTIONS. REPRESENTATION FROM
CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, TURN LIMIT
ISSUES. THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE.
ARE THOSE ALL ISSUES THAT YOU OR
NOT ARE THAT YOU'RE WILLING AND
SEE A PATH TOWARDS RESOLUTION
ON? YEAH. AND BY THE WAY,
THERE'S ALSO OTHERS THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE, AS WAS STATED,
COMMUNITY. WE HAVE NO LOBBYISTS
WORKING THIS BILL IN SUPPORT
THIS IS A COMMUNITY FOCUSED
BILL. SO WE HAVE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS.
AND SO MY JOB NOW IS TO LIKE YOU
SAID, BALANCE ALL THOSE
DIFFERENT THINGS AND TRYING TO
FIGURE IT OUT. BUT WHAT WE NEED
IS CONCRETE. AND SO WHAT I JUST
I CONTINUE TO COMMIT AND I HOPE
THAT WHOEVER ELSE MAKES COMMENTS
IS WE NEED TO HEAR THOSE
SPECIFICS BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW
THIS WORKS. IF YOU DON'T GET
THESE IN TIME, YOU CANNOT VET
THEM. AND WE ARE OPERATING UNDER
A DEADLINE. AND MAYBE IT WAS
THIS DEADLINE OF TODAY THAT GOT
FOLKS TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT AT
LEAST SOMETHING, ANOTHER
DEADLINE WILL HELP TO GET MORE
FEEDBACK THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO
ME TO TAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS IN.
YEAH, WELL, LOTS OF INPUT ON THE
RECORD TODAY. AND SO THERE'S A
LOT TO WORK ON. AND WITH YOUR
COMMITMENT TO THAT, I HOPE THERE
WILL BE RESOLUTION ON SOME OF
THESE MAJOR ISSUES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
SALIH. YES. THANK YOU. I
RECOGNIZE THIS AS A SOMETHING
THAT AFFECTS SAN DIEGO, BUT
YOU'VE COME TO THE LEGISLATURE.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY DRAMATIC
REMEDY FOR A LOCAL ISSUE. SO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE
THE FACTS. YOU'VE MADE SOME
PRETTY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING, ETHICAL VIOLATIONS.
CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT
THESE VIOLATIONS ARE, SO ARE THE
WITNESS. ARE YOU SURE? WHAT?
I'LL. WHAT? I'LL JUST SHARE IS.
AND WE CAN GET YOU THE FULL
REPORTS. BUT, THIS BILL IS BASED
ON GRAND JURY FINDINGS,
CERTAINLY ONE THAT WAS RELEASED
LAST YEAR, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS
RELEASED PREVIOUSLY. AND THIS
THE ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THIS BILL
IS BASED OFF OF THAT. OKAY. I
DON'T PUT MUCH STOCK IN A GRAND
JURY REPORT. I WAS A FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR. THAT WAS A REAL
GRAND JURY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
A CIVIL GRAND JURY, CORRECT?
CORRECT. NOT A CRIMINAL GRAND
JURY. HAS ANYONE BEEN CRIMINALLY
CHARGED WITH ANYTHING? NOT IN
THE LAST YEAR. IN MY
RECOLLECTION. YEAH. AND
PROSECUTING ON THIS. YEAH, I
UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST GRAND
JURIES YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THROW
THAT OUT THERE. IT'S JUST IT'S A
BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE FREE
TIME ON THEIR HAND AND THEY
APPLY TO BE A GRAND JUROR AND
THEY GO WRITE A REPORT. IT'S NOT
THERE'S NO THERE'S NO PROBABLE
CAUSE STANDARD. THERE'S NO FACT
FINDING. IT'S AN OPINION. SO I
DON'T PUT MUCH STOCK IN THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW, I JUST SITTING
HERE JUST GOOGLED IT AND IT
SEEMS LIKE THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
JUST KIND OF THEY'RE VERY VAGUE.
IT'S LIKE Þ UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
IT'S CENSORSHIP. IT'S SOMEONE
GOT CENSORED. THERE'S SOME
DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW,
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE LOCAL DRAMA.
BUT TO RAISE IT TO THIS LEVEL,
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A POWER GRAB.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, A CASH GRAB.
SO WHY DO YOU NEED TO INCLUDE
WHY DO YOU NEED TO TAKE 1% OF
ALL THE GROSS REVENUE AND GIVE
IT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPACT
IMPACT FUND? THAT SEEMS LIKE A
POLITICAL DEAL. WELL, THE PORT
ACTUALLY HAS A FUND THAT IS VERY
SIMILAR. IT'S CALLED SOMETHING
ELSE. IT'S THE MARINE, THANK
YOU, MARITIME IMPACT FUND, WHICH
CAME TO BE AGAIN, AS I SAID IN
MY IN MY OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT
15 YEARS AGO. AS A RESULT OF
LEGISLATION BACK THEN TRYING TO
GET THE PORT TO BE A GOOD
NEIGHBOR WITH THE CITIES THAT
ARE AROUND IT. IT WAS SORT OF
WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT WAS
CREATED. THERE WAS SOME LITTLE
BIT OF MONEY PUT INTO THAT,
THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THERE'S
BEEN SOME MONEY PUT IN, BUT IT
HASN'T BEEN, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT. OTHER PORT DISTRICTS,
PORT OF LONG BEACH, PORT OF LA,
PORT OF HUENEME, SET ASIDE, YOU
KNOW, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS AS, AS AN, AS A
MAYBE OLIVE BRANCH AS A WAY TO
DEMONSTRATE TO THE COMMUNITY
THAT WHILE THEY'RE IN THAT
COMMUNITY, CREATING IMPACTS,
THAT THEY WANT TO BE GOOD
COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND ALLIES.
AND I, I COULD ALSO ASK NATIONAL
CITY, WHO IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, IF THEY
WANT TO STATE MORE SPECIFICS
ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THEIR
COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ALVAREZ. I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THE POINT THAT HAS
BEEN MADE OF THE FIVE MEMBER
CITIES. NATIONAL CITY IS THE ONE
THAT HAS NO ACCESS TO THE WATER,
THERE ARE REASONS FOR THAT. THE
LAND THAT DOES COME UP TO THE
WATER IS ESSENTIALLY A PARKING
LOT. IT IS FOR THE TRANSFER OR
THE, COMING IN OF CARS, YOU
KNOW, NEW CARS THAT, THAT THAT
ARE IMPORTANT, RIGHT? PEOPLE
WANT CARS, BUT NATIONAL CITY HAS
SUFFERED QUITE A BIT FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS OF THE PORT.
AND NOT, NOT EVEN TO STATE THE
HEALTH IMPACTS, SUCH AS THE
LARGE CASES OF ASTHMA THAT ARE,
PREVALENT IN THE WEST SIDE OF
NATIONAL CITY. YEAH. SO THIS
SOUNDS LIKE A SOCIAL JUSTICE
WARRIOR THING. I'M NOT INTO
THAT. AND SO WITH THIS 1%
REPLACE THE FUND THAT THEY
ALREADY HAVE RIGHT NOW. CORRECT
IT WOULD CODIFY IT AND REPLACE
IT. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, I JUST I
FEEL LIKE THIS THIS PORT IS
REPRESENTED BY PEOPLE APPOINTED
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I THINK THE
LOCAL PEOPLE SHOULD HANDLE THEIR
PORT AND THAT AND I BET YOU THE
PORT GENERATES A LOT OF JOBS, A
LOT OF MONEY, A LOT OF REVENUES,
A LOT OF GOOD THAT COMES FROM
THE PORT. AND I THINK THE LOCALS
SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE
FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH IT. SO
I, YOU KNOW, I PROBABLY WON'T
SUPPORT THIS. AND I ALSO I AM
CONCERNED THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS WERE KIND OF
HAVING THESE DETAILED
CONVERSATIONS THAT I WOULD HOPE
THAT, THEY'D BE LIKE A BIGGER
CONSENSUS FROM, FROM THE REGION
IN GENERAL BEFORE YOU MAKE SUCH
BIG CHANGES TO, TO A BIG PORT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. THANKS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE COMMITTEE BEFORE WE. YES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON JUST
BRIEFLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND
SAND, THE ENGAGEMENT OF YOUR
FELLOW COLLEAGUES WHO SHARE,
EITHER RESPONSIBILITY OR. AND
THE BOARD. WHAT WAS THAT BEFORE
TODAY? SO THERE ARE TWO OF US
WHO REPRESENT, THE PORT,
THAILAND'S, MR. WARD ALSO
REPRESENTS THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO, WHICH HAS MEMBER, WHO IS
A MEMBER TO THE PORT. BUT IN
TERMS OF THE PORT ITSELF, WHICH
IS THE BAY OF SAN DIEGO, IT'S
MISS, BERNER AND MYSELF AND I
HAVE TALKED TO MISS BERNER ABOUT
THIS PREVIOUSLY, SO THERE'S TWO
THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE
PORT. AND HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE
YOU SAYING? THERE'S THREE
MEMBERS THAT HAVE, THAT THAT
RELY ON THE PORT. SO, I MEAN, IF
YOU I BELIEVE MR. FEINSTEIN
REPRESENTS A PART OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO AS WELL. AND SO CITY
OF SAN DIEGO GETS AN
APPOINTMENT. SO ON OUR IN OUR
HOUSE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IT.
SO FOUR MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT
SAN DIEGO CITY, WHO IS ONE OF
THE FIVE MEMBER CITIES OF THE
PORT, WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
APPOINT THREE COMMISSIONERS. SO,
RIGHT. SO FOR THE RECORD,
REDISTRICTING MOVED ME A MILE
AWAY, A MILE AWAY. OKAY. BUT I'M
JUST SAYING OF THE THERE'S
MULTIPLE CITIES ON THAT ARE
MEMBERS OF THE PORT. AND THEN
MOST PORTS BENEFIT A REGION KIND
OF AREA. SO OF ALL THE SO I JUST
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, THERE
ARE FOUR MEMBERS IN THE
ASSEMBLY, NOT COUNTING THE
SENATE. WE'RE ON THE GREEN
CARPET THERE. THERE ARE FOUR
GREEN CARPET MEMBERS WHO, HAVE
SOME RELIANCE UPON THE SAN DIEGO
PORT. IS THAT SAFE TO SAY? THAT
IS SAFE TO SAY SO. THE FIVE
MEMBER CITIES. JUST TO CLARIFY,
OUR CORONADO BEING REPRESENTED
BY MISS BERNER, IMPERIAL BEACH,
NATIONAL CITY, CHULA VISTA,
THEY'RE ALL WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT, AND SOME OF THE
POOREST COMMUNITIES. AND THEN,
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, WHICH
AGAIN, MR. WARD. MR. THERE'S
THREE OF US. YEAH SOUNDS GOOD.
AND THEN SO THE ONLY
INVOLVEMENT, PRIOR TO TODAY'S
CONVERSATION WITH MEMBERS WHO
HAVE SOME TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE PORT, ARE YOU AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERNER CORRECT.
AND THE CONVERSATION WE HAD, AS
WAS STATED TWO, TWO DAYS AGO
WITH MR. WARD. OKAY SO I DO
THINK IT'S, I DO THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE
DOING LEGISLATION ON AN AREA
NEAR WHERE OTHER MEMBERS ARE
NEARBY, EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE
DIRECT, SAY, OVER AN AREA,
BECAUSE WE MIGHT HAVE
JURISDICTION THÀNH, BUT IT HAS
DEFINITELY HAS AN IMPACT ON THEM
BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMUNITIES RELY
ON THAT. WE HAVE THOSE
ENGAGEMENTS, BEFORE AND ALLOW
INPUT WITH ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM
TO WEIGH IN AND GET IT INCLUDED
IN FEEDBACK. I WILL SAY, YOU
KNOW, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, I
FELT LIKE I WAS ON A FLY ON THE
WALL AND, AND A AND A
CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO MEMBERS
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THEIR
OFFICE TALKING ABOUT THE BILL
AND THOSE CHANGES ALREADY HASHED
OUT BEFORE WE GOT HERE, AND SO
THAT'S, THAT'S CONCERNING, TO ME
. AND SO, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHEN
I CAME IN HERE, IT WAS
DEFINITELY LIKE, THIS IS
DISTRICT BILL. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT MY MEMBER TO SUPPORT HIS
DISTRICT, BUT NOT REALIZING THAT
ALL THESE GREATER CONVERSATIONS
HADN'T HAPPENED AND INFLUENCED
BEFORE, TODAY, SEEING THAT BILL
INTRODUCTION DEADLINE WAS ALL
THE WAY BACK IN FEBRUARY. SO
EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE INPUT
FROM MAYBE OPPOSITION AND
THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
SOMETIMES NOT TO SAY THEY ARE,
BUT IN THIS PROCESS, SOMETIMES
THERE'S THAT GAME OF I'M ONLY
GOING TO GET IT UNTIL I
ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, AND RIGHT
BEFORE COMMITTEE AND ALL THAT
KIND OF STUFF. BUT I DO WANT BUT
I THINK THAT COMMON COURTESY
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY'RE
RELYING ON IS, IS GIVING THEM
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT,
WEIGH IN ON IT AND THEN IMPACT
CHANGE IT THROUGH AMENDMENTS
PRIOR TO IT MAKING ITS WAY HERE.
SO I JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE
THAT NOTE, NOTE, NOTE THAT THAT
THAT WAS CONCERNING. BUT,
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLYMAN WILSON. ANYBODY
ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO
COMMENT NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE.
ASSEMBLYMAN ALVAREZ, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. NO, I WOULD JUST
CLOSE BY SAYING THANK YOU. YOU
KNOW, I I'LL AGAIN STATE NOTE
THERE IS NO PAID, LOBBYIST
WORKING ON THIS BILL, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DEFINITELY
DRIVEN FROM THE LIVED EXPERIENCE
OF THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED THE
PORT, ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMENTS
BY MISS WILSON, AND I'M NOT,
PRIDEFUL ENOUGH TO NOT
ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THE WORK
THAT I NEED TO IMPROVE ON, WHICH
IS CLEARLY WITH MR. WARD,
HAVING, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IN A
PUBLIC PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT
COMMITTEES ARE ABOUT. WE TALK
ABOUT THESE THINGS. I'M NOT
CUTTING A BACKROOM DEAL WITH
ANYBODY ON THIS, SO I'M PUTTING
IT ALL OUT THERE. YOU ALL KNOW
WHAT'S HAPPENING, WHAT I'M
WILLING TO DO. AND YOU'LL KNOW
WHETHER I DO IT OR I DON'T. SO I
ASK THAT YOU GIVE US THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT WORK THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND I
APPRECIATE AGAIN THE OPPOSITION
WHO HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFIC AND
HAS GIVEN US FEEDBACK, THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE GOT AND
THAT WORK THAT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE, WHICH WE WILL DO TO BE
ABLE TO GET, MORE SUPPORT AND
FULL SUPPORT BY THE ASSEMBLY AND
HOPEFULLY THE SENATE AS WELL.
AND YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT. YES, PROVIDED. OKAY, IS
THERE A MOTION TO MOTION THERE?
A SECOND, A SECOND MOTION YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS THÀNH WE HAVE A
FIRST AND A SECOND, WANT TO
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ALVAREZ, FOR THE HARD WORK THAT
YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS, THANK
YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS THAT
YOU'VE ACCEPTED. I AM SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY BECAUSE I
BELIEVE IT TAKES REASONABLE
STEPS TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE PORT. I
ALSO APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO
SUPPORT THE COMMUNITIES MOST
AFFECTED BY THE MARITIME
ACTIVITIES, WHETHER IT BE FROM
REDUCED AIR QUALITY OR OTHER
NEGATIVE IMPACTS, PLEASE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND THE COMMITTEE AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY. THE MOTION IS
DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A
PERSON, A SECOND. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO. AYE.
WALDRON WALDRON NOT VOTING? NO.
ISELIN. NO. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
CORA PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE.
RAMOS RAMOS. AYE. WARD WARD. NOT
VOTING. WILSON. WILSON AYE. THE
BILL IS OUT FIVE ONE. THANK YOU.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ROLE.
OPEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NICE
TO MEET YOU. WE DO HAVE OTHER,
BILLS TO ADD ON IF YOU CAN STAY
A COUPLE MORE MINUTES. I AM
READY, OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK
FIRST. Ó CONSENT CALENDAR IS
FIVE ZERO. HANEY. CONSENT
CALENDAR. HANEY. AYE. CORA
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. CARRA LEFT
RAMOS ON CONSENT CALENDAR.
BROUGH SIDE. WARD ONE. WARD.
AYE. CORA AYE. 9090 CONSENT
CALENDAR. THOSE BILLS ARE OUT.
GO AHEAD AND DO. AB 1889 DO PASS
AS AMENDED, TO WATER, PARKS AND
WILDLIFE. THE VOTE IS CURRENTLY
SEVEN ONE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE THE
BILL IS DOWN EIGHT ONE. THE BILL
IS OUT EIGHT ONE. AB. 2302
ADDIS. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE FLOOR. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY FIVE ZERO. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE CORA. CORA. AYE.
RAMOS RAMOS. AYE. WARD. WARD.
AYE NINE ZERO. THE BILL IS SAU
NINE ZERO. AB 2371 CARILLO. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
FLOOR. THE VOTE IS CURRENTLY
SEVEN ZERO. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
CORA. CORA. AYE THANK YOU.
BILLY. SAU NINE ZERO. AB 2427
MCCARTY Dð PASS TO
TRANSPORTATION. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY FIVE ZERO. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE CORA. CORA. AYE. WARD
WARD. AYE. WILSON. AYE. WILSON
AYE. NINE ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT.
AB 2433 QUIRK-SILVA. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY SEVEN ZERO. HANEY
HANEY. AYE. MØT BILL SOUTH EIGHT
ZERO. AB 2553. FRIEDMAN THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY FIVE ZERO. WALDRON
GARCIA'S NØ FRIEDMAN. 2553.
THAT'S NOT. HÌNH. WALDRON. AYE
CORA. CORA. AYE. WARD TWO FIVE.
FIVE THREE. FRIEDMAN WARD. AYE.
WILSON IT'S FRIEDMAN. AYE.
WILSON. AYE THE BILL SAU. NINE
ZERO AB 2559 PETRIE-NORRIS. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO JOBS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE
ECONOMY. THE VOTE IS CURRENTLY
FIVE ZERO. HANEY AYE. HANEY.
AYE. CORA. CORA AYE. WARD. WARD.
AYE. WILSON AYE. WILSON. AYE.
BEALL. SAU NINE ZERO. AB 2684.
BRIAN THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED, AS AMENDED TO EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY FIVE ONE. HANEY HANEY.
AYE. CORA. CORA. AYE WILSON.
WILSON. AYE 8181. THE BILL IS
OUT. AB 2712. FRIEDMAN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED. THE
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY TWO FOUR, CORA. CORA.
AYE WARD. NO. WARD NO. WILSON.
NEVER MIND. YOU'VE ALREADY DONE
THAT. SO FOUR. SIX. TWO. THREE.
FOUR. FIVE. FOUR. THREE. THREE.
FIVE. THE BILL FAILED. THREE.
FIVE. MR. CHAIR, I'LL ASK FOR
RECONSIDERATION. THERE WAS A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
CORRECT. OKAY. IS THERE A DO WE
NEED A SECOND FOR
RECONSIDERATION? OKAY CALL THE
ROLL. CARILLO. NØ. CARILLO. NØ
WALDRON. HI. WALDRON. AYE. AND
SALLY. HI. AND SALLY. AYE.
HANEY. HI. HANEY. AYE. CORA
CORA. AYE. PACHECO RAMOS. RAMOS.
AYE WARD. WARD. AYE. WILSON.
WILSON AYE. 24671 FOR SEVEN. ONE
FOR RECONSIDERATION. OKAY AB
2783. ALVAREZ THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
THREE. THE VOTE IS CURRENTLY
FIVE ONE. CORA CORA. NOT VOTING.
23451. I'M SORRY. OH THANK YOU.
FIVE ONE IT REMAINS. 5151. THE
BILL'S OUT. YEAH YEAH. YES, YOU
ARE. YES OKAY. AB 2922. GARCIA,
DO PASS THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATION. THE
VOTE IS CURRENTLY SEVEN ZERO.
WALDRON. WALDRON. AYE HANEY.
HANEY. AYE THE BILL IS 790.
ADJOURN NOW. WITH THAT, WE'RE
GOING TO ADJOURN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE FOR APRIL
10TH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GO
TO THE GYM